TexasCHLforum.com

What is really sad is these replica black powder handguns are sold out everywhere and on back order. Seems all the OC groups have bought them up like hotcakes. I see more trolling videos in the future at the capitol and all across Texas.

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.

SherwoodForest wrote: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.

I don't believe we know what the actual charges ended up being. Until then, I would hold off on that until we know for sure.

http://crosstalk.kinja.com/two-pistoler ... hellephant



Some more media coverage of this "event"

Keith B wrote:

SherwoodForest wrote: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.

I don't believe we know what the actual charges ended up being. Until then, I would hold off on that until we know for sure.

They were arrested for criminal trespass with a deadly weapon. The subjects arrested have their name all over the internet to include the open carry facebook page so this is nothing sensitive and was taken via a public website:

C-1-CR-13-218341 10/14/1983 3038039 DELOSH JUSTIN RYAN CRIMINAL TRESPASS W/DEADLY WEAPON - OPEN 10/26/2013

texanjoker wrote:http://crosstalk.kinja.com/two-pistoler ... hellephant



Some more media coverage of this "event"

The guy who wrote that blog is absolutely... well.. I can't go there.. but wow, way to post the "facts"... Scrolling through the comments on that made me sick.

Although I have made comments about the futility of this approach to passing open-carry, I've tried to stay out of this legal discussion. However, I think it's time folks take a look at Tex. Penal Code §46.01 before claiming any and all pre-1899 firearms and replicas thereof do not come within the definition of "firearm."

Tex. Penal Code §46.01(3) wrote:(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

• (A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
  
  (B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

A question, that to my knowledge has not been answered, arises as to whether the word "may" in the exception means the antique firearm must have either a knife or "other characteristic of weapons made illegal by . . ." the TPC in order to be excluded from the definition of "firearm." While "may" usually indicates "permissive" rather than "mandatory," the sentence taken as a whole does not support that connotation. An illegal knife, knuckles, etc. remain illegal without being defined as a "firearm," so the word "may" seems to have been improvidently used and could well be interpreted as mandatory by a court. Plus, subsections (A) and (B) are preceded with the word "and" which further indicates that they are dependent on the existence of the first element(s), i.e. a "folding knife, . . ."

So, it's not at all clear that the express language of the Code excludes all pre-1899 handguns from the definition of "firearm." It could well be that only those with folding knives, knuckles, etc. attached fall within the exception.

Chas.

TrackinPat wrote:

texanjoker wrote:http://crosstalk.kinja.com/two-pistoler ... hellephant



Some more media coverage of this "event"

The guy who wrote that blog is absolutely... well.. I can't go there.. but wow, way to post the "facts"... Scrolling through the comments on that made me sick.

It was interesting reading a "view" from another side.

texanjoker wrote:

TrackinPat wrote:

texanjoker wrote:http://crosstalk.kinja.com/two-pistoler ... hellephant



Some more media coverage of this "event"

The guy who wrote that blog is absolutely... well.. I can't go there.. but wow, way to post the "facts"... Scrolling through the comments on that made me sick.

It was interesting reading a "view" from another side.

I understand, I have SiriusXM and occasionally flip it to the liberal talk and listen to Ed Schultz babble a bit to just HEAR the other side, but by about 10 minutes in I am so sick to my stomach I have to turn it back. Can't say you have an WELL informed opinion unless you listen to all sides... no matter how uneducated, and disastrous they are..

E.Marquez wrote:Is that part of the TCLEOSE training and certification?

IDK LOL

after reading a lot of this I still think what I stated in my 1st post..

for those that disagree !!

Remember that a black powder handgun can kill you as quickly as a 9mm Semi.

Why would they want to agitate Law Enforcement??

They were wannabeez or would be cowboys or agitators from left or right. YOU DECIDE

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.

SherwoodForest wrote: 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.

That isn't how I see it and obviously not how law enforcement saw it. They saw 2 individuals carrying items not as displays but deadly weapons. It's the point of them carrying the revolvers or they could of had toy guns. Mind you they very well could've been asked to leave for toy guns if it caused an issue with others, but there is no doubt in my mind the men were carrying C&B revolvers because they were deadly weapons. Now they were doing it to make a political point but what they were doing was in no way the intent of the legislature.

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

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

To answer your question: for the purpose of THIS discussion within the context of LEGAL definitions, yes all of the items you mentioned are legally defined as deadly weapons with the exception of the gas, lighter, car or truck. However all of the items can be used to perpetrate an act of deadly force by LEGAL definition.