TexasCHLforum.com

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...

mojo84 wrote:Here you go. It is an Olmos Park, TX ordinance.

http://library.municode.com/tx/olmos_pa ... ABPUPRBUNI

Here are the questions. Should this ordinance get similar attention from self proclaimed protectors of our rights and Constitution? Is it just not sensational enough to draw the attention of the attention seekers?

For those of you that are zeroing in on the private property portion, take a moment to consider it includes "in or about" public buildings.

All of the following is IMHO about Sec. 24-211 (and we all know about opinions):
The ordinance was written in 1985. I'm sure the current council members are more intelligent and thoughtful than those in 1985 and much more capable of writing concise and specific ordinances that leave little room for abuse. 1985 was a different reality when police officers didn't roust the unwashed so ordinances like this one were far less apt to be abused. I think a polite request for the council to revisit and reword this particular section is in order. I'd put a request like that on the agenda, but I'm in a tiny speck of a city so life might be different here. We don't have a police patrol. Any response has to come from the county which takes about a half hour.

I believe that Sec. 24-210 regurgitates the Texas penal code for criminal trespass and is moot. Oh, yeah, the usual disclaimer: IANAL

As mayor, no way I'd have let the council pass this. Or i wouldn't have signed it if they did. I'd have suggested they send it to the city attorney for assistance. There are no definitions.

actually, there may have been. We don't see the entire ordinance. I could be wrong.

KLB wrote:The ordinance is obviously intended to be enforced only against the "wrong sort." As such, it's highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. But I'm not volunteering to put myself and my pocketbook in jeopardy to test the ordinance, and I advise caution before anyone else does.

If it's in Texas, according to this document, this is a list of municipal jurisdiction: https://www.municode.com/webcontent/sta ... ets/tx.pdf - may not be comprehensive. IANAL...

even if you're in "violation" of the (poorly written) ordinance, the punishment is a "move along" or a ticket. There's no ride.

Stupid laws are stupid.