TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08 ... ifying-it/

I didn't see this posted yet. Looks like 3 dudes with rifles were arrested at Starbucks.

Disorderly conduct charges.

Police eventually showed up after they received a call from a woman who claimed she was “freaked out” by the display of weapons.

Does not bode well for an open carry law in Texas - ever. If this standard remains, and I believe that there will ALWAYS be someone who is freaked out at the sight of a gun, the way that the open carry law is written is going to have to do more than just allow it.

OK and AZ have open carry and I've never seen any similar story. Is it just that the populations of those States are no freaked out as much as some people in Texas? I do understand that just because a State permits OC, doesn't mean that 100s or 1,000s are doing it daily.

Keith B wrote:Disorderly conduct charges.

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

RottenApple wrote:

Keith B wrote:Disorderly conduct charges.

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

Or not depending in the ADA / DA and there desire to sell it to a GJ.
Lets remember, SA is the Texas city that created a law where a blade less than five and one-half (5 1/2) inches in length, which knife is equipped with a lock mechanism so that upon opening, it becomes a fixed blade knife is illegal... That means my 1 3/4" lock blade CRKT PECK makes me a criminal in SA.

"manner calculated to alarm" is subjective and based on what and how it is "sold" and who is listening.

While most of those that post in this forum might say " The mere public display of a weapon does not constitute "manner calculated to alarm"
There are others that will say, any carrying of a firearm in public by those not a LEO are carrying in a "manner calculated to alarm"

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.

talltex wrote: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.

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.

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.

I walked into a gun store in Texas this weekend carrying my AR 10. No one freaked out. If I carried the same rifle in the same town into the grocery store or the bank the results would have been much different. The right time & place matters. In AZ or OK try walking down the street with an AK47 ans see if police don't show up.

chasfm11 wrote:

Police eventually showed up after they received a call from a woman who claimed she was “freaked out” by the display of weapons.

Does not bode well for an open carry law in Texas - ever. If this standard remains, and I believe that there will ALWAYS be someone who is freaked out at the sight of a gun, the way that the open carry law is written is going to have to do more than just allow it.

OK and AZ have open carry and I've never seen any similar story. Is it just that the populations of those States are no freaked out as much as some people in Texas? I do understand that just because a State permits OC, doesn't mean that 100s or 1,000s are doing it daily.

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.

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 .....".

Let's suppose that open carry of handguns were allowed in this state and these men were sitting outside the same Starbucks having a beverage with their handguns holstered and a citizen walks by and is "freaked out" and calls the police. Are they going to get a disorderly conduct citation for open carry? I'm going to say probably not. How is it any different?

They were carrying evil "assault" rifles that by their mere presence will make people drop dead from fright. if it had been a .30-30 lever gun . . .

Guess I should start calling the police every time I go to Walmart or just about any place in San Antonio. Some of the people I see freak me out without them even carrying a gun.

Maybe we all should start calling the police freaked out.

mojo84 wrote:Guess I should start calling the police every time I go to Walmart or just about any place in San Antonio. Some of the people I see freak me out without them even carrying a gun.

Maybe we all should start calling the police freaked out.

I was thinking the same thing

The Texas Disorderly Conduct law is a bad statute.

Meanwhile, there were 100 people counter-protesting MAIG in Columbus OH this week, and they were all carrying NRA-ILA signs and open carrying holstered handguns and slung rifles. There was no hint of anyone being arrested for disorderly conduct in Ohio. Do you know why? Ohio's statute has none of this "calculated to cause alarm" garbage:

Ohio Revised Code 2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.