Another crazy Temple arrest....

stealthyeliminator · Feb 20, 2014

Jason Orsek, VP of Come and Take It, was arrested yesterday for Unlawful Carrying Weapons. The problem with this arrest? Jason was on private property, with permission of the property owner, which was verified by the arresting officer prior to the arrest.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.02

As this is obviously not a violation of UCW, expect the charges to change a half a dozen times until they think they've found something they can get worked thru their kangaroo court. https://www.facebook.com/comeandtakeittexas

OC for ME · Feb 20, 2014

File criminal charges against the arresting cop. False this, wrongful that, unlawful use of..., then sue the pants off of the cop and his cop buddies.

Primus · Feb 20, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Jason Orsek, VP of Come and Take It, was arrested yesterday for Unlawful Carrying Weapons. The problem with this arrest? Jason was on private property, with permission of the property owner, which was verified by the arresting officer prior to the arrest.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.02

As this is obviously not a violation of UCW, expect the charges to change a half a dozen times until they think they've found something they can get worked thru their kangaroo court. https://www.facebook.com/comeandtakeittexas

The statute you provided doesn't say there's an exception for someone else's property. Unless your going to say that his buddies land was under his control? Didn't see anything about public land versus private land. It just says doesn't pay if your in YOUR land or land you control.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth · Feb 20, 2014

Primus said:
The statute you provided doesn't say there's an exception for someone else's property. Unless your going to say that his buddies land was under his control? Didn't see anything about public land versus private land. It just says doesn't pay if your in YOUR land or land you control.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

True BUT ... from statue
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

AND .. from FB page
Jason Orsek, VP of CATI, was illegally arrested on February 19th. He was sitting in a parked vehicle in a church parking lot using their Wi-Fi signal

the vehicleappears to be under his ownership or control ...

Looks like he is likely not guilty to me...thought he FB page isn't gospel and it does not say "his car"

stealthyeliminator · Feb 20, 2014

Primus said:
The statute you provided doesn't say there's an exception for someone else's property. Unless your going to say that his buddies land was under his control? Didn't see anything about public land versus private land. It just says doesn't pay if your in YOUR land or land you control.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Is he covered by the fact that he had permission to be on the property? I can't answer that definitively. What I can answer definitively is that this arrest was unjust, unconstitutional and immoral.

OC for ME · Feb 20, 2014

It does not matter if the car was his. He was in control of the car by his presence. As long as he was not unlawfully "possessing" the car he is good. It seems that this will come down to whose definition of "plain view" that will be upheld.

stealthyeliminator · Feb 27, 2014

Here is a good write up on this incident. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/02/bogus-arrest-of-open-carry-activist-in.html

It sounds like they have no case, what-so-ever, and they probably knew that when they made the arrest.

stealthyeliminator · Dec 8, 2014

Case dismissed, reason "Insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction of the offense herein."

Rusty Young Man · Dec 8, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Case dismissed, reason "Insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction of the offense herein."

Wonder how much Mr. Orsek paid in legal fees.

I suppose it should all be considered water under the bridge now? /sarcasm

Hope to hear more.

FreeInAZ · Dec 8, 2014

Rusty Young Man said:
Wonder how much Mr. Orsek paid in legal fees.

I suppose it should all be considered water under the bridge now? /sarcasm

Hope to hear more.

It's called fiscal re-eduction by Opinion Enforcement Officers. They see someone doing something legal, yet they find annoying, their answer? Cook up some bogus charges, and teach the person a lesson of "law be damned! I am the law! You rub my sensibilities the wrong way, you'll pay!"

Sad but true tactic OEO's have been using for decades now.

davidmcbeth · Dec 8, 2014

FreeInAZ said:
It's called fiscal re-eduction by Opinion Enforcement Officers. They see someone doing something legal, yet they find annoying, their answer? Cook up some bogus charges, and teach the person a lesson of "law be damned! I am the law! You rub my sensibilities the wrong way, you'll pay!"

Sad but true tactic OEO's have been using for decades now.

They have tried it with me several times; but but but, I resist so they have the option of : a) going away or b) fight to the death

They always just go away.

zekester · Dec 11, 2014

Too Ironic

stealthyeliminator said:
Here is a good write up on this incident. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/02/bogus-arrest-of-open-carry-activist-in.html

It sounds like they have no case, what-so-ever, and they probably knew that when they made the arrest.

The same language that saved him....will be stricken from HB195

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

The below is stricken....

(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner

stealthyeliminator · Dec 11, 2014

zekester said:
The same language that saved him....will be stricken from HB195

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

The below is stricken....

(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner

Either you don't understand the bill or you're being deceitful. He'd have been completely and unambiguously covered with hb195.

zekester · Dec 11, 2014

Onl;y becasue

stealthyeliminator said:
Either you don't understand the bill or you're being deceitful. He'd have been completely and unambiguously covered with hb195.

It is not written....so therefore not a crime

stealthyeliminator · Dec 11, 2014

zekester said:
It is not written....so therefore not a crime

...... Which is preferable...... What's the problem? Where's the point?

...... This bill strikes Texas' longstanding prohibition on handgun possession from the law. That's a great thing. It's much preferable to writing new law, or modifying the existing, to "allow" handgun possession. This bill accomplishes the goal in the best way, by striking bad law from existence.

Another crazy Temple arrest....

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

Primus

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member

FreeInAZ

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

zekester

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

zekester

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member