TexasCHLforum.com

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

suthdj wrote: Exactly what I said "Railroad" not saying it ain't legal it is just wrong. JMHO. After serving as many years as he did, they force him out with no retirment that is flat out wrong.

I assume your just guessing at all this? (that's not a flame or snide comment.. just an observation, no disrespect intended)

If you can cite your source I'd love to go though what your reading.

Assuming your guessing....
1st; Admin separation has nothing to do with his retirement.
2nd; His past actions mean squat if his current actions are counter to his service obligations. As it should be.... you can be the greatest American in the history of the world last year, but be a disgrace or otherwise violate service regulations today and you deserve action.
3rd; Even if the command wanted to both separate him and deny his retirement benefits, it would take a complete separate board, convening authority, and level of approval. It's basically as big a deal as general court marshal.

Lastly, that's not railroading in any way I can see other then putting on some tinfoil. Those are black and white regulations he has access to, gets classes on, is charged with knowing and enforcing on his subordinates.. So he can not claim ignorance that he did not know his disgraceful and likely violating UCMJ actions were going to cause him issues.

suthdj wrote:

texanjoker wrote:I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

They can ralroad him out, charge him ,put him in a dark hole of a desk job until he retires, or do nothing. It all depends on his commands view on things.

Railroad?

That sounds so sinister..

Perhaps they could simply administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

Or charge him under one or more articles of the UCMJ that also apply, and then administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

The UCMJ and AR 135–178

texanjoker wrote:I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

Yet another reason to dislike Mr Grisham. .. his actions taint others ...

This next trial of Mr Grisham should be as enlightening as the first.

Perhaps it's time to change the thread title.

MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

While it WAS accurate at the time, it's now misleading...He was convicted... Seeing as we are not allowed to start a new thread that has much the same content but under a more accurate name..... if this is to be the continuing one.. perhaps change the title to something reflective of his current position.
" Previously convicted Grisham, arrested again. Charged with Trespassing."

"The job of the police is to deal with people who are exhibiting criminal behavior. The more that the police are called to act upon law abiding citizens, the more likely it is for a regrettable incident to occur."

OK, fair enough.

When is it ok for police to contact a person reported to them as out of place, not doing something common, carrying a rifle at the ready, in a area with no obvious reason or common reason for doing so?

Is it never ok, because they have not observed a crime in progress?
Is it ok if they see something that may be a criminal act, but can only know for sure if they contact him?
42.01 disorderly conduct.
:(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
How would you propose an officer, after getting a MWG call, should determine the mans intent, if you believe the officer had no right to stop and talk to Grisham? (I know, many of us do not like the law as written, but for now,, that is not part of the discussion, as it is the law)

According to the article, he was arrested at the 7000 Block of Prairie View road. The top red line points to his home. The report says that he was first spotted in the area of Airport Road and Old Howard Road. (Bottom red line.)

[Links to questionable Internet sites deleted. DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!!]


Some guy outside of a movie theater not to long ago was not doing anything obviously a crime in it self.... so if police had seen him,, they should have just tipped their hat and walked on, as they observed no crime in progress.. Yes?
How about outside of a navy yard?

When is it OK in YOUR opinion for LEO's to stop a citizen they observe, and or has been reported as doing something that depending on the circumstances may be a crime? Never? sometimes? only if they know in that person mind he will be committing a crime soon?[/quote]

baldeagle wrote: Please enlighten us backward bumpkins.

Thus ends my participation in this thread...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.

Yes Sir

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Justice has been served.. My hope is he gets the full 180 days and $2000 fine, loss of CHL due to conviction of a class A misdemeanor

It is being reported as interference with the duties of an officer a class B Mis

OK, good catch.. yet still

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to
carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding
the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a
license under Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of age;
(3) has not been convicted of a felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a C lass A or Class B
misdemeanor or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01,
Penal Code, or equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information or
indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B
misdemeanor or equivalent offense;
(6) is not a chemically dependent person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the
proper use and storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been
convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of
an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law

Justice has been served.. My hope is he gets the full 180 days and $2000 fine, loss of CHL due to conviction of a class A misdemeanor