School zone arrest

[jmra]

Back to school: MRS. TommyG left me in a hotel while she went to a work meeting in Houston. She took the car
I wanted some lunch , I walked out of the hotel carrying. Unknown to me the hotel was next to an elementary school.

I knew I was covered by my CHL This just shows how easy it is to stray into a GUN Free Zone without knowing it.

Would you put it past Obama to ruthlessly enforce the Gun Free School law

No. He is an ends justifies the means no matter the costs type individual. I put nothing past him.

[chasfm11]

there are states that viciously target law abiding gun owners, like New York and New Jersey and Texas isn't one of them. I believe law for law, common sense is more likely to be applied in a State like Texas than one like New Jersey.

I know of some awful charges in NJ, but those charges stemmed from aggressive gun laws enacted by a liberal state. The laws didn't make a lot of sense (to me) - but I recognize them as law. The cases that I know about the gun owners didn't follow the laws of that state. Do you mean that liberal states tend towards more firearms restrictions? That I can get behind.

I'm not sure that I believe that liberal governments choose to go after law-abiding citizens more than conservative ones. IE - I'm much more wary of a trip through Williamson county than I am in Travis county. It's pretty well documented that the hammer of "justice" is much more costly in Williamson county. My blood pressure is much higher if I'm stopped up there than it is in Travis county.

I made trips through "restrictive" states this year: Illinois, I disassembled firearms, separated them from ammunition, locked them in cases, and put them in storage where I couldn't get to them from the vehicle. New Jersey - I didn't risk it at all, no firearms period...

I'm sure that you are right about that. But in the grander scheme of things, the fact that the gun laws are very unequally enforced is of greater concern to me. NJ is very bad about vigorously enforcing their repressive gun laws against otherwise law abiding citizens and totally ignoring enforcement in cases where it would make society safer. Camden, Newark, even Trenton have huge crime problems. Those problems are used as the reason for the gun laws But the enforcement of those laws is all but abandoned in the very places that need them This viral video is from a Newark resident
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRTSrun6htA While it has a political slant, the problem that she points up has been going on since I lived near Newark over a decade ago and before Booker was mayor. Camden is many times worse. Go look at the crime blotter for either city and examine how many gun crime violations are prosecuted.

I see the situation as very much of a parallel to our traffic laws. The laws are woefully complex and any of us could be stopped and cited multiple times in a short trip for failing to follow the letter of them. I agree with giving the LEOs a pass on not knowing every law but holding individual citizens to an absolute knowledge of them is ludicrous.

In NJ, yours is the only solution - have no firearms at all. So they have accomplished their purpose - a de facto repeal of the 2nd Amendment. And the supposedly Conservative Christie is as bad as any of them on gun laws.

All it takes to make Texas look like NJ is to start a vigorous enforcement of existing laws. Any Liberal leaning local government can make it start to happen tomorrow. The point about Williamson county is well taken. Law abiding citizens should not have to feel like that.

[E.Marquez]

Since we got off on the issue of long gums if you carry a long gun and the police
charge you with disturbing the peace then you get your CHL Revoked if convicted.
This makes open carry a long gun a crime

It seems only those trying to get arrested for disorderly conduct while open carrying a rifle have been recently reported.
Do you know of a case where a Hunter, or someone going to the range, gun store, selling a rifle in a public place, ect was cited?
If you do, please post the link..

More so, while there have been a few case of activists being cited.. for violation of 42.01.. has there been any convection's? If so, please cite the case for my edification..

Thanks

[cb1000rider]

Do you know of a case where a Hunter, or someone going to the range, gun store, selling a rifle in a public place, ect was cited?
If you do, please post the link..
More so, while there have been a few case of activists being cited.. for violation of 42.01.. has there been any convection's? If so, please cite the case for my edification..

I can't cite any. I can site youtube videos where people called local municipal PDs to indicate that they were going to peacefully carry a long gun, and LEOs indicated that if they got a call they would arrest for disturbing the peace. For me, that's enough.

The problem with the arrest, to me, isn't loss of the CHL. It's that even the charge is massively punitive by nature - it's very likely to impact my employ-ability for a very long time, even assuming the charge gets tossed.

[VMI77]

there are states that viciously target law abiding gun owners, like New York and New Jersey and Texas isn't one of them. I believe law for law, common sense is more likely to be applied in a State like Texas than one like New Jersey.

I know of some awful charges in NJ, but those charges stemmed from aggressive gun laws enacted by a liberal state. The laws didn't make a lot of sense (to me) - but I recognize them as law. The cases that I know about the gun owners didn't follow the laws of that state. Do you mean that liberal states tend towards more firearms restrictions? That I can get behind.

