-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
TX long gun incident: This is probably worth a discussion
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
- Status
Primus
Regular Member
Sounds like the article was blaming guys ocing long guns for the banning of all guns in the mall. The statements at the bottom about "tactics" make it seem like he thinks long gun ocing is hurting more then helping.
I'm on the fence. That's all I can say.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I'm on the fence. That's all I can say.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
DOC means that the cops, and the PA are enforcing a law because some folks got scared. If anyone is scared of you you are engaged in DOC......at least in that jurisdiction. If the cops are smart, and they likely are not, at this point, because they are being dragged into a legal battle by the PA, for a citizen following the law.
Those cops need to tell the PA that he has this one wrong because all they did at that time was "steal" the firearm and not arrest or charge the "perp."
The facts and time line will make for a very interesting legal show.
Those cops need to tell the PA that he has this one wrong because all they did at that time was "steal" the firearm and not arrest or charge the "perp."
The facts and time line will make for a very interesting legal show.
eye95
Well-known member
Dave, are you going to discuss this one with us?
Was the carry of the long gun legal? The article makes it sound as though only licensed CC (I assume of a handgun) would have been legal when there was no sign.
The carrier owned a shop in the mall. Was he aware of mall policy despite the lack of a sign? Are there any legal ramifications as a lessee in the mall to violating what we can probably assume is a policy written into his lease? Would the fact of the policy being in his lease (or incorporated by reference) carry the legal weight of the sign?
The article raises a good point. The tactic is dumb. If you want like minds to rah-rah you, the tactic will be successful. If you want to be effective in expanding re-acceptance of the presence of guns and in expanding the Right to its correct proportions, then the tactic will fail. Dumb. But some folks post here like that. They don't care whether outsiders reading this site will be swayed. They just like getting their +1s.
This thread should relay a similar message as the Black Panther thread with the bad title. Don't thank these guys. They are hurting the cause! For different motivations, but the outcome is similar.
Dumb.
Was the carry of the long gun legal? The article makes it sound as though only licensed CC (I assume of a handgun) would have been legal when there was no sign.
The carrier owned a shop in the mall. Was he aware of mall policy despite the lack of a sign? Are there any legal ramifications as a lessee in the mall to violating what we can probably assume is a policy written into his lease? Would the fact of the policy being in his lease (or incorporated by reference) carry the legal weight of the sign?
The article raises a good point. The tactic is dumb. If you want like minds to rah-rah you, the tactic will be successful. If you want to be effective in expanding re-acceptance of the presence of guns and in expanding the Right to its correct proportions, then the tactic will fail. Dumb. But some folks post here like that. They don't care whether outsiders reading this site will be swayed. They just like getting their +1s.
This thread should relay a similar message as the Black Panther thread with the bad title. Don't thank these guys. They are hurting the cause! For different motivations, but the outcome is similar.
Dumb.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
DOC, Disorderly Conduct?
PA, Prosecuting Attorney?
PA, Prosecuting Attorney?
LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry. Exception: This rule does NOT apply to discussions about long gun carry in jurisdictions which ban handgun carry but not long gun carry and thus require long gun carry as a matter of public policy.
A valid point can be made that Texas does not allow handgun OC, therefore long gun OC is the remaining means to which OC may be expressed. This is a position which the site owners of OCDO have endorsed.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Hooray !
The end result is that when we really need long guns in public—say, during a riot, mob, or some other failure of civility—there will be laws against it that the authorities can use to disarm us.
Tell me again… why should we support tactics that lead to our rights being eroded, instead of expanded?
Look, laws and rules trying to limit our rights will happen no matter what the catalyst is ... so lets start beating 'em down now.
Are you quoting someone or are those your words/thoughts? Can't tell where one ends and the other begins.
OC for ME
Regular Member
DOC = disorderly conduct.
PA = prosecuting attorney.
But, eye95 beat me to it.
PA = prosecuting attorney.
But, eye95 beat me to it.
davidmcbeth
Banned
All my small texts are quotes from linked article ... forgot to add that tidbit of info ... guilty as charged.
I'll look at Rose O'Donnell's picture for 5 seconds as punishment .....
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
You raise some good questions. Hopefully we can clear these critical issues up quickly.
1. Short answer is yes, open carry of long guns is legal in Texas. It is unregulated. DC (Disorderly Conduct) for Texas I will address below in response to OC for ME.
2. I do not know if he was aware of store policy when he OCed. It has been stated that he received explicit permission to have his rifle on display in his store, which might suggest that he was aware of the policy (else he probably wouldn't have acquired permission). However, it would also be reasonable to assume that if you have permission to put the rifle on display, you're also authorized to transport the rifle to the display point. It would not be reasonable to assume that there would be any need to "sneak" the rifle in, only to then bring it out into the open to put it on display. That he stopped at GameStop on his way into work is another matter. Is it reasonable to assume that during this transport you should refrain from making a detour? IDK.
