TexasCHLforum.com

Charles, a repeal of TPC §42.01(a)(8) is what is needed, or this will keep happening. This is an example from Oregon on how this Little Elm call should have been handled...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs[/youtube]

Calm, professional. Talks to the guys, assesses they are not a danger and have no ill intent and leaves them to it.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote:When I was a teenager I used to walk down my street carrying rifles and shotguns. Not once did anyone call the police. If a police car drove by the officer waved and didn't even stop. A great part of the liberal success with gun control is the denormalization of the open display and carrying of long guns.

VM,
What kind of neighborhood was that? I did the same thing when I was a kid.. I carried firearms a few miles back and forth to a fishing pond, never had a lick of trouble.
But that neighborhood was "fairly rural".

That Little Elm neighborhood reminds me of Plano. Relatively dense homes, new construction... Suburban.

Legally, it shouldn't matter, but clearly it does to the PD.

A residential neighborhood on the Laguna Madre, seawall along the waterfront lots, relatively upscale homes --I'd guess you call it a "bedroom community." There were very few vacant lots by this time. There was a marina right next to our house. A city park and city office across from the marina. We also took guns to school....some openly displayed in gun racks....and we openly examined a gun in the parking lot when someone bought a new one. We also made black powder in chemistry class. A friend and I used to drive around back roads looking for places to shoot with a car full of guns, including an M-1 Carbine, AR-15, a couple of .22 semi-autos, and two or three shotguns.

gthaustex wrote:Charles, a repeal of TPC §42.01(a)(8) is what is needed, or this will keep happening. This is an example from Oregon on how this Little Elm call should have been handled...

[youtube]youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs[/youtube]

Calm, professional. Talks to the guys, assesses they are not a danger and have no ill intent and leaves them to it.

You will never get a repeal of that. What would possibly happen is clarification on the wording as to what constitutes the infraction.

bdickens wrote:

EEllis wrote:
Depending on where you are you still wouldn't get much reaction. What we are talking about here is carrying a gun where there isn't any sporting use for one.

The Second Amendment is not about "sporting uses."

Since I was talking about peoples reaction to carrying a firearm not the constitutional aspects your comment was unnecessary.

I'm just agreeing with Charles' earlier post....It may not fly, but he seems to think it might....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Keith B wrote:They are pushing 42.01(8)

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
....
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

What they were saying is if he carried his long gun out in public and someone 'became alarmed' and called in they would consider it disorderly conduct and arrest him. This is one of those 'beat the rap but not the ride' deals. Anyone wants to be a test case can go to Little Elm.

I've been considering a bill to repeal TPC §42.01(a)(8) for exactly this reason. I guess it's time to do so. NOTE to the OP, please keep this video.

Chas.

One of my favs is this law student who takes the officer to school on how he cannot stop someone or disarm someone who has committed no crime.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=pAlRDGUx-B8[/youtube]

Keith B wrote:

gthaustex wrote:Charles, a repeal of TPC §42.01(a)(8) is what is needed, or this will keep happening. This is an example from Oregon on how this Little Elm call should have been handled...

[youtube]youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs[/youtube]

Calm, professional. Talks to the guys, assesses they are not a danger and have no ill intent and leaves them to it.

You will never get a repeal of that. What would possibly happen is clarification on the wording as to what constitutes the infraction.

The OP's video, the bogus arrest of the man carrying a rifle then changing the charge to resisting, and other documented abuses of TPC §42.01(a)(8) will go a long way toward angering the Legislature and getting this passed. More importantly, it's overly broad and unnecessary. There are plenty of other charges that could be brought if someone where pointing a gun at another person. Anything short of that should not be unlawful.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The OP's video, the bogus arrest of the man carrying a rifle then changing the charge to resisting, and other documented abuses of TPC §42.01(a)(8) will go a long way toward angering the Legislature and getting this passed. More importantly, it's overly broad and unnecessary. There are plenty of other charges that could be brought if someone where pointing a gun at another person. Anything short of that should not be unlawful.

Chas.

That would be awesome, like I said Im tired of being told that open carry is legal but if you do it your going to be harassed by cops and possibly arrested if people are calling in.

VMI77 wrote:When I was a teenager I used to walk down my street carrying rifles and shotguns. Not once did anyone call the police. If a police car drove by the officer waved and didn't even stop. A great part of the liberal success with gun control is the denormalization of the open display and carrying of long guns.

Heck I grew up in the desert in CA and would sling a rifle and ride my dual sport to go hunting and nobody harassed you.

In this video the LE's made their point about calculated alarm and needed to move on. Instead they stood there debating a what if. Nothing good comes from that and the guy with the rifle had good points about the law. I side with him.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Keith B wrote:They are pushing 42.01(8)

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
....
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

What they were saying is if he carried his long gun out in public and someone 'became alarmed' and called in they would consider it disorderly conduct and arrest him. This is one of those 'beat the rap but not the ride' deals. Anyone wants to be a test case can go to Little Elm.

I've been considering a bill to repeal TPC §42.01(a)(8) for exactly this reason. I guess it's time to do so. NOTE to the OP, please keep this video.

Chas.

Have it saved to my YouTube favorites. Here is the direct link. http://youtu.be/XD9RZnLsTu8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm surprised the cop didn't shoot the dogs when they got out of the car and charged him.





Jk

mojo84 wrote:I'm surprised the cop didn't shoot the dogs when they got out of the car and charged him.





Jk

:eyeroll: god forbid we ever have a thread where there is a dog seen, mentioned, or in the slightest way referenced and someone doesn't have a comment about cops killing it.

JJVP wrote:Have it saved to my YouTube favorites. Here is the direct link. http://youtu.be/XD9RZnLsTu8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I recommend going to keepvid.com and saving the video on your own computer in case it disappears from YouTube.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I'm surprised the cop didn't shoot the dogs when they got out of the car and charged him.





Jk

:eyeroll: god forbid we ever have a thread where there is a dog seen, mentioned, or in the slightest way referenced and someone doesn't have a comment about cops killing it.

Had a dog charge me the other day acting like it wanted to bite... Of course the dogs owner had a major attitude when I reminded her about the leash law ...All the while I was thinking it could be a new anti leo thread on this forum

Eellis and texanjoker, you guys need to lighten up some. Being the observant cop and criminal justice expert you two are, I thought you would pick up on the "jk" I put in the post.