The Times printed an Associated Press article the other day about a Texas county that is suing an individual citizen for complaining about one of their policies.
The citizen has complained to Waller county (near Houston) that they have no right to ban firearms in the entire Waller county courthouse.
Texas law evidently prohibits guns from being carried by citizens into courtrooms and related offices, but not the remainder of the building. The Texas attorney general agrees that guns cannot be prohibited from an entire courthouse.
That is evidently not the answer that the Waller county district attorney wants. He has sued the citizen individually. According to the article he said “he’s simply seeking a ruling by a state judge that the county has the legal right to ban guns from the entire courthouse building”.
The suit seeks $100,000 in damages but the district attorney “promised that the county would not pursue any monetary damages”.
The district attorney evidently said that the monetary claim was included as boilerplate language. If they don’t want the money why did they ask for it? Could it be another way to try to intimidate the citizen?
A law is passed by the legislature. The state attorney general was asked to give his opinion about the limits of the law. He did. The county did not like the ruling. A citizen complained.
Now the citizen has been sued by the county for complaining that the county was following neither the state law nor respecting the attorney general’s interpretation of it.
The citizen now has to spend money to defend himself against these thugs.
This distict attorney needs to be corrected.
We deserve better