Texas open rifle carry protest

[wayneinFL]

You should watch the PBS show call "Constitution USA". Not everyone in America agrees on the "true" meaning of the Bill of Rights. As the host travel the US, there are different views on what constitute constitutional "rights" in different areas and times. The episode on the 2nd Amendment was very interesting.

There are gun owners who believe the federal government should stay away from any gun control legislation. But they get frustrated if another person in another area (ie, state/county/city) doesn't share the same view as them. Go figure!

I understand there are different interpretations. The people who signed them had different interpretations as well. Of course, at the time it was common for the general militia to muster in public, so I don't see where it would have possibly been outside the realm of the imagination for someone to openly carry a loaded pistol.

As far as the state's rights issue, there are certain rights that should be incorporated and the states should have to respect. For example, the state can't allow a business to deny service to blacks. Just like the right of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms should be protected from both state and federal governments.

If some states don't want it, they should move to have it repealed.

 

[P5 Guy]

Loaded rifles however smacks of intimidation.

I do agree with that statement. Maybe not loaded and locked?

Thats jail time in my view.

While technically/legally true. I have to say that is not my view.

Maybe no one will see my view, but sometimes intimidation is warranted, after all how long have firearms owners been intimidated by the media and government? All political and government power come from the barrel of a gun. One can be persuaded with logic or coercion. Coercion is usually some type of intimidating force.
These are just my opinions.

 

[armoredman]

As far as the state's rights issue, there are certain rights that should be incorporated and the states should have to respect.

wayne, that's been done, MacDonald vs Chicago, the 2A was held incorporated against the several states. Legal challenges are flying at the paces of arthritic snails in many jurisdictions, and being shortstopped as fast as they can be activist judges.

Loaded rifles however smacks of intimidation. Thats jail time in my view.

Why should someone go to jail for doing something completely and totally legal? Most if not all the legal definitions of firearms do not differentiate whether it's loaded or unloaded, but that it is still a firearm. If the locale has rules in place that prevent the carry of loaded firearms, but allow carry of unloaded firearms, then I could see the point, even if the rule has no basis in law IMHO. Also, the local gendarme were reportedly completely informed of the march, and would have told them whether loaded/unloaded was OK, if the marchers didn't have access to the latest laws on the books already - PD cannot make laws up on the fly, as much as some have in the past, (New Orleans, anyone?), and have to respect the laws on the books, unless they have powerful patrons,( NYPD "stop and frisk, anyone?), according to theory.
If they had approved the march, then arrested marchers for illegal carry, then many ugly legal issues could be raised, such as they are already facing in the arrest that sparked the whole thing.

 

[Skans]

I can think of a lot of ways Open Carry can purposely be used for intimidate folks; here are just a few:

1. Guy with two nickel revolvers strapped to his sides finds some reason to yell or shout at someone else. Normally yelling or shouting (non-threats and nothing obscene) may be rude, but that's about it. However, yelling and shouting while open carrying firearms would be pretty intimidating.

2. A group of 3 "thuggish looking" people open carrying firearms can be used to intimidate businesses, bus riders, park goers, etc. They can smile and act as sweet as pie to folks around them, but you have to acknowledge that there is an intimidation factor, especially if they are wearing racist shirts, tattoos, etc.

3. Are you going to permit open carry of handguns, such as: Carbon-15, Sites Spectre, MP5, UZI pistol....? Or just guns that you think look respectable.

Open carry might work in a culture that is used to open carry. But, try to introduce it in non-open carry areas, and it's an invitation to all sorts of problems, in my opinion.

 

[mglass61]

1. Guy with two nickel revolvers strapped to his sides finds some reason to yell or shout at someone else. Normally yelling or shouting (non-threats and nothing obscene) may be rude, but that's about it. However, yelling and shouting while open carrying firearms would be pretty intimidating.

If you could prove it was being done on purpose I could see your point. Otherwise, unless they are yelling and waiving the guns around I don't see the issue. Would the guns being concealed really change much in that situation? Yelling and shouting tends to intimidate a lot of surrounding people on its own even without guns. I'm not a fan of blaiming people for how others feel as long as they are being legal.

2. A group of 3 "thuggish looking" people open carrying firearms can be used to intimidate businesses, bus riders, park goers, etc. They can smile and act as sweet as pie to folks around them, but you have to acknowledge that there is an intimidation factor, especially if they are wearing racist shirts, tattoos, etc.

Now this is just profiling and I'm not sure it deserves a response. People shouldn't judge others but if they do then that is their own fault. As long as they are carrying legal then there shouldn't be an issue.

3. Are you going to permit open carry of handguns, such as: Carbon-15, Sites Spectre, MP5, UZI pistol....? Or just guns that you think look respectable.

If legally owned, then sure why not?

Open carry might work in a culture that is used to open carry. But, try to introduce it in non-open carry areas, and it's an invitation to all sorts of problems, in my opinion.

Maybe I'm spoiled but I live in KY where open carry is perfectly legal and requires no permit. Seeing someone open carry here is certainly not the norm but I see it occaisionaly and have never seen anyone freak out or really even stare at the person. Why? It is their right and people here know it. So I have to respectfully disagree that its just a matter of whether or not it depends on the culture. I'd say our culture here is not to open carry (Lexington area) but it happens from time to time. Instead I believe its all about how people are raised. Even though open carry isn't big here almost everyone grows up at least knowing someone with guns and most have shot them. So seeing someone walk down the street with one or in WalMart with one isn't a shocker. People should excercise their rights and not feel ashamed for it if certain groups disagree.

