San Antonio open carry rifle subjs arrested

[mojo84]

I wish some top lawyers that really know this area of law would step up and challenge this issue for these guys. Even it it took setting up a legal defense fund. I am not a huge advocate of this type of demonstration but I don't know any better way to increase awareness about it without spending a huge amount in marketing and PSA's.

Plus, I think citing and arresting people on these flimsy charges should meet some rebuke as it is too easy for the cops to arrest or cite people then just say let the DA office and courts sort it out.

[clarionite]

Guess I should start calling the police every time I go to Walmart or just about any place in San Antonio. Some of the people I see freak me out without them even carrying a gun.

Maybe we all should start calling the police freaked out.

It freaks me out that McManus believes that someone being freaked out constitutes a crime, and has the power to allow an arrest because of it...

Should I report him?

[mojo84]

Guess I should start calling the police every time I go to Walmart or just about any place in San Antonio. Some of the people I see freak me out without them even carrying a gun.

Maybe we all should start calling the police freaked out.

It freaks me out that McManus believes that someone being freaked out constitutes a crime, and has the power to allow an arrest because of it...

Should I report him?

Sounds like a plan. McManus seems to be more politician than cop. Guess that happens to most once they get high enough in the ranks.

[Blindref757]

Texas isn't as "gun friendly" as some of the idiots who run things think! It is a shame that Ohio and Missouri residents have more liberty with guns than Texans.

[Z1166]

Please, PLEASE, let's track this case.

That Chief is unbelievable.

[mojo84]

Dear Chief McManus,
I just woke up with a terrible case of bed head and it freaked my wife out. If she calls 911 to report me, will I get a citation or be arrested?

Sincerely,

Mojo84
Former citizen of USA now a mere subject with papers at the ready

[Moby]

Your point makes sense. And two other comments about someone "freaking out" over a sidearm open carry, and the wording of the disorderly conduct law and "causing alarm". As long as police and DA's do not want the average citizen carrying..they'll twist what ever law they can until WE paint them in a corner with the proper legislation.

The problem is the men were were carrying AR rifles. Completely out of context for a starbucks and yes this type of behavior freaks people out.
People doing things like this thinking the local LE will allow it are hurting the open carry cause. People would be more accepting of sidearms openly carried.

The fact that it "freaks someone out" does NOT make it illegal though. The law says you CAN do it with a rifle or shotgun...period. The law says you CANNOT do it with a sidearm...period. The emotional response of people who don't know or understand the law should have no bearing on the legal response to someone engaged in a legal activity...period. I understand what you're saying, and this isn't something I would do personally, but we can't just ignore the fact that it IS legal, and if we take the attitude that we shouldn't do it just because it may upset someone who doesn't understand it, then what difference do any of the laws make. It's a dangerously slippery slope once you start that process of "well, yes it's legal, BUT .....".

[jimlongley]

Let's suppose that open carry of handguns were allowed in this state and these men were sitting outside the same Starbucks having a beverage with their handguns holstered and a citizen walks by and is "freaked out" and calls the police. Are they going to get a disorderly conduct citation for open carry? I'm going to say probably not. How is it any different?

We have seen numerous threats of that from many other states with open carry.

[The Annoyed Man]

Police eventually showed up after they received a call from a woman who claimed she was “freaked out” by the display of weapons.

Does not bode well for an open carry law in Texas - ever. If this standard remains, and I believe that there will ALWAYS be someone who is freaked out at the sight of a gun, the way that the open carry law is written is going to have to do more than just allow it.

OK and AZ have open carry and I've never seen any similar story. Is it just that the populations of those States are no freaked out as much as some people in Texas? I do understand that just because a State permits OC, doesn't mean that 100s or 1,000s are doing it daily.

Ask Joe Strauss.......

[texanjoker]

If I ever get stuck on one of these, and the alleged "victim" demands an arrest, you can be sure they will be signing a sworn statement documenting how they were in fear, alarmed, and that THEY want the person arrested. In CA we actually used a citizens arrest form that clearly stated that they had to follow through with it, that THEY were the ones making the arrest (we were the secretary) and that THEY could be sued for false arrest, ect. That way when the arrested goes to court, it is on this "victim" to make the case. When they change their story, don't show, try and drop charges, ect it helps the arrested in the civil law suit for false arrest.

[chasfm11]

If I ever get stuck on one of these, and the alleged "victim" demands an arrest, you can be sure they will be signing a sworn statement documenting how they were in fear, alarmed, and that THEY want the person arrested. In CA we actually used a citizens arrest form that clearly stated that they had to follow through with it, that THEY were the ones making the arrest (we were the secretary) and that THEY could be sued for false arrest, ect. That way when the arrested goes to court, it is on this "victim" to make the case. When they change their story, don't show, try and drop charges, ect it helps the arrested in the civil law suit for false arrest.

This forum definitely needs a "like" button.

