San Antonio open carry rifle subjs arrested

[puma guy]

Disorderly conduct charges.

A powerful "catch-all" that can be used against those otherwise acting legally.

I don't know how long that law has been on the books, but there was a time when laws were written to control certain groups of people, especially blacks and vague laws are much easier to enforce. Just as restrictive firearms laws were written to keep weapons out of the hands of people.

[gigag04]

TLDR...


...but DOC of any kind will delay a CHL 5 years.

[ATDM]

Does anyone know about the current status of the arrested?

San Antonio cops (at least, some of them) are either ignorant of the firearms laws in Texas, or they are being pawns in someone's political games. I hope they get reprimanded.

Is there any legal action possible against these police officers and their superiors? If yes, do you think it will be pursued?

Thanks

[cb1000rider]

Reprimanded for what? They were called and took an action. They could just have easily been reprimanded by the public (or media) for taking no action.
Don't get me wrong - I support the 2nd and think the LEOs did the wrong thing, but in the grand scheme of what is going to get you in trouble as a public servant, this isn't going to be one of those cases.
I was talking to an Austin PD officer just the other day, I actually didn't bring it up, but he indicated that he'd behave exactly the same way - only it wouldn't be a citation he was writing... If he had to come out because someone was acting "improperly" and wasting his time, there would be an implication... And the legal side of it could be worked out in the courts, but the problem would immediately be solved from his perspective.

I take comfort in seeing some videos on the internet where LEOs indicate that they will take action and they're properly corrected by higher ups... And in this case, the LEOs did issue citations, instead of having these individuals take a ride.

For you guys that think this isn't the appropriate way to behave - what are the alternatives that allow us to retain our rights to handle a long gun in public? I understand the public's concern, certainly... But we need to collectively choose that we want to be overly cautious or we choose to accept what rights are granted in the constitution. Personally, I'm conflicted on it... But the bad arrests/citations really bother me.

[Cedar Park Dad]

For you guys that think this isn't the appropriate way to behave - what are the alternatives that allow us to retain our rights to handle a long gun in public?

Do like it was done when I was young (and dinosaurs and Comanches roamed), carry long guns in places where long guns are appropriate, and actually used. Aka carry them in areas where they are the tools they are meant to be used at, not "a statement." Carry them hunting, or on your rural property, or hiking, etc. Don't take them to Willowbrook Mall.

[texanjoker]

Reprimanded for what? They were called and took an action. They could just have easily been reprimanded by the public (or media) for taking no action.
Don't get me wrong - I support the 2nd and think the LEOs did the wrong thing, but in the grand scheme of what is going to get you in trouble as a public servant, this isn't going to be one of those cases.
I was talking to an Austin PD officer just the other day, I actually didn't bring it up, but he indicated that he'd behave exactly the same way - only it wouldn't be a citation he was writing... If he had to come out because someone was acting "improperly" and wasting his time, there would be an implication... And the legal side of it could be worked out in the courts, but the problem would immediately be solved from his perspective.

I take comfort in seeing some videos on the internet where LEOs indicate that they will take action and they're properly corrected by higher ups... And in this case, the LEOs did issue citations, instead of having these individuals take a ride.

For you guys that think this isn't the appropriate way to behave - what are the alternatives that allow us to retain our rights to handle a long gun in public? I understand the public's concern, certainly... But we need to collectively choose that we want to be overly cautious or we choose to accept what rights are granted in the constitution. Personally, I'm conflicted on it... But the bad arrests/citations really bother me.

You brought up a good point there about the citations. There are those that will arrest any offense just to say they made an arrest, and there is some common sense. This case could be one. They may have been in a position they had to take an action, and by issuing a citation they did something w/o putting a person in jail which costs money when they bond out.

[Keith B]

You brought up a good point there about the citations. There are those that will arrest any offense just to say they made an arrest, and there is some common sense. This case could be one. They may have been in a position they had to take an action, and by issuing a citation they did something w/o putting a person in jail which costs money when they bond out.

I think the officers knew it was more than likely not going to stick, and maybe even not valid, so the citation was more of a nuisance and if/when dropped by the DA there should be no lawyer fees, etc.