PS. Skans I'm not attacking you just thought I'd jump in with my views to your situations.

 

[zincwarrior]

Well, living in Texas where the cartels have moved in, the sight of twenty guys with AKs moving down the street, doesn't make me immediately think "there's a legal protest going on."

 

[Skans]

PS. Skans I'm not attacking you just thought I'd jump in with my views to your situations.

I didn't take it as an attack - just a thoughtful rebuttal. What if the group of people who are open carrying guns decided to wear white pointed hoods while marching through a black area of town? I know that my examples are extreme, but once you permit open carry, how do you draw the line? What I'm trying to point out is that if you permit open carry, there is a risk that some "inventive" people will figure out how to use the visual of open carrying a gun to attempt to intimidate more than they otherwise would be capable of.

People wearing white pointed hats marching down a street (and this still happens from time to time) might just look sort of silly today. Strap on a loaded AR pistol to each one, and that ain't so silly any more. Is that legal open carry? Or a display of armed aggression?......Or both.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In a nutshell, these guys marched with lawfully carried rifles to protest that Temple PD illegally arrested a man out hiking with his son, jailed him and confiscated his firearms without receipt. There is an attached video of the march that I did not watch, but apparently it went off without a hitch.
The controversy was on FaceBook posts on the posted link. I will repost them here, redacting names, and would like your take on the exchange, if you don't mind.

To begin with, the arrest in March has NOT been determined to be illegal. I would have held off on the protest until which time it was. People think it was illegal, but despite the video provided by Grisham's son, nobody but the players and the court knows what occurred, information being apparently sealed for the time being from dash cams that did record it. Maybe it wasn't illegal. Right now, we just have Grisham's claims and limited statements by the cops. Jumping to conclusions prematurely is not good with legal matters.

Officer C in your exchange is apparently not familiar with the laws of Texas or the CHL program. C stated...

C ) Here in Texas, we have the easiest CHL available. We are a MUST issue state. Hey, we're Texas. We do not have open carry. We don't need open carry. If you don't have a criminal or mental history, your CHL will be in the mail in just a few weeks.

No, Texas is a SHALL issue state. According to folks over on the texaschlforum.com, the waiting period is currently 60+ days for some, but lots of people are going on 3 and 4 months. My last renewal took nearly 4 months as well (which is not in accord with the law).

C ) Still illegal in Texas and I hope it stays that way. Even as police officers we only carry open if in uniform.

"In uniform" is rather vague. I guess he means if displaying a shield and not dressed in patrol blues/khakis because lots of cops open carry out of street uniform, but they have a badge displayed, such as detectives/

With all that said, the exchange was rather silly about open carry and not open carry. The issue at hand was the carrying of a rifle in the open, not a pistol. Grisham's pistol was concealed, as it should have been. So open v. concealed pistol carry really is quite unrelated to the Grisham incident.

 

[mglass61]

People wearing white pointed hats marching down a street (and this still happens from time to time) might just look sort of silly today. Strap on a loaded AR pistol to each one, and that ain't so silly any more. Is that legal open carry? Or a display of armed aggression?......Or both.

In KY it would be legal and extremely distasteful but I don't feel just being armed automatically makes you aggressive. Sadly I'm aware it still happens as they held some sort of meeting close by to where I grew up when I was in high school. Obviously it was all the buz in the local media. They weren't armed that I'm aware of but nothing violent went down even though tons showed up to protest them.

For every open carry you see there is likely many more concealed carry you don't. The stigma just confuses me. I'd much rather see everyone open carry than conceal if I had to choose so you can see the people with weapons.

 

[Joespapa]

Grew up in NYC where there is virtually NO carry. Had a permit 'till I left due to political clout of my employer. Moved to Texas in 1975 ( before ccw) and nobody cared...i.e. rifle racks in trucks and LEGAL transport of loaded firearms when traveling between counties. Was county LEO in those days and I can testify, it read not an area of concern...Live in Oklahoma for last 25 years...we passed open carry here, I live in Tulsa , haven't seen ANYONE open carry around here!
There are some conclusions to be drawn. I leave that to you.

 

[Nathan]

You should watch the PBS show call "Constitution USA". Not everyone in America agrees on the "true" meaning of the Bill of Rights. As the host travel the US, there are different views on what constitute constitutional "rights" in different areas and times. The episode on the 2nd Amendment was very interesting.

There are gun owners who believe the federal government should stay away from any gun control legislation. But they get frustrated if another person in another area (ie, state/county/city) doesn't share the same view as them. Go figure!

I would agree that when interviewed, not all people living in America agree with what is written in the constitution. I think if they had to read it for content and their answers were the basis of whether or not harm came to them that their reading comprehension could improve. Some people choose not to comprehend and add their own flavor or meaning, but under pressure, they could figure it out.

It's like I feel the speed limit signs are "a suggested speed", but when holding the ticket in my hand, I can use my iPhone to figure out the phrase speed limit's exact meaning real quick!!!