TexasCHLforum.com

The wording of this case would seem to apply the carrying of long guns in Texas. If the default in Texas is the legal carrying of a long gun, assuming that it is is not done in a manner to cause alarm, it would seem that, absent some other circumstance, it would tend to eliminate the hassle from some local jurisdictions. The recent episode in Temple with the military man hiking with his son comes to mind. You may or may not agree with this man's handling of the situation, but he didn't violate any law prior to the officers approaching him.

Obviously some places will try to pursue their own agenda, but they may have to pay a high price for it.

Your thoughts?

They won't pay any price for it until it is well established and "they should know better". Until then, this means you can't be convicted, but there won't be much you can do to officers who think they can detain on-site for a gun.

CWOOD wrote:The wording of this case would seem to apply the carrying of long guns in Texas. If the default in Texas is the legal carrying of a long gun, assuming that it is is not done in a manner to cause alarm, it would seem that, absent some other circumstance, it would tend to eliminate the hassle from some local jurisdictions. The recent episode in Temple with the military man hiking with his son comes to mind. You may or may not agree with this man's handling of the situation, but he didn't violate any law prior to the officers approaching him.

Obviously some places will try to pursue their own agenda, but they may have to pay a high price for it.

Your thoughts?

My thought on this is - it's a Fourth Circuit case. We're in the Fifth Circuit. I can't remember the lawyerly term for it ("not precedent", maybe?), but if I remember right it means the Fifth Circuit could look at the ruling as input when deciding a similar case here but doesn't have to follow that ruling.