TexasCHLforum.com

Moby wrote:The problem is the men were were carrying AR rifles. Completely out of context for a starbucks and yes this type of behavior freaks people out.
People doing things like this thinking the local LE will allow it are hurting the open carry cause. People would be more accepting of sidearms openly carried.

The fact that it "freaks someone out" does NOT make it illegal though. The law says you CAN do it with a rifle or shotgun...period. The law says you CANNOT do it with a sidearm...period. The emotional response of people who don't know or understand the law should have no bearing on the legal response to someone engaged in a legal activity...period. I understand what you're saying, and this isn't something I would do personally, but we can't just ignore the fact that it IS legal, and if we take the attitude that we shouldn't do it just because it may upset someone who doesn't understand it, then what difference do any of the laws make. It's a dangerously slippery slope once you start that process of "well, yes it's legal, BUT .....".

E.Marquez wrote:[
Thats the point....the LEO can if they so choose (are directed) arrest anyone one at any time.....using disorderly conduct.. you can be arrested... simply "because".

Whether or not a judge or jury of your peers concurs is another expensive story.

I understand that quite clearly...that was my point...they were being charged without justification, simply because the officers (and/or someone up the chain of command...I listened to the Chief's statement also) WANTED to do so. I've seen "public intoxication" charges used the same way...you can be charged anytime/anywhere and arrested and taken to jail based solely on the officer's opinion...there is no requirement for a blood or breath test to be administered...and then it's up to the person charged to "prove a negative", which by it's nature, is very difficult to do, unless you have strong, credible eye witnesses to back you up.

Charging them with "disorderly conduct" seems like a big stretch after watching the entire video. They were polite and cooperated with the officers...explained exactly what they were doing...had even made an attempt (unsuccessful) to notify the police department ahead of time. They were not displaying the weapons in any kind of alarming manner, and explained to anyone that asked, what and why they were doing it. They didn't even argue about showing their ID's to the officers. They weren't rude and didn't get agitated when they were told they were going to be cited for disorderly conduct...just asked why that was being done when they had broken no laws...one of them asked if public ignorance of the law was justification for a charge of disorderly conduct...and I think that was a very good question. When the woman manager came out, and said she didn't want them there, they immediately volunteered to leave as soon as the officer finished handing out the citations. They were not violating the law...they even complied with the City ordinance that required the rifles to be unloaded...no citizen filed any complaint against them...how is the charge justifiable? It's simply a "catch all" charge that can be used against someone anytime because the required legal elements of the offense are so vague.