Open Shotgun Carry in Austin

[ifanyonecan]

but mostly my brother and I would go out to shoot ... and the occasional skunk (because they bothered the dogs).

You're a brave one I'll give you that (or absolutely no sense of smell).


What did the UT vampire say?

I wasn't able to meet this morning, since UT delayed opening until 10:00. I'm rescheduled for Friday at 11:00.

Rather than mocking me and questioning my ideas and what they're based on, it would be nice if you'd provide your own years of experience with openly carrying long guns. What other historical research can you provide.

I did not mock you. I pointed out a lack of experience on your part, bolstered by the question you posed. If you took offense, that was not my intent. I even said, and I quote, "I don't mean to denigrate you, and your passion for the RKBA is admirable."

As to my experience, if you're in college, then I am old enough to be your grandad. I'm not going to waste my time or yours with details. Let's just say that enough years of life experience has taught me what is wise, and what is not, and I'll leave it at that. You may, of course, do whatever you want with that.

Peace out.

I'd really like it if you could provide some details with experiences on this. Or is it mostly general wisdom you're talking about? In which case, I understand better where you were coming from before. That's a big reason I decided to post here. The advice I've seen given on here is much more rational, wise, and factual than 99% of the internet.

Throughout this thread there are several posts saying not to do this, saying I'll be tackled, etc. But I don't see how I'll be breaking any laws. Wouldn't a lawyer find it easy to fight the arrest and perhaps get damages for false arrest and/or excessive force (the fact that I have a gun is no reason to use any more force unless I'm threatening)?

[ifanyonecan]

but mostly my brother and I would go out to shoot ... and the occasional skunk (because they bothered the dogs).

You're a brave one I'll give you that (or absolutely no sense of smell).

Oh also, we didn't give it a chance to spray. My brother took the 12-gauge and jumped around the corner of our garage about five feet from it. He quickly fired, and the skunk parts were pretty much embedded in the soil.

Another time, my brother and granddad ended up chasing a skunk all over our property before finally shooting it with a 30-06 (overkill has no meaning in our family). That skunk was likewise obliterated.

[frazzled]

Throughout this thread there are several posts saying not to do this, saying I'll be tackled, etc. But I don't see how I'll be breaking any laws. Wouldn't a lawyer find it easy to fight the arrest and perhaps get damages for false arrest and/or excessive force (the fact that I have a gun is no reason to use any more force unless I'm threatening)?

Hypothetically if you did this (I think your conversation with the UT will help in this line of thought):
-911
-There's a crazy with a shotgun walking by UT!
-Police arrive, see person with shotgun (or worse person in suit with shotgun which just screams what the heck?), pull weaponry
-You're eating pavement.
However I could see the above scenario going bad and being much much worse.

[UpTheIrons]

Throughout this thread there are several posts saying not to do this, saying I'll be tackled, etc. But I don't see how I'll be breaking any laws. Wouldn't a lawyer find it easy to fight the arrest and perhaps get damages for false arrest and/or excessive force?

As others have said, I admire your tenacity. As to being tackled for carrying a long gun near the UT campus, please review this thread, which has been suggested before: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And remember, for the cops that approach you on the street after they have been notified of "a man with a gun," their interpretation of the law is the truth until someone else informs them otherwise. That other person will not be you. Not because you don't know the law, but because they will not listen to the guy in cuffs explaining why what the cops just did was wrong.

Maybe they'll tackle you, maybe they won't. And yes, a lawyer may well be able to 'fix' things later, but the old adage goes "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." Then again, stressful situations and drawn guns don't mix. I don't say that to impugn APD, or to infer that anything you do would be threatening from your point of view, but it has happened before. I can't imagine a police officer approaching "a man with a gun" without thinking that he may have to draw his duty gun, if he hasn't already.

Again, if you plan on going ahead with this, please do so only after great deliberation and eyes wide open, with humility and politeness, weighing the possibilities of all outcomes.

[ifanyonecan]

The only thing is, I don't plan on doing this without all my bases covered. If I walk with my shotgun, I will not be arrested, because I'll make sure beforehand I won't be. I still need to talk to the police department and see what they think the law is. As has been said, if they think it's illegal, I'm not going to do it just yet.

[aggie06]

Maybe I missed something, but can we step back for a minute from the legal issues. What is your intended purpose here? You're not proving to the world that there are many that agree with you if you're the only one doing it. Are you going to have others with you?

You're not carrying it for protection, but to prove that you can, right? I just think there may be a better way to get your point across. If you're trying to advocate for open carry legislation, maybe the empty holster would be a better plan?

[The Annoyed Man]

I'd really like it if you could provide some details with experiences on this. Or is it mostly general wisdom you're talking about? In which case, I understand better where you were coming from before.

