The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
I live out close to edge of nowhere. A lot of construction going on, widening of lanes, etc. Foot traffic here in my neighborhood is really only residents. No one comes here to just walk around.koine2002 wrote:In my neighborhood, pedestrian traffic is more likely to be stopped by the beat cops than auto traffic since there's a history of drug traffic in the immediate vicinity.LAYGO wrote:I read the line in the letter to Philando stating "you must have your permit & other government ID in your immediate possession", meanwhile I went on a walk around the neighborhood last night in my gym shorts and left both of my IDs at home. All while a local officer why driving around and passed me 2-3x.
I would've been more concerned if I was in my car & I saw the officer, but for some reason, I didn't give much thought to the officer while I was walking around.
We did have "that one neighbor" though. One night about 5 of us are in front of my garage talking. We heard something like a gun shot, but were unsure, until "that neighbor" comes out of his house into the front lawn & is seen trying to rack the slide on a pistol. We all scooted inside the garage & police were called. Turns out he had an AD while trying to clear his 1911 that was stuck real good & put a hole in his wall . . . about 3' away from his wife's head (all this per the police). He's since moved, but he has had several incidents with other neighbors around him, even pulling out a shotgun once on someone.koine2002 wrote:Yeah, I saw a teenager rise up out of the sunroof of his car with an airsoft rifle--without the orange tip. He proceeded to aim it down the street. He scared the bejeebers out of the lot of us shooting the breeze in front of our house, one of whom began raising the front of his shirt to draw his concealed firearm. A second later it became obvious that it was not a real firearm (namely the kids he was going towards breaking out laughing). They did get a pretty stern lecture from us, however.LAYGO wrote:I live out close to edge of nowhere. A lot of construction going on, widening of lanes, etc. Foot traffic here in my neighborhood is really only residents. No one comes here to just walk around.koine2002 wrote:In my neighborhood, pedestrian traffic is more likely to be stopped by the beat cops than auto traffic since there's a history of drug traffic in the immediate vicinity.LAYGO wrote:I read the line in the letter to Philando stating "you must have your permit & other government ID in your immediate possession", meanwhile I went on a walk around the neighborhood last night in my gym shorts and left both of my IDs at home. All while a local officer why driving around and passed me 2-3x.
I would've been more concerned if I was in my car & I saw the officer, but for some reason, I didn't give much thought to the officer while I was walking around.
I've had kids walking down the street with airsoft rifles (orange clearly visible), bows/arrows, swords . . . all right in front of my house. The airsoft rifle spooked me for a few secs, but he was carrying it in a non-threatening manner and then I saw the orange.
Progressives attacked the NRA after this incident happened and they are attacking the NRA again today for "not standing up for licensed gun owner Mr. Castile".NYTimes wrote:Earl Gray, a lawyer for Officer Yanez, questioned Ms. Reynolds at length about her marijuana use. Ms. Reynolds said she and Mr. Castile smoked marijuana daily, and had done so for years. She admitted that there was marijuana in the car at the time Officer Yanez pulled them over, but she said they had not been smoking.
tx85 wrote:Not that this justifies the cop's actions, but Mr. Castile wasn't actually a legal gun owner as media outlets continue to claim even today. His state permit to carry is irrelevant because he was prohibited by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) from possessing guns.
IANAL, but I did score pretty well on the reading portion of my SAT a while back. Despite that, I'm having trouble understanding how 18usc 922 applies to Mr. Castile. I think you are intimating that gun ownership equals affecting* interstate commerce. I see how this applies to gun stores, parts manufactures, etc...and maybe to the end buyer at the time he buys the weapon. But in perpetuity as long as one simply owns a firearm? Wasn't the original GFSZ struck down with similar logic?18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
...
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
...
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting* commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
ATF Open Letter:The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
* convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
* who is a fugitive from justice;
* who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
...
any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition
Not ownership, but possession. And it's not me, but court precedent that says that. The bar for something affecting interstate commerce is incredibly low.Txtension wrote:I think you are intimating that gun ownership equals affecting* interstate commerce.
The original GFSZ was struck down because it didn't limit which guns it applied to. The revised version added "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" and has so far been upheld by the courts that have considered it. That's basically the magical phrase that makes the Supreme Court uphold a federal regulation or ban. It's also the legal basis for the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill (pretty much every gun is made of parts or materials that have moved in interstate commerce, so the Federal Government can require states to let you carry that gun under the state's existing carry law).Txtension wrote:But in perpetuity as long as one simply owns a firearm? Wasn't the original GFSZ struck down with similar logic?