TexasCHLforum.com

According to the common sense approach used in the cited examples of case law - CONTEXT of conduct matters - as well as the language used in the text of statutes.

If not presented in a threatening manner , and not functional/loaded - the PURPOSE for possession of these NON - firearms would appear to any reasonable person to be merely DEMONSTRATIVE......which was precisely the purpose for this lawful public demonstration - as well as the original intent of the legislature in providing the exception.

Takes us right back to my original point - that the initial order issued by law enforcement to leave constituted an act of suppression applied against the 1st Amendment rights of these Texans. They were then arrested for nonviolent disobedience of that order intended to suppress their civil rights.

Technically this arrest had nothing to do with firearms - even though in reality - it was ALL ABOUT "firearms".

In the process of intending to act to suppress the 2nd Amendment right - law enforcement officials actually suppressed 1st Amendment rights of these citizens.

Unfortunately the language used in the text of the laws actually DOES means things, and if it ain't "grass or weeds" it cannot be a code violation when it ain't cut.

The necessary threshold for a Section 42.01 (a)(8) Disorderly Conduct offense would be the use of threatening language directed towards another person in conjunction with THE DISPLAY of a deadly weapon in public IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO CAUSE ALARM.

Holstered NON "firearms" = "NON "handguns" , and the absence of any verbally abusive, or threatening language = NO offense.

I repeat.......NO CRIME......BUT ......."somebody" did not like the message being delivered.

WHAT was the message?

That a pre-1899 ( or replica) BLACK POWDER revolver is NOT covered by Section 46.02(a). Therefore ( high powers of the State liking it or not) it ain't ILLEGAL.

Actually the Supreme Court has not held license/permit issuance requirements imposed on activities involving the exercise of civil rights to constitute a violation of the Constitution. The SCOTUS considered licensing programs designed to maintain peace and order -such as the Texas CHL law- to fall under the compelling public safety interests of the state.

The Supreme Court held that licensing requirements that do not function to suppress the exercise of a civil right, and apply license fees collected ONLY to the administration of the licensing program do not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Texas CHL program meets this test. Therefore the issuance of CHL's does not violate the 2nd Amendment because the purpose of the CHL law is to ensure that persons carrying concealed handguns do not pose a public safety risk.

The demonstration, exhibition last Saturday at the Capitol had nothing to do with the CHL. It had nothing to do with open carry, but it had everything to do with respect for TEXAS LAW - which they were NOT violating.

If I may illustrate the logical efficacy of permitting ( or NOT permitting ) the free exercise of a RIGHT for a moment............

Would anyone think for a second that if there was a militiaman serving under Gen. Washington at Valley Forge who was night after night getting into life threatening altercations with other militiamen.....that the good General would not have ordered this person to be relieved of his arms...at least temporarily ? He had a right to keep & bear arms......but he abused that right.

I am not pressing for "open carry" in Texas. I'm quite comfortable with my manner of carry when in Texas. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Charles Cotton ( SB299) . Thank you Charles.

Actually....my manner of carry in Colorado- where I 'm a resident - is pretty much the same as it is when I'm in Texas.

The issue we are addressing in this thread - is WHY people who are NOT violating any Texas law are essentially ordered to cease their LAWFUL CONDUCT and leave a public area in which they have every right to be.

Will this demonstration/ exhibition achieve anything for the advancement of the open carry effort in Texas ?

I have no idea. Only time will tell.

The 1st Amendment appears to be the paramount issue presented by the arrest of these citizens.

...... " I just wish those rabble rousing troublemakers wouldn't do that..... They keep this sort of thing up......next thing you know ...we won't even be allowed into Woolworth's or on them buses at all......."

I'm going to agree to disagree. Carry on..................

Reality check. Those folks at the Capitol were engaged in a peaceful, and lawful assembly, and were violating NO TEXAS LAW.

The Travis County D.A.'s office did not like the message they were communicating plain & simple.

These people that were arrested Sunday were defending YOUR Texas Constitution.

1845 Texas Constitutional convention delegate one Mr. Oglethree offered the proposition that.............."No person in a civilized democratic society should need to go armed against his fellow citizens." So true. Only one little caveat......."civilized"... yeah ...right.......

Ain't there yet are we....?

Perhaps what can be easily overlooked amid this grass-roots activism availing itself of THE LAW regarding pre-1899 BP revolvers and long guns is that this is not happening within a vacuum.

Texas law 46.02(a) classifying ANY manner of handgun carry as a criminal offense , subject only to statutory specified exceptions, is on an inevitable collision course with Heller/McDonald.

Again - I'm going to stress - this isn't about THE LAW. These activists are not violating Texas law.

They are ANNOYING State officials - by using Texas law to get a message out. THAT is the rub.

Either THE LAW means something - or it doesn't ( if "somebody" doesn't like the law).

The "open carry" of replica & pre 1899 cap & ball revolvers IS NOT ILLEGAL IN TEXAS... but......apparently..

...... in Travis County the RIGHT to peacefully assemble in a public place ( the Texas Capitol ), and exercise the RIGHT of lawful and peaceful expression of THAT MESSAGE .....is not "LIKED" ..by the Travis County DA's office.

Whether we're protagonists or antagonists of "open carry".......everyone here should be pro CARRY, and pro 1st Amendment.

The charges under 30.05 for criminal trespass were predicated upon the issuance of orders in support of the suppression of lawful expression of a message that "somebody" didn't want Texans to hear. This constitutes clear violation of civil rights.

We keep hearing this sky is falling cry when actually the sky has been grinding the right to carry of Texans into the dirt since 1871. Finally some every citizens are fed up, and are doing something about it.

Pathetic .....when the best we can come up with is criticisms of some strong language used in response to unlawful actions by the LE authorities. Seriously ...?