TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

There are a lot of unjust infringements by government. If you're wondering why OCT didn't decide to protest this specific law, then I'd guess it has something to do with the fact that OCT is focused on gun rights, and specifically the right to open carry guns. I wouldn't expect PETA to get up in arms about voting rights issues for the same reason.

The ordinance in this thread is probably more in the wheelhouse of a group like the ACLU, at least in theory.

Abraham wrote:Would this ordinance (not if it's legal or illegal) be an attempt to keep teens from doing their 'flash mob' violence in areas it's found to be quite common or ...?

mayor wrote:

mojo84 wrote:My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

Stupid trick question...

Premises means a tract of land and the buildings thereon.

twomillenium wrote:If it a public building not private, then I as a taxpaying owner gave myself permission. In a building that has been locked is already burglary, if it is open you do not need a reason if it is open to the public no matter the time of day. A vague law like this makes it tough on LEOs (not all) that are seemingly have problems understanding the laws in black and white.

Jusme wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Sec. 24-211. - Being in or about a public or private building in the nighttime.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to be in or about public or private building or premises in the nighttime without permission and without being able to give a satisfactory reason for his presence.
(Code 1985, § 27.200)

Sounds like a law written to allow police to stop anyone between sunset, and sunrise, without probable cause. The ambiguity, regarding either, public, or private, buildings, and just being in or "about" a building, without providing a distance, could mean someone walking down the street, within 500' of a building, would have to provide a "satisfactory" reason for being there.
So to answer the OP question, yes, I do have a problem with this ordinance.
Now, the issue, in my opinion, is, just because,this poorly written, ordinance is on the books, doesn't mean, it is being enforced, or that there is a legitimate charge, that could be filed on someone, who is determined to be in violation.
I know that several city and county ordinances, are still, in effect, that sound rediculous today, that are no longer enforced, but have not been challenged, to force their repeal.
In Cleburne, for example, if you plan to enter the city, in an automobile, you must telegraph, or telephone ahead, so that the horses can be secured, to prevent them from spooking, and running off. I don't think it has been enforced lately.

Colonel Angus wrote:Aren't they trespassing if they don't have effective consent to be inside the building, no matter what time of day?

Sec. 24-211. - Being in or about a public or private building in the nighttime.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to be in or about public or private building or premises in the nighttime without permission and without being able to give a satisfactory reason for his presence.
(Code 1985, § 27.200)