We have an ongoing similar situation in my neighborhood. We are on large lots (2+ acres) and the kids across the street ride small motor bikes on their own property. Unfortunately, that property backs up onto land included in an HOA and the people who live there think that the HOA rules should apply to everyone. They have called the police dozens of times and the officers respond. The reporting home owners were told to stop calling, that there was nothing illegal going on and then they started going to pay phones and placing the calls anonymously. A similar approach early on in this harassment would have stopped it cold, I suspect. It amazes me how people will report how bad an action affects them until they have to stand up in public and defend what they are saying.

A Texas open carry law is going to need some sort of provision to address the "freak outs." We have plenty of time to worry about that. An OC law is not going to be a glimmer in the eye of the Texas Legislature until Strass is gone, to TAM's point.

[Jumping Frog]

Let's suppose that open carry of handguns were allowed in this state and these men were sitting outside the same Starbucks having a beverage with their handguns holstered and a citizen walks by and is "freaked out" and calls the police. Are they going to get a disorderly conduct citation for open carry? I'm going to say probably not. How is it any different?

We have seen numerous threats of that from many other states with open carry.

The open carry movement in Ohio started getting traction after concealed carry was passed in 2004.

It used to be that police would threaten disorderly conduct or inducing panic. However, even years have passed and there have been concerted efforts to educate police in Ohio. Now open carriers are far more common in an unremarkable way, and the police know that simple unlicensed open carry does not support either charge.

[OldCannon]

Looking forward to seeing SA city getting sued and losing the shirt off their collective back. That whole city is run by Mexi-Cali wannabes and the PD chief happily dances to their anti-gun puppet strings. They'd tear down the Alamo if they had their way. Sadly, most of the inhabitants agree with their "anti gun" positions.

[Keith B]

SA will not get sued on this one. They only issued citations to the individuals and didn't take them into custody. I will bet the DA drops the charges, but the officers succeeded in getting the individuals to leave, which was their goal in the first place.

[The Annoyed Man]

.....The law says you CAN do it with a rifle or shotgun...period. The law says you CANNOT do it with a sidearm...period. ....

I just want to clarify something here. Back when I first joined this forum, someone pointed out to me in no uncertain terms that a thing is always legal unless the law prohibits it....that laws always prohibit, unless they provide exceptions. Example: concealed handgun prohibited without exception of CHL. Otherwise a thing being "legal" is defined by the absence of any laws prohibiting it. In other words, if there is no law against it, it is legal. As a California transplant, it took me a while to absorb that. I came from a state where we were indoctrinated to believe that the law gives you permission for a thing, until another law forbids that thing, but that ALL things are covered by the law one way or the other.

So what I want to clarify in light of the above is this:

1. Does written Texas law specifically permit/allow the carrying of loaded/unloaded long guns, or....
2. Is the "legal" carrying of a loaded/unloaded long gun defined by the fact that there is an absence of written Texas law forbidding it?

If it is (B), then the law does not say you CAN do it with a rifle or shotgun. It simply doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. If that is the case, then that is where the disorderly conduct charge comes from, because there IS written law on the books against doing so in a manner calculated to cause alarm. The same standard would apply to the carrying of baseball bats, motorcycle chains, and pitchforks.

---------------------------------------------

The way I interpret the strictures against "a manner calculated to cause alarm" is that there IS such a thing as "inappropriate" firearms behavior. This piece of law about "causing alarm" protects you from the tree-hugger who sees you get out of your pickup truck with a long gun, preparatory to entering a hunting field, but it places you in legal liability if you carry that same long gun into the local drugstore......where the guy behind the counter might very well and understandably be alarmed that you are there to rob the joint.Solution? If you feel the personal need to carry a firearm into the local drugstore, then until OC actually passes, get your darn CHL, and carry a concealed pistol!

If the shopkeeprs are inside, tending to their business, they do not time nor should they expect to have the inclination to stop work and a long look up and down the street to observe your intentions with that long gun before you enter their shop. They hear the door open, they look up, and there's a guy with an shotgun. If he's not running a gunstore, don't you think the guy might have legitimate cause for alarm? If you don't, then you're the one being unreasonable.

So yeah, it IS alarming, and being alarmed DOESN'T always mean that the alarmed person is necessarily anti-gun. It just means they don't want to get robbed, and you've just given them reason to—at least momentarily—fear that getting robbed is about to happen. I'm not anti-gun in the least, but if you walk into my store openly armed with a long gun and I don't know you or your intentions, then YEAH...I'd be alarmed.......and I'M armed (think about those possibilities for a moment). People who do this while refusing to take into account the legitimate concerns of others are being foolish and it will undoubtedly blow up in their faces some day. Remember....as of THIS MORNING, 9/1/13, I do not have to wait to draw my gun until confronted with use of deadly force against me. I can now draw my gun when confronted with a regular use of force. If I don't know you or expect you to come in with a gun, I'm very likely at first glance to interpret that gun as an attempt to rob my store, and react accordingly.