3. It would be incorrect to say that only CHL holders (concealed handgun license) could legally carry into the facility (assuming no trespass notices/signs, which were apparently not present when this occured).
4. The OC movement in Texas by both OCT and CATI (and supported by other groups and organizations) have been largely successful thus far, IMO. I find it interesting that you can determine from, however many miles away, whether or not we are hurting the cause based on a single article partially covering a single incident. There is a lot more to this issue than this single incident, and IMO to remove the legal OC of long guns from the OC movement in Texas would very likely just contribute to the death of the cause. OCing of long guns has, IMO, been a vital piece of the puzzle of trying to restoring gun rights in Texas. To say that "this tactic" is "dumb" is to call thousands of open carry advocates across the state, and probably the vast majority of OC advocates in the state, stupid. While I won't report your post for it, also keep in mind that bashing other OC groups is a violation of forum rules.
I assume that you mean that the PA thinks that anyone being scared enables a DC charge in his jurisdiction, even though that isn't the case... Right?
I noticed you said something about no arrest or charge. I assume this article is one of the first to report the incident and that it hasn't been updated. After his rifle was stolen, the man went to the police station to retrieve it. He was told that it was being held as evidence in an investigation, or something, and so he left. Later (not to imply that it was the same day) he found out that charges were filled and that a warrant was issued for his arrest. He then went back to the police station for processing.
Now, back to DC. Let's just quote it, for the hell of it.
Sec. 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;
Now, the prosecutors seem to think that someone being alarmed makes someone carrying a firearm in violation of this section. This, however, is not the case. As you may note, you are in violation if you carry in a manner calculated to cause alarm. This means that both of the following statements are true. Someone may be alarmed, and you not be in violation. You may be in violation, even if nobody is alarmed.
Next post I will try to include some case law regarding this display of weapons section of DC.
Hope this helps keep the issues clear.
Edit: The article states that normalization is not being accomplished. In Texas we have evidence to the contrary. Recently a group of OCers walked for, what, over 6 hours in downtown Austin and the police either ignored them or approached smiling and pleasant. Citizens were openly curious about the group and mission. Many citizens asked to have pictures taken with the OCers. No, nobody was spotted running for their lives. Sorry. Bottom line: progress is being made by the OC groups in Texas, and this is undeniable. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that acceptance of OC of long guns is being increasingly accepted by both common LACs and LEOs.
Edit again: Also note "knowingly and intentionally"
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
No. If had wanted to relate what I thought the PA thinks, I would have stated that. I comment on what the PA did. And the story seems to state that the DOC was a result of the citizens lawful act. I comment on what the police did, steal a citiznes property, without just cause, and then relate to the citizen, as you state, later, that the weapon is being held pending a investigation. The PA is dragging the cops into a case where the cops likely could not charge the citizen with DOC, they knew this or they would have arrested him right then and there.
No, again. The prosecutor is clearly stating that folks "running scared" is grounds for a DOC charge. The weapons component of the law is now made irrelevant if your two conditions are all that is needed to meet the burden in the statute.
Non sequitur. A single citizen who may or may not have been in compliance with mall policy, yet in compliance with state law, is charged with DOC, and thus normalization of OC (LGs in this case) is not occurring in all normal places, a mall in this case. The mall owners need to be "normalized", not the cops. I think that the cops in Texas "get it" and approach each "event" based on the situation before them at that time, if your contentions have merit. I believe they do. The mall dude, he is getting screwed six ways from Sunday and the cops, I think, would tend to agree, else they would have arrested him and not just steal his weapon.
OC walks are primarily meant to, and this is only my opinion, "normalize" (educate) cops. A OC walk with cops "in attendance" and not "confronting" the OCers enables a different environment. Other citizens see cops not doing anything because of the OCed arms so the other citizens see that the armed citizens are not violating law.
You make my point for me. The PA, via the cops, must prove the intent of the citizen and the cops not arresting him after complaints indicates to me that the PA will not countenance any OCing in his jurisdiction where other folks are claiming they are scared of the gun.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I really don't understand what you're saying.
"No, again. The prosecutor is clearly stating that folks "running scared" is grounds for a DOC charge." So? The prosecutor is not the law. He can be wrong. And in this case, he clearly is...
"The weapons component of the law is now made irrelevant if your two conditions are all that is needed to meet the burden in the statute." What? How can you remove the weapons component from "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm?"
Also, it does not follow to say that normalization is occurring as police and citizens tend to stop reacting negatively and begin reacting positively to OC?
I make your point for you? I guess I don't see your point, but if we are in agreement (ie. making the same points), then I'm not sure why you're being so abrasive.
"No, again. The prosecutor is clearly stating that folks "running scared" is grounds for a DOC charge." So? The prosecutor is not the law. He can be wrong. And in this case, he clearly is...
"The weapons component of the law is now made irrelevant if your two conditions are all that is needed to meet the burden in the statute." What? How can you remove the weapons component from "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm?"
