Two arrested at Austin Capitol during open carry rally

[cb1000rider]

You may well be right, but there is no political downside for law enforcement, while there is for the protesters. They lose, their cause loses, and the definition of "firearms" will very possibly be changed. That's the reality of the situation.

Chas.

I tend to agree with you. It's easy and very reasonable for a LEO to claim "looked like a firearm and I couldn't tell the date". Whomever chose to enforce did offer a "please leave" option before arresting people, so a reasonable compromise was attempted.


If you look at the occupy Austin, local enforcement was very clearly overstepped. Here's what the district judge had to say:

Having determined that the actions of the Occupy Austin protestors including Plaintiffs in this case, are protected by the First Amendment; that the City's policy regarding the issuing of criminal-tresspass notices does not serve as a valid time, place, and manner restriction and is not narrowly tailored to achieve a significant public interest....<blah blah>

I don't see anyone arguing here that they did not have a right to be at that location with antique firearms. Even the PD carefully chose the words "suspected deadly weapons" carefully. Likely they knew they were legal... They were annoying the powers that be and there is enough conjecture available for a clean arrest.

Chas, they may very well get black powder written out of the loopholes. Personally, I don't care. I do care that these guys appear a little nutty to the more moderate general public - people that we need to support more moderate firearms rights. They might also win in court and get local policies change - winning a battle at the cost of doing more damage to the war.

Again, I feel mixed. Exercised rights are not rights at all. It's crystal clear that we've got a great example of that here.

[GrillKing]

Perhaps what can be easily overlooked amid this grass-roots activism availing itself of THE LAW regarding pre-1899 BP revolvers and long guns is that this is not happening within a vacuum.

Texas law 46.02(a) classifying ANY manner of handgun carry as a criminal offense , subject only to statutory specified exceptions, is on an inevitable collision course with Heller/McDonald.

Again - I'm going to stress - this isn't about THE LAW. These activists are not violating Texas law.

They are ANNOYING State officials - by using Texas law to get a message out. THAT is the rub.

Either THE LAW means something - or it doesn't ( if "somebody" doesn't like the law).

In your face tactics FAIL yet again.

That should be the headline.

Officer: Sir, open carry of a handgun is illegal IAW PC xyz.
Intentional Antagonist: It's not a handgun, you can't even ask me for ID as I've done nothing illegal.
Officer: Sir, you appear to be carrying a handgun, in violation of PC xyz. It may not be, but as I'm not an antiques expert I have no way of confirming it is not a handgun under texas law, and therefore illegal to be openly carried.
Intentional Antagonist: It not handgun because I say it is, and there for you have no right to stop me (insert picture of Intentional Antagonist sticking his tongue out and making the pffffft sound)
Officer: Sir, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, as it does look old to me, please depart the area with the handgun now.
Intentional Antagonist: It not handgun because I say it is, and there for you have no right to stop me (insert picture of Intentional Antagonist sticking his tongue out and making the pffffft sound)
Officer: Yes sir, very well, you are now under arrest.

Minds changed in this encounter ZERO.
Anyone connected to legal firearm ownership now associated to Mr in your face Intentional Antagonist: Everyone one of us.

Thanks for nothing.

This

[TexasCajun]

So other than a bunch of incendiary YouTube videos, what had the open carry movement actually accomplished with all of this nonsense????

After several hours, a couple of pages, and several posts; there doesn't seem to be a single gain or at least a modest goal achieved by all of this mess.

[linuss]

I am unfamiliar with the law regarding open carrying black powder pistols made before 1900.

Or for that matter for failing to identify yourself when asked by LEO.

Laws are actually quite simple: In the state of Texas, any black powder weapon made before 1899, or any replica of such made before 1899, is not considered a firearm in the eyes of the law. If it's not considered a firearm, you aren't openly carrying a firearm. I

As for identifying yourself, you're only required to identify yourself if you're doing something that requires you to, ie driving, or carrying a CHL. If I'm walking down the street and an officer stops and asks for my name, I can choose to give it or not. SCOTUS has ruled that the simple act of stating your name fulfills the "Stop and identify" laws in the US, and you cannot be forced to do more unless the task you're doing requires something more (such as a DL for driving, and it's a traffic stop).

unless they are carrying documented proof that their black powder firearms were made before 1899 then I don't see how they are in the right. The officers can't be expected to make a determination on whether the firearms are genuine or fakes. The offenders will get their day in court to plead their case.

The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken and not for the citizens to prove a law wasn't. Your idea that an officer should be able to arrest anyone for anything because they can't be assed to actually know the law and let the courts sort it out is scary.

[G.A. Heath]

I am unfamiliar with the law regarding open carrying black powder pistols made before 1900.

Or for that matter for failing to identify yourself when asked by LEO.

Laws are actually quite simple: In the state of Texas, any black powder weapon made before 1899, or any replica of such made before 1899, is not considered a firearm in the eyes of the law. If it's not considered a firearm, you aren't openly carrying a firearm. I

As for identifying yourself, you're only required to identify yourself if you're doing something that requires you to, ie driving, or carrying a CHL. If I'm walking down the street and an officer stops and asks for my name, I can choose to give it or not. SCOTUS has ruled that the simple act of stating your name fulfills the "Stop and identify" laws in the US, and you cannot be forced to do more unless the task you're doing requires something more (such as a DL for driving, and it's a traffic stop).

unless they are carrying documented proof that their black powder firearms were made before 1899 then I don't see how they are in the right. The officers can't be expected to make a determination on whether the firearms are genuine or fakes. The offenders will get their day in court to plead their case.

The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken and not for the citizens to prove a law wasn't. Your idea that an officer should be able to arrest anyone for anything because they can't be assed to actually know the law and let the courts sort it out is scary.