I'm not sure that I believe that liberal governments choose to go after law-abiding citizens more than conservative ones. IE - I'm much more wary of a trip through Williamson county than I am in Travis county. It's pretty well documented that the hammer of "justice" is much more costly in Williamson county. My blood pressure is much higher if I'm stopped up there than it is in Travis county.

I made trips through "restrictive" states this year: Illinois, I disassembled firearms, separated them from ammunition, locked them in cases, and put them in storage where I couldn't get to them from the vehicle. New Jersey - I didn't risk it at all, no firearms period...

Chasfm11 pretty much said what I was getting at. I don't know about liberal governments going after law-abiding citizens, but liberal prosecutors and judges are more likely to go after law-abiding gun owners. The guy I referred to in New Jersey got seven years. He had called the State Police to ask how he needed to transport his guns when he moved from Colorado. He had them locked up and unloaded. I don't remember the particular technicality used against him, but the judge rode the trial to the point of telling the jury they had to convict when it became clear they thought the law too Draconian and wanted to let him off.

As Chasfm11 said, the issue is in enforcement. They don't prosecute gang-bangers under these laws, just some guy with a clean record who clearly tried to obey the law. Seven years in prison on a technicality while the openly criminal element gets a pass ---that's not an accident. In fact, it is the law-abiding the stupid laws like the 7 round mag limit are deliberately targeting.

[E.Marquez]

Do you know of a case where a Hunter, or someone going to the range, gun store, selling a rifle in a public place, ect was cited?
If you do, please post the link..
More so, while there have been a few case of activists being cited.. for violation of 42.01.. has there been any convection's? If so, please cite the case for my edification..

I can't cite any. I can site youtube videos where people called local municipal PDs to indicate that they were going to peacefully carry a long gun, and LEOs indicated that if they got a call they would arrest for disturbing the peace. For me, that's enough.

The problem with the arrest, to me, isn't loss of the CHL. It's that even the charge is massively punitive by nature - it's very likely to impact my employ-ability for a very long time, even assuming the charge gets tossed.

And the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech as a right,, yet you will be charged with DC if you scream "Fire " or "GUN " in a dark movie theater.

Your pont of being able to carry a long gun Everywhere.. anywhere because of what is in the 2nd amendment does not prove to be true or realistic, in the reality we live in. I'm guessing since the days or Kennedy, or maybe Lincoln.. you have not been able to "bear arms" near the president... even though the 2nd amendment says what it does.
There are many more places you may not "bare arms" these days for sure.. and I don't like it much myself But my not likening it does not change the reality of it.

[cb1000rider]

Your pont of being able to carry a long gun Everywhere.. anywhere because of what is in the 2nd amendment does not prove to be true or realistic, in the reality we live in. I'm guessing since the days or Kennedy, or maybe Lincoln.. you have not been able to "bear arms" near the president... even though the 2nd amendment says what it does.
There are many more places you may not "bare arms" these days for sure.. and I don't like it much myself But my not likening it does not change the reality of it.

I agree with you mostly... I wouldn't compare it to yelling "fire" in a 1st amendment context, as we've pretty much ruled that out as protected speech.

And to be reasonable, I don't expect the 2nd amendment to apply "everywhere" - I'm not that much of a constitutional nut. I wouldn't expect it to apply to many places - maybe the same list that CHL does not apply to.
However, I do expect that it should apply to my ability to walk down the street (on the way to my neighbors house for a good cleaning). And I do expect it to apply to my ability to carry it from a public parking area to a vehicle that is waiting for me. Instead, I choose to hide it in a case... And think long and hard about calling ahead even if it's in that case to indicate that I'm not a threat because I'm worried about that LEO encounter.

[VMI77]

Your pont of being able to carry a long gun Everywhere.. anywhere because of what is in the 2nd amendment does not prove to be true or realistic, in the reality we live in. I'm guessing since the days or Kennedy, or maybe Lincoln.. you have not been able to "bear arms" near the president... even though the 2nd amendment says what it does.
There are many more places you may not "bare arms" these days for sure.. and I don't like it much myself But my not likening it does not change the reality of it.

I agree with you mostly... I wouldn't compare it to yelling "fire" in a 1st amendment context, as we've pretty much ruled that out as protected speech.

And to be reasonable, I don't expect the 2nd amendment to apply "everywhere" - I'm not that much of a constitutional nut. I wouldn't expect it to apply to many places - maybe the same list that CHL does not apply to.
However, I do expect that it should apply to my ability to walk down the street (on the way to my neighbors house for a good cleaning). And I do expect it to apply to my ability to carry it from a public parking area to a vehicle that is waiting for me. Instead, I choose to hide it in a case... And think long and hard about calling ahead even if it's in that case to indicate that I'm not a threat because I'm worried about that LEO encounter.

But you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or anyplace else for that matter, if there is a fire.

[cb1000rider]

VM, yet another post that you and I agree with... How it applies, I don't have a clue...