Brickbat: Messing with Texas


Steven Cukrov /

After Waller County officials received a letter from gun rights activist Terry Holcomb telling them they were violating state law by banning firearms from the courthouse, they immediately changed their policies to comply with the law. Just kidding. They sued Holcomb for $100,000. Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis says the county doesn't really intend to collect that money if it wins. He says he just wants a court to rule on whether the county has a right to ban firearms from the courthouse.

NEXT: Is American Multiculturalism a Failure?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Morning, Yeah they can ban guns in the court house,just like you can ban them on your property. Some people go a little over board.

    1. ask me no questions, and I won’t beat your fucking brains in with a mallet…

    2. Your property belongs to you. The court house does not belong to “them”.

  2. If they can ban them in the courthouse they can ban them in the street.

    Also – you don’t really have much of a *choice* about whether you enter the courthouse or not.

    1. You know who else the govt threatened for complaining?

      1. E. Snowden?

        1. Martin Luther? (The German monk or the 20th-century preacher – works either way)

        1. iwanu ga hana Not speaking is the flower.

      2. Warty’s captives in the basement?

      3. the silent majority?

      4. Reason’s online commenters?

  3. Alexa . you think Kathleen `s posting is impossible… last wednesday I got a great volvo after having made $5563 this-last/5 weeks and-over, 10 grand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most financialy rewarding Ive ever done . I began this 7-months ago and straight away started making a nice over $70, p/h . pop over to this site

  4. I am torn on this one. The courthouse is public property and all of your other rights are intact there, are they not? Technically he is correct.

    Intuition tells me it is a bad idea to have a courtroom filled with armed people given the nature of the proceedings there. Yeah, this guy is going overboard. Guys like this aren’t doing the pro-2A stand any favors. Where is Waller Co. ?


    Ah. Cow country just west of Houston. Crime is almost non-existent there. Not much would happen if they did allow firearms into the courthouse, but then the courthouses east of them would have to do so as well. That would not be good.

    1. And you don’t have access to the court house at will. It has hours it’s open and they do control where you are allowed to go. It’s not like wanking down a public street or driving down the road.


    2. Actually a courthouse is where I typically go to see my rights formally removed…

      1. yeah, yeah, yeah…blah, blah, blah…cold dead hands…blah, blah, blah…

        1. Well I am cold-blooded…

          1. is that a bug or a feature?

  5. The county may be running afoul of state protections against frivolous lawsuits, Anderson said, explaining that rules are in place to prevent litigation that’s meant to silence or intimidate critics.

    The DA disagrees, and that’s all that matters

  6. How far the Lone Star State has fallen.

  7. Mathis acknowledges he’s brought an unconventional lawsuit but says Holcomb has filed dozens of complaints across the state and is “in the business of pushing an agenda.” What’s needed now, beyond a judge’s ruling, is action by the Texas Legislature that brings greater clarity to where guns are allowed in public places and where they’re not, he said.

    Sounds like the Texas Legislature needs to follow Mathis’ example and bring an unconventional lawsuit against Mathis for daring to challenge existing law.

    1. a mandatory open carry space?

    2. That was the money quote for me.

      If he doesn’t collect damages and all costs in his counter-suit, then their law against frivolous suits has no teeth at all and is only used to protect the powerful.

      The litigant admitted that he is only filing the suit because his target filed dozens of complaints across the state to push an agenda. This is prima-facia evidence of intent to squelch speech and prevent the exercise of the right to petition your government for redress. It should be a slam-dunk, if there is any honesty in the system.

      Unfortunately for Mathis, if the courts follow the law at all, he is very unlikely to get the ruling he seeks. His public statements about his intent to harass a citizen into silence by filing a high-dollar lawsuit that he has no intent of collecting on should mean that it gets tossed with prejudice before it ever goes to trial, with his office having to pay damages and attorney fees.

      But do any of us really expect the courts to follow the law? A bunch of former prosecutors sitting on the bench sharply smacking one of their own? Yeah, I’m not seeing that happening.

  8. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ?????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.