[cb1000rider]

I think the officers knew it was more than likely not going to stick, and maybe even not valid, so the citation was more of a nuisance and if/when dropped by the DA there should be no lawyer fees, etc.

Good guy officers, if you're right... Solves the immediate problem without undue hardship on people that were not legally doing anything wrong. I like that.

The downside is that in most jurisdictions, in order to plead not-guilty you're going to pay a bond... There is a penalty here, it's just not as grand as the arrest. On paper, the charges are probably the same and are likely to have long term consequences.

[Beiruty]

So are the Charges dismissed?

[texanjoker]

So are the Charges dismissed?

I think too fast... We do need follow up though.

[rockinar]

Disorderly conduct charges.

Yeah, but if they weren't carrying "in a manner calculated to alarm" it'll get quietly dropped.

WRONG. They dont have to carry in a particular manner. All it takes is one person to call and say "Im freaked out" and thats all thats needed. These AR15 clowns are done.

[rbwhatever1]

"collectively choose that we want to be overly cautious or we choose to accept what rights are granted in the constitution"

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It restricts the State from Infringing on our "Inalienable rights granted from god alone for being born Free men" and subjects to no State. The "collective" cannot vote away our Natural Rights...just sayin.

Happy Tuesday Texas, strap on those "ugly rifles" and let Freedom Ring!

[E.Marquez]

Disorderly conduct charges.

Yeah, but if they weren't carrying "in a manner calculated to alarm" it'll get quietly dropped.

WRONG. They dont have to carry in a particular manner. All it takes is one person to call and say "Im freaked out" and thats all thats needed. These AR15 clowns are done.

Can you say why you believe that to be true?

Is there case law you are aware of where someone was charged and convicted of disorderly conduct in Texas for display of a rifle in a like manner as those in the video?

Could you point out, which element of the law they ran afoul of when if/when someone called and "freaked out" ? Im not seeing others freaking out as a required element of the crime...
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.42.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Para 8 is pretty specific...
"(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"
Based on the video evidence we have to observe and comment on... can you point out the part in that video that demonstrates the actors intent calculated to alarm?

Thanks

[cb1000rider]

Here's the policy that needs changing, as reported by the media:

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus agreed with the men’s charges, although they didn’t technically break any laws. He explained that the person carrying a firearm can be charged with disorderly conduct if at any time any person for any reason feels threatened.

Ref:
http://www.guns.com/2013/09/03/men-char ... cks-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully the Chief didn't say it like that.. As "not breaking any laws" and "charged with disorderly conduct" don't make any sense.
Clearly the officers that did this aren't going to face repercussions and IF there is to be reeducation, it's going to start from the top down. However, I don't think that will be the case...

Are they actually guilty of disorderly conduct?

I don't think it matters:
1) The PD solved the immediate problem that they were faced with.
2) The officers involved took actions that the top of the SAPD supports.
3) The fine for disorderly conduct maxes out at $500. So now these guys are faced with defending against a ticket that will cost them a fraction of their legal fees if they were to challenge it and likely lose the opportunity to defer the issue or have it otherwise adjudicated without conviction.

It's really not innocent until proven guilty on charges like this. It's guilty when charged, unless you have the time and the money to prove otherwise. BTW, It took me longer than it should have to learn this little fact personally. Law Enforcement Officers have one of the most powerful jobs in the USA, IMHO, especially if you can't afford a good legal defense.

I could be wrong, if the DA drops the charges.. And sometimes that happens in cases like this where we've got a camera...

We do not have a true right to display long rifles in Texas, especially not "black" ones... That's just the reality of it.

[cb1000rider]

It's easy to clear this up with a simple amendment like Wisconsin has:
REF: Wis. Stat. §§ 947.01(2) and. 66.0409(6)."

66.0409 (6) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or
malicious intent on the part of the person apply, no person may be in violation of, or
be charged with a violation of, an ordinance of a political subdivision relating to
disorderly conduct or other inappropriate behavior for loading, carrying, or going
armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed
or openly carried. Any ordinance in violation of this subsection does not apply and
may not be enforced.