Also, it does not follow to say that normalization is occurring as police and citizens tend to stop reacting negatively and begin reacting positively to OC?
I make your point for you? I guess I don't see your point, but if we are in agreement (ie. making the same points), then I'm not sure why you're being so abrasive.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I really don't understand how a citizen "not in violation" being charged under the law. What has a weapon got to do with both of your "true" statements? The weapon component is inserted into the law for the simple fact that a LAC, following the law, as the mall dude was it seems, can be arrested/charged with DOC for simply OCing his rifle and nothing more. That provision of the law needs to be removed.
You claiming the PA is wrong, and I agree, does not obviate the fact that the PA has charged a citizen with DOC for merely, and lawfully, OCing his rifle. There is no trespass charge. In fact, I don't even know if he was not authorized to carry his rifle in the mall by mall management. It has been suggested that his business provided him with a exemption to the policy. I would like to know if that was in fact the case.
Orchestrated OC events do serve a vital purpose. The mall dude being left alone by the cops would have been a better "teachable moment" for the regular folks. The cops contacting the scared folks and informing them that what the mall dude is doing is not against the law and that they must "get over it."
Me disagreeing with your points is not being abrasive, in my view, obviously your view is what matters to you. We are not making the same points We both agree, I think, that the mall dude got screwed.
My little towns code:
No weapons component, and peace disturbance is analogous to disorderly conduct.
From state law:
Again, no weapons component, weapons are addressed in the unlawful use of weapons.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The cops were doing the calculating, not the citizen, it seems. The PA agrees with the cops.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
... Because they're authoritarian bastards making **** up? Innocent people are charged with crimes all the time?
I don't think I understand anything that you're trying to communicate, really. I have a feeling that our disagreement, if we have one, is one of pure semantics. I don't want to lock into an argument with you, so I may just leave it alone.
-------------
Not directed at OC for ME but here is what I presume is case law, as I said I would try to post some.
I'm only quoting a very small portion of the relevant material as to not potentially be in violation of copyright, but there is a lot more juicy reading in this opinion.
"Although the State maintains the fact that someone called the police is sufficient to show the gun was displayed in a way calculated to cause alarm, we cannot agree" http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10595185369456678496&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
It is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/calculated
3. ( tr; usually passive ) to design specifically; aim: the car was calculated to appeal to women
The car can be calculated to appeal to women, and not appeal to any women. A car can appeal to women, even when it is not calculated to do so.
A man can carry a rifle in a manner calculated to alarm without someone actually being alarmed (and he would be in violation of DC when doing so). Likewise, a man can carry a rifle in a manner not calculated to alarm, and someone become alarmed (and he would not be in violation of DC when doing so).
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
What horrible logic that would be on their part. It is the equivalent of believing that intending something to happen forces it to happen, and that, if something happens, its happening had to be intended!
OC for ME
Regular Member
The case cited, SCOTT CHRISTOPHER GRIEVE v.THE STATE OF TEXAS, the cops claimed a display of a gun, on a balcony, on campus, from a phone call, justified a disorderly conduct allegation, that justify a subsequent search of the apartment for evidence of the disorderly conduct, find the gun. The court did not agree that the balcony was a public place, let alone whether the display of a gun was indeed a fact.
The next sentence after the "...we cannot agree."
I return to the inaction of the cops at the moment they stole the dude's gun. He was not arrested, or charged, with disorderly conduct at that time. Unless he was arrested and charged and he going to get his gun back was after he was released on 'X' condition. Being a misdemeanor charge, if I recall, he remains a non-prohibited person. Heck, he ain't been convicted yet. I believe they (the cops) had a chance to jump off this train wreck in the making, but they choose to ride it out. The PA is gunna get off without a scratch and the cops will be left holding the bag.
Anyway, what do the professional cops think about the mall dudes' manner of carry, and if they have carried like the mall dude in the past, and if so, were/are they calculating to cause alarm.
The next sentence after the "...we cannot agree."
And then the next sentence.
The final logical conclusion.
About the only thing the cited case and the mall dude's situation have in common, in my view, is the disorderly conduct charge. The facts of the current case, the mall dude, are clearly evident, a photo shows the manner in which the gun was carried. The cops ride on the scared caller(s) report as the only justification to support a disorderly conduct charge. The PA hitched his wagon on that call also.
I return to the inaction of the cops at the moment they stole the dude's gun. He was not arrested, or charged, with disorderly conduct at that time. Unless he was arrested and charged and he going to get his gun back was after he was released on 'X' condition. Being a misdemeanor charge, if I recall, he remains a non-prohibited person. Heck, he ain't been convicted yet. I believe they (the cops) had a chance to jump off this train wreck in the making, but they choose to ride it out. The PA is gunna get off without a scratch and the cops will be left holding the bag.
Anyway, what do the professional cops think about the mall dudes' manner of carry, and if they have carried like the mall dude in the past, and if so, were/are they calculating to cause alarm.
- Status