TexasCHLforum.com

I'm a long time lurker, and have learned a lot from this message board. I am usually content to just sit back, watch, and occasionally participate in the calls to action. Until I saw this bill.
I wanted to make sure the community was aware of it. It seems the intent is to make it a crime to film a police officer within 25 feet of him performing his duty. Which, I suppose I don't have MUCH of a problem with. They have a job to do, and folks need to give them room.
HOWEVER, if you are carrying a weapon under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, you must stay back 100 feet. This extra 75 foot "constitution free zone" is highly offensive to me. And I have absolutely NO plans on running around recording the police.

I do have a dash camera in my vehicle. Am I to understand that it is against the law for me to record a police officer within 100 feet of my vehicle? What if I am carrying under Subchapter H (and I ALWAYS carry on my person in my vehicle) and I am pulled over? The way the law is written now it looks like I am committing a crime.

Here is a link to the bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB2918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MojaveMan wrote:I'm a long time lurker, and have learned a lot from this message board. I am usually content to just sit back, watch, and occasionally participate in the calls to action. Until I saw this bill.
I wanted to make sure the community was aware of it. It seems the intent is to make it a crime to film a police officer within 25 feet of him performing his duty. Which, I suppose I don't have MUCH of a problem with. They have a job to do, and folks need to give them room.
HOWEVER, if you are carrying a weapon under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, you must stay back 100 feet. This extra 75 foot "constitution free zone" is highly offensive to me. And I have absolutely NO plans on running around recording the police.

I do have a dash camera in my vehicle. Am I to understand that it is against the law for me to record a police officer within 100 feet of my vehicle? What if I am carrying under Subchapter H (and I ALWAYS carry on my person in my vehicle) and I am pulled over? The way the law is written now it looks like I am committing a crime.

Here is a link to the bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB2918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ya I would have to agree with you they need space to work but the firearm part bother me.

Thanks for brining it up.

I have a hard time believing that this will go anywhere, or prove to be constitutional if it were ever passed.

The sort of subtle implication is that somebody legally carrying a concealed handgun is more of a threat. I'm pretty cynical about such things, and I see this (just as Doctors asking about firearms) as one of those little ways that anti-gun folks implant doubt or kind of allege that only anti-gov wackos carrying guns would be recording Police Officers.

As for the 100ft limit, that's not a problem. Modern camera phones zoom just fine. I'm actually surprised that the restriction (insofar as there is one) is only 25 ft. for the 'normal' people. (again, subtle implication is normal folks can film at 25ft...)

I agree this probably won't go anywhere, but I do think it's possible this proposed change will show up in a news report/article.

This is in response to Kory Watkins and the OC marches, but it looks like it it aimed more at Watkins and his cop watch/block crowd. The issues I have is that they do not provide an exception for someone being stopped by law enforcement, they specifically add a penalty for possessing a firearm while recording, and no exception for a license holder who gets stopped while recording either.

suthdj wrote:
Ya I would have to agree with you they need space to work but the firearm part bother me.

The whole thing bothers me. This is not about getting in the way of police officers (it's OK to be within 25' if you don't have a camera?), this is targeting videoing them at work.

To get full understanding I will have to look at the whole statute in question, but it appears it does several obnoxious and unconstitutional things.
- It attempts to provide "news media" with greater 1A and reporting "privileges" than other citizens. The standard corporate news media do not own the First Amendment and should not gain extra privileges under it, nor should regular citizens be denied protection under it.
- One of the things to look up is to see how the "Emergency" definition plays into this, but it could mean that means you could not legally record police officers in your own home unless you have really large rooms -- and then you'd have to stand on the other side of the room. Or maybe traffic stops (because I am leery as to how the Emergency definition would get stretched...)
- Adding an extra 75' because the videographer is carrying with a CHL is really disgusting -- we know how all those background-checked, non-felonious, taxpaying individuals are four times as dangerous as anyone else. ... and it would not apply to Grisham or Watkins, since neither is eligible for a CHL.

Who on earth is Villalba, the author? Anyone here know him? He should get lots of grief over this.

I believe the author is a republician also.

G.A. Heath wrote:This is in response to Kory Watkins and the OC marches, but it looks like it it aimed more at Watkins and his cop watch/block crowd. The issues I have is that they do not provide an exception for someone being stopped by law enforcement, they specifically add a penalty for possessing a firearm while recording, and no exception for a license holder who gets stopped while recording either.

I don't agree. It doesn't say carrying a gun, it says specifically licensed to carry a handgun under the authority of .....

ralewis wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This is in response to Kory Watkins and the OC marches, but it looks like it it aimed more at Watkins and his cop watch/block crowd. The issues I have is that they do not provide an exception for someone being stopped by law enforcement, they specifically add a penalty for possessing a firearm while recording, and no exception for a license holder who gets stopped while recording either.

I don't agree. It doesn't say carrying a gun, it says specifically licensed to carry a handgun under the authority of .....

You're correct, it expressly references CHLs. However, it most definitely is in response to Kory Watkins' COP Watch group and activities. While Kory doesn't have a CHL, the presumption is that many in his group do.

Chas.

Would be interesting to contemplate the constitutionality of the first part. Thats a fair distance away and courts have ruled in the past that bystanders-if not interfering- have a right to video police.

ralewis wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This is in response to Kory Watkins and the OC marches, but it looks like it it aimed more at Watkins and his cop watch/block crowd. The issues I have is that they do not provide an exception for someone being stopped by law enforcement, they specifically add a penalty for possessing a firearm while recording, and no exception for a license holder who gets stopped while recording either.

I don't agree. It doesn't say carrying a gun, it says specifically licensed to carry a handgun under the authority of .....

I am working on something else and forgot to translate this from my note format into forumese. This is aimed at Watkins, and the cop-watch/block bunch. The bill targets CHLs but there should be an exception when a CHL is stopped by peace officers and there should be an exception for CHLs who are stopped while recording something else.

Unconstitutional.

Still allows for long gun and black powder carry, but makes CHL illegal within 100 ft. Ridiculous.

I am reading the text of the bill and comparing it to the current statute, and it sure isn't getting any better.

Interfering with a peace officer (and an EMS or firefighter or police animal) is a Class B Misdemeanor. The bill raises that to Class A only for CHLs (who are carrying) videoing within 100', not for anyone else. There are exceptions for certain CHL holders tho: "news media employees" and employees of LE organizations. How nice.

Disgusting bill.

Police need to be able to be observed and documented by people as long as they do not interfere with their duties. There's no need to put a distance limit. Just let a jury decide if someone was actually interfering or simply observing.