I was talking more along the lines of general wisdom. I take my cues as much as possible from the Bible. I'm not trying to preach any theology here, but there is a lot of common wisdom to be found in the Good Book, whether or not you believe in the theology. One of those principles is when from Matthew 10:16, when Jesus is sending his disciples out to preach, and he tells them, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Modern secular translation: "It's a dangerous world out there. Be smart, and don't get people unnecessarily riled up." That's just common wisdom. So in this context, ask yourself, "If I am walking around the streets with an openly carried shotgun (which other people are going to assume is loaded), is it smart, and will it get people unnecessarily riled up?" The most likely answer is, "It probably will get people unnecessarily riled up, therefore it might not be the smartest thing to do." Here's another one: Discretion is the bettor part of valor.

Please understand that I share the same end desire - the completely unrestricted RKBA. The problem is how we got to where we are now. The unrestricted right was infringed incrementally over a fairly long period of time. Think of the frog boiling analogy. We (gun owners) were complacent, and the opposition raised the temp of the water so slowly, we never noticed it going up. Pretty soon the water is boiling and we are in dire straights. To get back to where we were before "progressives" began trampling our rights, the incremental approach in the other direction is the better way. It requires great patience on our parts, but its effects will be more permanent. When you try to shock people into giving you want you want, more often than not, the reaction will be the opposite of what you desire.

So that is where I am coming from. I hope that helps.

[ifanyonecan]

This article relates to the matter very well. I found it while lurking other forums here.

A Federal judge ruled that police cannot detain you for OC without probable cause of criminal activity

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-R ... rying-guns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.
In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.
On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that
"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[The Annoyed Man]

A satisfactory outcome. Unfortunately, it took place in New Mexico where open carry is already an established fact with supporting case law. I wouldn't depend on that particular ruling to get you out of trouble here in Texas if the cops roust you for openly carrying a long gun. You might (maybe) beat the rap, but not the ride, and that's kind of what's at stake in your own proposal about patrolling your area with a long gun - not to mention any possible push-back from local residents and business owners.

[frazzled]

A satisfactory outcome. Unfortunately, it took place in New Mexico where open carry is already an established fact with supporting case law. I wouldn't depend on that particular ruling to get you out of trouble here in Texas if the cops roust you for openly carrying a long gun. You might (maybe) beat the rap, but not the ride, and that's kind of what's at stake in your own proposal about patrolling your area with a long gun - not to mention any possible push-back from local residents and business owners.

Don't forget the legal bills. The read is one thing but legal bills will bankrupt you depending on what the charges are.

[DaveT]

This thread actually might have a positive result.
It just might be an opportunity for several of us
to get together and meet one another.....

when the Austin District Attorney's office subpoena's
us to come and testify that we tried our best to talk
'ifanyonecan' out of his proposed course of action.

[chabouk]

This thread actually might have a positive result.
It just might be an opportunity for several of us
to get together and meet one another.....

when the Austin District Attorney's office subpoena's
us to come and testify that we tried our best to talk
'ifanyonecan' out of his proposed course of action.

Did you miss the part where what he is proposing to do is not illegal?

[frazzled]

Lets all be nice to the young lad now. Youth is so wasted on the young...

IIRC but he's meeting with the UT attorney as I type so this should help the picture. I hope he reports back.

[DaveT]

This thread actually might have a positive result.
It just might be an opportunity for several of us
to get together and meet one another.....

when the Austin District Attorney's office subpoena's
us to come and testify that we tried our best to talk
'ifanyonecan' out of his proposed course of action.

Did you miss the part where what he is proposing to do is not illegal?

And have you missed all the information about what will happen if a citizen becomes alarmed and calls in a complaint? The police will still respond, they will respond to a 'man with a gun' call in the manner they have been trained, he will still be disarmed, handcuffed and taken for a ride behind a prisoner cage. Despite the legal outcome, it will be more bad publicity for gun owners.

[Keith B]

This thread actually might have a positive result.
It just might be an opportunity for several of us
to get together and meet one another.....

when the Austin District Attorney's office subpoena's
us to come and testify that we tried our best to talk
'ifanyonecan' out of his proposed course of action.

Did you miss the part where what he is proposing to do is not illegal?

And have you missed all the information about what will happen if a citizen becomes alarmed and calls in a complaint? The police will still respond, they will respond to a 'man with a gun' call in the manner they have been trained, he will still be disarmed, handcuffed and taken for a ride behind a prisoner cage. Despite the legal outcome, it will be more bad publicity for gun owners.

I think you have also missed the part where he stated he was intending to let the police know what he was going to do. I would assume they would be aware of the date, time, location and description of the person and know it was him.