Passing soccer moms.....phtttt! You can't do anything about idiotic people driving/walking by—except leave the gun in the car or be willing to face the consequences of the alarm of small minds passing by—but you canNOT reasonably expect business owners, who have cash in the register and a sizable investment in inventory, and employees (who are perhaps family members) to protect, to not be alarmed when you walk into their drugstore or giftshop or soda fountain or wine shop with a shotgun/AR........regardless of whether it is slung across your back or being held at port-arms. (And by the way THIS is exactly why it is a BAD idea to extend 30.06 to include OC....but that's another debate.)

The reason it is alarming to a lot of people is that it is not the societal norm. It hasn't been the societal norm for a couple of generations now. That's too bad, but that's just a fact. People who openly carry a long gun around probably represent a tiny fraction of 1/10th of 1% of the population......even including that part of the population which is very pro-gun. Most of us on this forum are very pro-gun, but I think it is a safe bet that on any given day, most of us are not walking around with an openly carried long gun, just on general principles and without some other very specific sporting/hunting/training purpose. IF the behavior were a societal norm.....as in everybody does it or at least is around people who do it, then "cause for alarm" would be vastly reduced. When I was a little boy, I walked around town with a .22 rifle. Nobody cared. We live in different times today. Failure to heed that fact will lead to your own legal demise. It's called "reality." Yes, that reality can be changed, but it won't be effectively changed by scaring people who don't need to be scared. After all, their opinion about the expression of your right is protected by the 1st Amendment. Shall we limit the 1st so that you can express the 2nd?

Balance, gentlemen. Being "in your face" is not a balanced approach to promoting the right to openly carry......any kind of gun. When OC advocates in California did some unloaded OC demonstrations, they got OC almost completely illegalized, at a time when the law basically ignored it as long as you weren't being too "in your face" about it. You might say, "Well that's California, and this is Texas, and it can't happen here." If you think that, I have two questions for you:

1. Why does Joe Strauss keep getting reelected as Speaker?
2. What do you think is the political persuasion of at least 50% of the Texas transplants from California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, who have moved here following their jobs.....and what effect will that have on the state's population centers, when only 17% of the population is rural and less likely to be alarmed by an openly carried long gun? (SOURCE)

People who think that "in your face" is going to work in a state with that kind of changing demographic are either willfully ignoring political trends, or they are not fully in contact with reality. You might get away with it in Budda, but the voters of Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Austin vastly outnumber you.......and THEY vote democrat. According to the above link which is based I think on 2005 stats (it has even gotten worse since then), the rural/urban population ratio is 3,647,539 to 17,204,281. Urban population represented at that time just 17.5% of the then 20,851,820 total. As of 2012, the state's population has grown to 26.06 million, and there is no reason to believe that the ratio of urban to rural has changed. And not only are the cities getting bigger from transplanted influx, but the rural populations are shrinking in actual numbers, not just percentages. This stuff is IMPORTANT, and it is NOT without impact when considering open-carry demonstrations of any kind of firearms. Most people aren't moving here for increased gun rights. If they were, they'd move to Arizona or Vermont. No. They are following their jobs. We are FOOLS if we don't take that into account in our political activities.

We have ONE way, and ONE way ONLY to change their minds: education in a non-threatening environment. Invite them to try out shooting. Invite them on a hunt. Have calm (disarmed, or at least concealed) conversations with them about why you believe the things you believe. Keep coming back to how much better off they are with an expansion of rights, rather than a limiting of rights. But showing up with an AR15 strapped to your back in front of some soccer mom who transplanted here from New Jersey and just saying "deal with it," is not going to win you any points, and it may result in taking a ride. If it does, deal with it.

Here's another reason to worry about the changing demographics: Preemption. Right now, the state constitution provides for state preemption. We have a republican majority in the legislature and voted republican in the last 9 presidential elections, NOT because the cities are safely republican....they're not....but because between that 17% rural population and somewhere around 35-45% of urban populations are republican to arrive at the 57% statewide republican vote in the last presidential election. How long before the urban populations get big enough and liberal enough to get "home rule" included in the state constitution? After all, we are considering something so mundane as highway funding getting included in the constitution. When those cities grow to the point were their democrat voters consist of greater than 50% of all voters, CHL will eventually be banned in Dallas, Houston, SA, etc., etc.

This is nothing to trifle with, and OC of firearms, ANY firearms, absent legislation which either removes the laws against it, OR provides a law permitting it, is simply asking to wreck the whole thing for everybody. There is A) what ought to be, and there is B) what is. I'm never in favor of acting as if A=B when it manifestly does not. MLK fully expected to be arrested for his activities, and he wasn't surprised when he actually got arrested......as his famous letter from the Birmingham jail indicates. Why should any of us expect any different until A DOES = B?