LOL...I'm an original Austinite ... I should be exempted on the grounds of not being from some communist shithole.
Preemption would have taken care of most of this but they fucked up and put "adopt" where they should have put "enforce".
LOL...I'm an original Austinite ... I should be exempted on the grounds of not being from some communist shithole.
LOL...
Preemption would have taken care of most of this but they fucked up and put "adopt" where they should have put "enforce".
I really thought we had preemption too. This sucks.
Maybe it is retroactive?
The provision, now in Local Government Code section 215.001, that a "municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the . . . ownership [or] keeping . . . of firearms," was first adopted in 1985. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 838, section 1, at 2904. It must be presumed that in enacting the provisions of section 215.001 the legislature was aware of the scope state court and attorney general opinions had theretofore given to the term "municipality" -- specifically that the term included a municipal housing authority, the latter being a "division" of a municipality. We find no state statute, in chapter 392 or elsewhere, evidencing a legislative intent that municipal housing authorities not be subject to the prohibition in section 215.001. (footnote 5)
Last time I looked the CHL is a defense to prosecution not an exception. But people get arrested for COV all the time.You would not be arrested under 30.05 for carrying a handgun into the Austin City building mentioned in the OP. 30.05 now specifically excludes applicability to CHL holders.
Not nearly good enough. There should be zero chance any citizen can be harassed or arrested for violating an ordinance which is itself in violation of State law.On the issue of city ordinances; If a town has a law that is in conflict with the preemption law of Texas, then any arrest or citation could be fought at the local level on the basis of that preemption law. Even if you were convicted, it is a "fine only" offense, and you could then appeal to the county court level and receive a new trial where it should be easy to defeat.
So, basically, it's not whats enforceable that is the issue...It's the fact that the tards enforcing the unenforceable that you have to deal with, and then prove that what they are enforcing is unenforceable....Right?
That is correct, it is a defense. One could be arrested, but it is unlikely. Probably if LE told you to leave with the handgun and you refused.Last time I looked the CHL is a defense to prosecution not an exception. But people get arrested for COV all the time.
I agree 100% There should be a process where the state (or even a citizen) can sue the towns to have the ordinances removed. Perhaps there is, but if so, I am not aware of it.Not nearly good enough. There should be zero chance any citizen can be harassed or arrested for violating an ordinance which is itself in violation of State law.
Or, one could be arrested for the COV.That is correct, it is a defense. One could be arrested, but it is unlikely. Probably if LE told you to leave with the handgun and you refused.
I agree 100% There should be a process where the state (or even a citizen) can sue the towns to have the ordinances removed. Perhaps there is, but if so, I am not aware of it.
I missed it; In Austin, what COV violation are you referring?Or, one could be arrested for the COV.
Yep. My question is could the city be sued BEFORE an arrest?Me neither. Might be a standing issue. If I were ever arrested for an unenforceable COV I would certainly sue the city.
I missed it; In Austin, what COV violation are you referring?
Yep. My question is could the city be sued BEFORE an arrest?
Interesting. Ordinances already on the books before preemption, are still enforceable? That would be a horrible mistake of wording the preemption legislation.
I missed it; In Austin, what COV violation are you referring?
Yep. My question is could the city be sued BEFORE an arrest?