Page 2 of 2
Re: Federal agents are not peace officers right?
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:13 pm
by boomerang
jimlongley wrote:Must be some awfully strong feds out there these days,
There probably aren't many 98 pound weaklings on Secret Service protection details. Look what happened to CopOnce at the airport.
Re: Federal agents are not peace officers right?
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:50 pm
by DoubleJ
I'm sure you, personally, get what he was saying, but the point (for everyone else, just in case) is that a machine gun would likely be mounted atop something, or at least have a crew carrying the tripod and/or ammo.
was merely a jest. a gentle ribbing, if you will. I am, however, in no way speaking for the esteemed Mr Longley, only merely trying to expedite understanding.
Re: Federal agents are not peace officers right?
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:25 am
by boomerang
I'm sorry if using the
correct words confused anyone.
But I still think Article 2.122 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says the feds "shall not be deemed peace officers" in Texas.
Re: Federal agents are not peace officers right?
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:50 am
by jimlongley
boomerang wrote:I'm sorry if using the
correct words confused anyone.
But I still think Article 2.122 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says the feds "shall not be deemed peace officers" in Texas.
That's a CFR definition, not to be confused with reality.
Re: Federal agents are not peace officers right?
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:51 pm
by Xander
jimlongley wrote:boomerang wrote:I'm sorry if using the
correct words confused anyone.
But I still think Article 2.122 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says the feds "shall not be deemed peace officers" in Texas.
That's a CFR definition, not to be confused with reality.
Ok, then how about the English definition? In other words, the definition that is correct when you say "machine gun"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machine%20gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;