TexasCHLforum.com

Joker, what happens internally when you make arrests that the DA decides not to prosecute? Is there any feedback loop on that sort of stuff?

I heard on the news yesterday that the Austin DA dropped charges against the members of OCT that were carrying black powder pistols. I could only find one reference to it:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/275431 ... es-dropped" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And I found - which may or may not be the same event:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11/ch ... texas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Joker reported the actual charges as "criminal trespass with a deadly weapon". The media reports the original charges as "disorderly conduct"...

[Pre-paid legal service] defended at least some of them.

From what I can tell, the DPS asked them to leave and then immediately arrested them.. At least that's one story. The other story is that they didn't leave.

Can the DPS ask you to leave if demonstrating in a peaceful manner at the capital? Do we need a permit for democracy these days?

Note, I don't support these antics, but I see the result as an affirmation. I wonder if the DPS will handle it differently next time?

jmra wrote: Absolutely incorrect. To suggest that I asked permission in order to obtain my CHL infers that DPS could say no to my application. The fact of the matter is legally they can't. Therefore I did not ask permission. In fact I did just the opposite. By completing my application I demanded that they issue my CHL as they are required to do by law.

I understand your point. You're saying that the DPS cannot legally refuse to issue unless there the applicant falls into a category where they have the authority to refuse. I get it and don't disagree with that fact.

Think about my points:
1) A right is something that we are granted. Additional "steps" should not be required. Privileges, such as a drivers license, have strings attached. Does Texas treat the right to carry a firearm like a right or more like a privilege?
2) A fee applies to exercise the right. Even if we don't consider the DPS issuing situation, I've still got to pay want is a non-insignificant amount of money for the training, background check, and fingerprints. The end result is that not everyone can afford to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

Look I'm not saying that Texas shouldn't require background checks and fees for CHL. In terms of practicality, I'm on board. I'm simply saying that viewing it on a constitutional basis, it's not being treated like a fundamental constitutional right. The 2nd amendment, as I think it was intended by the founding fathers, does not exist in Texas.

jmra wrote: Who's asking permission? Texas is a shall issue state. No one is asking permission. IMHO you are unnecessarily carrying a chip on your shoulder.

Because we have to be licensed and pay fees, we're all essentially asking permission. He's just providing a nod to the reality of the 2nd amendment in Texas. It's not just an issue of criminality. We shouldn't have to pay or jump through hoops to exercise rights. We pay and jump through hoops to exercise privileges.

Do you need a license or have to fill out an application to post a political sign? How about to join a church? Those are first amendment rights.

Although I have mixed feelings about open carry, I support the ideology of the constitution, which says I can keep and bear arms.

Robert*PPS wrote:Look, our justice system is such that LEOs are not the determiners of what is just. They are enforcers of just laws as determined by the people. If a LEO suspects that a crime has been committed, they detain and charge. The DA prosecutes those charges. A law may or may not have been broken, but our system calls for that to be proved in a court of law....not on the side of the road or anywhere else. Now, it may be determined in a court of law that no law was broken, or it may not even be prosecuted at all, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a bad arrest.
.

The reality is that LEOs are the determiners for many people. They typically determine what the law is unless they're arresting someone of above-average means who can afford to defend him or herself.
Many charges - such as disorderly conduct, public intoxication, or perhaps carrying concealed while intoxicated leave it largely up to officer discretion. The other side is that even if you can afford to defend against it, the act of an arrest itself is inherently punitive. The record of the arrest stays. You don't get your legal defense money back.

APD did the right thing here by asking them to leave.

They chose a court battle. They'll get one.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You may well be right, but there is no political downside for law enforcement, while there is for the protesters. They lose, their cause loses, and the definition of "firearms" will very possibly be changed. That's the reality of the situation.

Chas.

I tend to agree with you. It's easy and very reasonable for a LEO to claim "looked like a firearm and I couldn't tell the date". Whomever chose to enforce did offer a "please leave" option before arresting people, so a reasonable compromise was attempted.


If you look at the occupy Austin, local enforcement was very clearly overstepped. Here's what the district judge had to say:

Having determined that the actions of the Occupy Austin protestors including Plaintiffs in this case, are protected by the First Amendment; that the City's policy regarding the issuing of criminal-tresspass notices does not serve as a valid time, place, and manner restriction and is not narrowly tailored to achieve a significant public interest....<blah blah>

I don't see anyone arguing here that they did not have a right to be at that location with antique firearms. Even the PD carefully chose the words "suspected deadly weapons" carefully. Likely they knew they were legal... They were annoying the powers that be and there is enough conjecture available for a clean arrest.

Chas, they may very well get black powder written out of the loopholes. Personally, I don't care. I do care that these guys appear a little nutty to the more moderate general public - people that we need to support more moderate firearms rights. They might also win in court and get local policies change - winning a battle at the cost of doing more damage to the war.

Again, I feel mixed. Exercised rights are not rights at all. It's crystal clear that we've got a great example of that here.