TexasCHLforum.com

rbwhatever1 wrote:Interesting view on firearms in general. Are all firearms "Deadly Weapons"? I have a large amount of firearms and not one of them has been "deadly" unless you're a deer, squirrel, rabbit, pheasant, grouse, duck, goose, quail, skunk, possum, coyote, wildcat, or some other tasteful or predatory creature I neglected to mention.

Maybe that's the problem. People have been "indoctrinated" to see and classify firearms as "deadly weapons" and not the tools they are.

Lizzie Borden's axe was a deadly weapon. My axe is just an axe.
Gasoline and a lighter is a deadly weapon if you pour it on a person and light them. My gas and lighters are not.
A butcher knife is a deadly weapon. Mine have cut only me.
A car driven by a drunk driver is a deadly weapon. My truck is not deadly at all unless you're one of the three bucks that slammed into me in the past 5 years.
The list is endless on the tools criminals use to commit "deadly acts"....

just sayin

Anything CAN be classified as a deadly weapon if used properly. LE is not going to treat someone with a cap and ball revolver any differently than someone with a Glock if they are part of a problem. A problem can be anything from a rowdy crowd that could turn into a near riot to an idiot looking to have a confrontation with LE over their weapon.

In one of the videos as an officer approaches the camera operator asks one of the arestee's if they are going to remain peacefull today the reply to which was "I don't place bets, I'm not a gambling man." The arestee smiles attempts to walk away from the officer who attempts to make contact, it's almost childish in the way they act. If you are truly attempting to invoke your fifth amendment right you do not act like that. The best manner is to listen what the officer says and then when they ask if you understand what they have told you just say that you are invoking your fifth amendment right to remain silent. But that video shows that the crowd was primed for a hostile encounter. So you have a crowd that is primed for a fight, members of that crowd are armed, officers attempt to prevent crowd from becoming a serious problem by asking armed members to leave which results in a few arrests and a near riot. The arrests were for trespass with a deadly weapon, nothing would have changed if the arestees were armed with any other weapon.

One additional point that everyone should be aware of is that anything can be classified as a weapon when used properly. The simple fact that something may or may not be classified as a firearm for legal purposes does not mean it is or is not classified as a weapon. If you have been asked to leave a location because you are threatening to run people over while in your car and then continue to sit in your car you will be charged just as the defendant in this case was. The courts will not find you have a first amendment right to threaten people to be run over with a car and they will not find you have a right to be there in order to cause a disturbance. Transposing that to a firearm, you have a crowd that is obviously getting a little rowdy, officers ask them to go put their weapons away, they refuse and things go down hill from there. Will the criminal trespass charge stick? I would bet on it, especially after the videos are shown supporting the officers who will claim the crowd could easily get out of control.

linuss wrote:

philip964 wrote: I am unfamiliar with the law regarding open carrying black powder pistols made before 1900.

Or for that matter for failing to identify yourself when asked by LEO.

Laws are actually quite simple: In the state of Texas, any black powder weapon made before 1899, or any replica of such made before 1899, is not considered a firearm in the eyes of the law. If it's not considered a firearm, you aren't openly carrying a firearm. I

As for identifying yourself, you're only required to identify yourself if you're doing something that requires you to, ie driving, or carrying a CHL. If I'm walking down the street and an officer stops and asks for my name, I can choose to give it or not. SCOTUS has ruled that the simple act of stating your name fulfills the "Stop and identify" laws in the US, and you cannot be forced to do more unless the task you're doing requires something more (such as a DL for driving, and it's a traffic stop).

Right2Carry wrote: unless they are carrying documented proof that their black powder firearms were made before 1899 then I don't see how they are in the right. The officers can't be expected to make a determination on whether the firearms are genuine or fakes. The offenders will get their day in court to plead their case.

The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken and not for the citizens to prove a law wasn't. Your idea that an officer should be able to arrest anyone for anything because they can't be assed to actually know the law and let the courts sort it out is scary.

The kicker is that an officer can demand ID if he has reason to believe that a crime is, or was, being committed. The law does not exempt all black powder firearms, a modern black powder design (even with a retro look) is not a replica of a pre-1899 firearm and is not exempt. Open carry of a modern firearm is illegal and an officer can not be certain that a replica is a replica without investigating, therefor he has grounds to believe a crime is being committed.

Blindref757 wrote:FWIW...OCT Just posted this on their FB account. Maybe some people should cut them some slack because it appears that the leaders of this group are sincere and want things done with dignity.
_________________________________________________
Quick message to all OCT members.

During events such as the arrest at the capital grounds, we ask all members to remain civil and decent within confines of normal society. Obscenities and personal insults from bystanders (OCT or not) only distances the gap between citizen and LEO. Once the handcuffs are out we must look towards the courts to provide justice. First step in that process is providing good video evidence of the illegal arrest being made. Screaming and crowding diminish the ability of us to provide that.

We know these are difficult moments where emotions run high. This is a learning process for everyone and we must grow together.

Thank you for your ongoing support,

Robert Sneed, Public Affairs

Yet I think it was CJ Grisham (The president of OCT if I am not mistaken) who was sitting in the road trying to prevent the transportation of the two who were arrested. If his ankle was injured as he claimed in the video when asked/told to move he would have requested assistance in doing so from the crowd or even the officers. On top of that you never see anyone with OCT trying to reign in the crowd, which if you have any experience putting on a demonstration you know that you have to control your own people before they have the chance to get out of hand.

I found a youtube video of the arrests, sadly I can't post it due to the language in it. I will say that while the cops may have been in the wrong a few times, the crowd was pretty much in the wrong the entire time the video was going. When each arrest happened the crowd almost started a riot each time. The name throwing and all just made it worse. These are the people (and type of people) that have kept the OC effort from really making progress.

Essentially a pre 1899 handgun, or a replica of one, is not considered a firearm by state law. With that said, I feel that the OC movement is taking the same "IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!" tactics that caused California to loose it's useless form of unloaded OC. If they are not carefull they can set things back a ways while supposedly working to move things forward. In the next session look for a bill to strike the exemption as firearms for pre-1899 and replicas, I can almost guarantee that we will see one, if they make too much of a fuss with the Long Gun OC you can also expect to see a bill (maybe the same one) to regulate OC or even just all carry) of long guns as well. These guys see themselves as Modern Day Rosa Parks and have these events looking for something like this arrest to happen. To them it is a painful, but required, step in the process of getting a court decision to educate police across the state as to what the law is.

Unfortunately many bad precidents have been set by those operating under the mentality of "It's my right, read the law because it says ..." The problem is that bad rulings happen all the time, and appeals cost money. So if you get a bad ruling in criminal court and appeal resulting in another a bad ruling, then can't afford an attorney so you rep yourself at the state supreme court level and get a bad ruling there due to the fool attorney/client you have caused more harm than good.