San Antonio open carry rifle subjs arrested

[Target1911]

TAM.....well said

I am a big supporter of this group. They are very respectful to LEO and Businesses.
I do however agree that just walking into a business is bad idea on may levels.

The public needs to be educated and these demonstrations are a good way to do it if done properly and with respect. Its to bad that the media will not report on this until something goes south.

I have many pro gun friends that did not know it was legal until this started.

[tomtexan]

TAM.....well said

I am a big supporter of this group. They are very respectful to LEO and Businesses.
I do however agree that just walking into a business is bad idea on may levels.

The public needs to be educated and these demonstrations are a good way to do it if done properly and with respect. Its to bad that the media will not report on this until something goes south.

I have many pro gun friends that did not know it was legal until this started.

Perhaps the way to go about it is in larger numbers or groups instead of one or three individuals. The media does report on it when it is done in such a way.
"Open Carry Celebration" held in Longview

[Keith B]

TAM.....well said

I am a big supporter of this group. They are very respectful to LEO and Businesses.
I do however agree that just walking into a business is bad idea on may levels.

The public needs to be educated and these demonstrations are a good way to do it if done properly and with respect. Its to bad that the media will not report on this until something goes south.

I have many pro gun friends that did not know it was legal until this started.

Perhaps the way to go about it is in larger numbers or groups instead of one or three individuals. The media does report on it when it is done in such a way.
"Open Carry Celebration" held in Longview

Organized and pre-publicized rallies and group gatherings are the way to go on this. If you get permission from the business or location to hold the rally, then even better as they know you are coming and what you will be doing. Individuals and small groups of people will be much more suspicious to the unknowing than a bunch of people gathering at a specified location that is expecting them.

[rbwhatever1]

Education and "de-indoctrination" is key here.

It amazes me that with all the violent crime we are still discussing the right to bear arms in public, where violence occurs. Seems to me that every rational Law Abiding Citizen would have a vested interest in self preservation and protecting their families. Media could fix this in a few month's with continued support of the facts and educating Americans on the Civil Duties of being armed. The media today parrots State Doctrine to keep all Citizens unarmed and dependent on the State, even after the Supreme Court has Ruled many times that Law Enforcement at any level of the State has no Legal duty or obligation to protect any Citizen of these United States. If media were to broadcast that message every single night people might wake up and start thinking for their own and that would be very dangerous for a State that needs dependancy to survive, flourish and control it's subjects.

Americans have been indoctrinated and are being controlled very well...

[SewTexas]

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.

It freaks me out that McManus believes that someone being freaked out constitutes a crime, and has the power to allow an arrest because of it...

Should I report him?

Sounds like a plan. McManus seems to be more politician than cop. Guess that happens to most once they get high enough in the ranks.

I was actually afraid my husband was going to burst a blood vessel when he saw the news article....he did seem to say that if someone was scared then what they were doing was wrong, even if it was technically legal

We have been noticing that McManus is looking more and more like a politician though, he was really a good guy for quite a while, and although I think he is a decent guy at heart, I think he's falling into the SA political trap and it's probably time for him to go...but it's probably not going to happen.

[Beiruty]

So, if someone saw me with my dog, they got scared, would I be arrested?
If I look like your nightmare, and you saw me before sunset, would I be arrested?

It is time to repeal that stupid law that has "calculated to alarm"

[SewTexas]

I don't know.....I'm tell'n y'al, the whole thing left us confused, angry and more determined to not go into SA unless absolutely necessary. (and that's becoming less and less frequent)

[Beiruty]

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.

How come the city can have an ordinance on manner of carrying a gun loaded? I thought there is a state preemption on firearms laws, no?

[texanjoker]

I do have to say, what is the point of carrying an UNLOADED rifle? What will you do when the punks with a loaded handgun come over and rob you at gun point?

I can see their behavior also cause Starbucks to reconsider their very pro 2nd amendment stance

I do like their positve demeanor when contacted. That is a big I also like how the LEO wasn't baited into a discussion like some of those other videos where they talk nonsense.

[Abraham]

All of us pro-gun folk understand the gist of exercising our gun rights, but the manner in which it's done, does matter.

If you act like an elephant in a china shop in exercising gun rights, yeah, people are going to respond in a negative manner.

Let's not get sanctimonious as the anti's in our approach to keep our gun rights.

We look just as bone headed as they are when we do...

[tomtexan]

I do have to say, what is the point of carrying an UNLOADED rifle? What will you do when the punks with a loaded handgun come over and rob you at gun point?

The point of carrying a unloaded rifle in this particular scenario was just to make a point about 2A. They were not out there for self defense purposes. The rifle takes place of a sign, just as other protesters would use a sign to get their point across. Had some "punks" come along with a handgun and tried to rob them, they would have then unholstered their concealed handguns and stopped the threat. They may very well be CHL holders for all we know.

Now, if this state had a open carry of handguns law in place, those men would have never been bothered.

[Keith B]

I do have to say, what is the point of carrying an UNLOADED rifle? What will you do when the punks with a loaded handgun come over and rob you at gun point?

The point of carrying a unloaded rifle in this particular scenario was just to make a point about 2A. They were not out there for self defense purposes. The rifle takes place of a sign, just as other protesters would use a sign to get their point across. Had some "punks" come along with a handgun and tried to rob them, they would have then unholstered their concealed handguns and stopped the threat. They may very well be CHL holders for all we know.

Now, if this state had a open carry of handguns law in place, those men would have never been bothered.

May not be for long, depending on the status of the ticket they received. Disorderly conduct will cause DPS to suspend your CHL pending the outcome of any trial.

[K.Mooneyham]

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.

How come the city can have an ordinance on manner of carrying a gun loaded? I thought there is a state preemption on firearms laws, no?

I think this is a great question. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

[Keith B]

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.

How come the city can have an ordinance on manner of carrying a gun loaded? I thought there is a state preemption on firearms laws, no?

I think this is a great question. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Cities have invalid ordinances all the time. They can put whatever they want in the books, just can't be legally enforced.

[rp_photo]

Disorderly conduct charges.

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