TexasCHLforum.com

....will arrest you anyway.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=XD9RZnLsTu8[/youtube]

sorry, i could only watch 5 minutes of it.

It comes down to rights

and the cops need to uphold the law, not worry about those ignorant of the law

remember the saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and that goes for those who are not aware of the laws of the state who call and complain that someone is doing something they "think" is illegal, but as the man who wants to show his 2nd amendment rights, the person who takes the 911 call(s) needs to ascertain if there is truly an issue and simply explain that the person is NOT IN VIOLATION of the law.

I just couldn't watch the whole thing either. I will say that I believe the officers are wrong in that caring a long gun in the manner described, slung over back muzzle down, cannot legally disturbing the peace. In the bits that I saw they seemed pretty careful not to say that the guy would be arrested for that. They said "If you break the law in any way you will be arrested" and discussed how carrying a rifle could be considered disturbing the peace because of how upset people could get. As I said I think there would need to be something more, maybe not much, but something to give RS or PC for any stop or charge.

Pleasant enough.
At least this guy called ahead and saved himself a lot of money on legal fees.

Clearly Little Elm will arrest if carrying a long gun in that neighborhood. That's really too bad...
Let me know if there are updates. It's just another Temple, Tx.

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.

We've already got a test case out of Temple.

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.

THIS ... frankly, IMHO, they took too long - as one officer stating - "going round and round" with the guy about this. Let him know what's going to happen, thank him for his time, and move on to the next call.

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

I heard he was charged with interfering with an officer, not disorderly conduct. Do you know for sure what the charge(s) were?

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

Not even close to the same deal....Grisham is a tool.... and got taken to task for his actions.

Keith B wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

I heard he was charged with interfering with an officer, not disorderly conduct. Do you know for sure what the charge(s) were?

Yes..
or at least what it was at pretrial....
INTERFER W/PUBLIC DUTIES
http://www.jeffparkerlaw.com/docketfile ... ockets.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith B wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

I heard he was charged with interfering with an officer, not disorderly conduct. Do you know for sure what the charge(s) were?

What the were when they put handcuffs on him and put him in the car or what they were after he was in jail?

He was told he was going to jail for "rudely displaying".
He was charged with resisting arrest and "interrupting, disrupting, impeding and interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty."

I believe the resisting charges were dropped.

cb1000rider wrote:

Keith B wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

I heard he was charged with interfering with an officer, not disorderly conduct. Do you know for sure what the charge(s) were?

What the were when they put handcuffs on him and put him in the car or what they were after he was in jail?

See the post above yours. Was interfering. Different charges.

E.Marquez wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:We've already got a test case out of Temple.

Not even close to the same deal....Grisham is a tool.... and got taken to task for his actions.

Teamless wrote:sorry, i could only watch 5 minutes of it.

It comes down to rights

....snip

It does come down to rights; civil rights.

i had to watch it twice. in that time I wondered if the cops who threatened MLK with Disorderly Conduct were as nice (although just as ignorant) as these Little Elm officers.

"Disorderly Conduct" is a catch-all over-abused charge that is used on folks when cops disagree with the person but can't charge them with anything substantial.

In this case, its used to threaten someone exercising their civil rights.

"disorderly conduct" is a charge that should be done away with or the exact actions used to invoke such a charge should be explicitly defined. Its way too subjective. Too much, way to much latitude providied to police to justify arresting folks they disagree with.

If this were me, I'd send it to the TX Atty. General with a complaint and see where it goes.

LabRat

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.

He did open carry later and nothing happened. He even asked the officers how can I carry without causing alarm? They had no answer. Bottom line, your fear does not trump my right and a right not exercised is a right lost.

He has another video of him talking with the police chief and he said they do support the 2A and did talk to the officers.