TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath

philip964 wrote:And I didn't even know about this. The police could have shot all these guys if they moved at all. Sure glad the Supreme Court ruled that all subjects have a right to bear arms. Seems no one listened. I hope they get a lot of money.

At this time the United States Supreme Court has only ruled on the right to keep arms, although it has strongly indicated how it will rule when the right to bear arms comes before it.

G.A. Heath

I hate to break it to you if you have ever had any official dealings (Traffic stop, reporting something, ect) with law enforcement then you have been referred to as a subject. In fact, when the DPS handled your CHL packet they probably referred to you as .... a subject. The officers in the story were wrong in their actions, no question about it, but to take them to task over using the word subject as they have been trained is pointless when there are bigger issues. You want something done about it, then go all politically correct on them and see how much success you have.

G.A. Heath

Liberty wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.
Words have meanings. If they meant citizen, person, suspect, man or woman they should says so. In this case, the meaning of the spoken words are supported by the actions of the department. Their disregard for for our laws, constitution and fellow citizens has been made clear. These people divide the world into 2 classes the ruling class and the ruled. They know that they get to punish people even if they break no law. The common folk who displease the the elete, still have to go to court, pay the bonds, pay the lawyer and miss work,find little pleasure in being found innocent while the elitist chief and DA goes unpunished with full pay.
The real criminals are those who pursue the disarmament of the law abiding. Maybe the courts should order the disarmament of the criminal Madison Police Department and let them see how they like it.

I (meaning myself) don't (meaning do not) believe (meaning have confidence that this is the truth) that you (meaning Liberty) really (meaning as apposed to what was posted earlier) want (meaning desire) to go down this road (meaning to take this course of action).

The English language often provides contextual clues to the meaning of words. Sometimes those clues are the speaker, words spoken (or written) with it, or even the intended audience. I disagree with the actions of the officers, but going after a professional for using the language as he was trained to do is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I have this bad habit of calling things like I see them, and in this case anyone who tries to make a federal case over the use of the word subject(s) really needs to find better material for a debate.

G.A. Heath

flb_78 wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

I do and I use it all the time, its also the number where I call to get permission to use the range, let them know when we have people inside where I work after hours, and report disabled motorist and/or accidents (I live 20 miles away from work).

G.A. Heath

99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.

G.A. Heath

Actually if this makes it to the federal circuit level and the Open Carriers loose then that federal circuit decision would be in conflict with (I think) the 10th Circuit decision (a New Mexico case I think) that said OC by itself was not grounds for a Disorderly Conduct charge and we could easily see a Supreme Court decision on this issue.

Ok I'll admit it, I have been drinking too much of the SAF kool-aid and have started seeing Potential Supreme court cases all over the place.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon

Re: Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wiscon