The kicker is that an officer can demand ID if he has reason to believe that a crime is, or was, being committed. The law does not exempt all black powder firearms, a modern black powder design (even with a retro look) is not a replica of a pre-1899 firearm and is not exempt. Open carry of a modern firearm is illegal and an officer can not be certain that a replica is a replica without investigating, therefor he has grounds to believe a crime is being committed.

[Right2Carry]

I am unfamiliar with the law regarding open carrying black powder pistols made before 1900.

Or for that matter for failing to identify yourself when asked by LEO.

Laws are actually quite simple: In the state of Texas, any black powder weapon made before 1899, or any replica of such made before 1899, is not considered a firearm in the eyes of the law. If it's not considered a firearm, you aren't openly carrying a firearm. I

As for identifying yourself, you're only required to identify yourself if you're doing something that requires you to, ie driving, or carrying a CHL. If I'm walking down the street and an officer stops and asks for my name, I can choose to give it or not. SCOTUS has ruled that the simple act of stating your name fulfills the "Stop and identify" laws in the US, and you cannot be forced to do more unless the task you're doing requires something more (such as a DL for driving, and it's a traffic stop).

unless they are carrying documented proof that their black powder firearms were made before 1899 then I don't see how they are in the right. The officers can't be expected to make a determination on whether the firearms are genuine or fakes. The offenders will get their day in court to plead their case.

The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken and not for the citizens to prove a law wasn't. Your idea that an officer should be able to arrest anyone for anything because they can't be assed to actually know the law and let the courts sort it out is scary.

No that is not what I said so stop twisting words. The officer has no way of determining whether the gun is pre 1899 without some documentation from the owner. If a person is going to try and circumvent the law by digging up an obscure law they should be required to provide proof that they meet the law. Open carrying of a handgun is illegal in Texas, since the object looks like a handgun under all definitions of a handgun except for the pre 1899 black powder exception, I believe it to be reasonable for the owner to have to provide proof that it is pre 1899 or a replica of a pre 1899 black powder gun. Most citizens not out to antagonize wouldn't have a problem providing proof of pre 1899.

If the individuals for open carry were really serious about promoting open carry they would sit down with DPS before the protest was planned to explain their actions and give advance warning about carrying pre 1899 black powder pistols in accordance with the law. This wouldn't make for good you tube videos and wouldn't fit their agenda of antagonizing DPS.

I agree with others who have stated this does more harm than good and is not the way to advocate open carry.

[jmra]

I am unfamiliar with the law regarding open carrying black powder pistols made before 1900.

Or for that matter for failing to identify yourself when asked by LEO.

Laws are actually quite simple: In the state of Texas, any black powder weapon made before 1899, or any replica of such made before 1899, is not considered a firearm in the eyes of the law. If it's not considered a firearm, you aren't openly carrying a firearm. I

As for identifying yourself, you're only required to identify yourself if you're doing something that requires you to, ie driving, or carrying a CHL. If I'm walking down the street and an officer stops and asks for my name, I can choose to give it or not. SCOTUS has ruled that the simple act of stating your name fulfills the "Stop and identify" laws in the US, and you cannot be forced to do more unless the task you're doing requires something more (such as a DL for driving, and it's a traffic stop).

unless they are carrying documented proof that their black powder firearms were made before 1899 then I don't see how they are in the right. The officers can't be expected to make a determination on whether the firearms are genuine or fakes. The offenders will get their day in court to plead their case.

The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken and not for the citizens to prove a law wasn't. Your idea that an officer should be able to arrest anyone for anything because they can't be assed to actually know the law and let the courts sort it out is scary.

"The onus is on the officers to prove a law was broken"
Not so much. The DA and the court system does that.

[anygunanywhere]

LOL. If they can't tell the difference between a cap and ball revolver and a handgun that uses "rim fire or center fire ammunition" maybe they shouldn't be enforcing gun laws in Texas. It sounds like something you expect from California.

Is that part of the TCLEOSE training and certification?
Are you an expert on everything about everything and anything that there is a law restricting?

In your face tactics FAIL yet again.
No minds were changed.

So, we are required to be an expert in the thread subject matter before we are allowed to voice an opinion? My. What discussion forum rule is that? I don't seem to recall reading that one. I'll go back and check.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

LOL. If they can't tell the difference between a cap and ball revolver and a handgun that uses "rim fire or center fire ammunition" maybe they shouldn't be enforcing gun laws in Texas. It sounds like something you expect from California.

Is that part of the TCLEOSE training and certification?
Are you an expert on everything about everything and anything that there is a law restricting?

In your face tactics FAIL yet again.
No minds were changed.

So, we are required to be an expert in the thread subject matter before we are allowed to voice an opinion? My. What discussion forum rule is that? I don't seem to recall reading that one. I'll go back and check.

Anygunanywhere

TexasCHLforum Rules:

1. No profanity, pseudo-profanity, or abbreviated profanity. If you are in doubt about a word, don't use it. Any profanity substitute that gets the profane message across is prohibited!

2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.

3. No racial or ethnic slurs. Descriptions of persons in actual events are fine, so long as it doesn't constitute stereotyping.

4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

5. Posts with racist, anarchist, or antisocial comments or content are not allowed and links to sites with such content are not allowed.

6. Porn, nudity, and sex-related material and links are forbidden.

7. Only firearms and firearms-related items can be posted for sale in the Market section. Offers to trade non-firearms or firearms-related items for guns is fine.

8. Sexually suggestive or provocative posts or images are forbidden..

9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

10. Do not hijack threads. If a post gives you an idea for a new or different discussion, start a new thread.

11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of religion, immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in other areas.)

12. Signature lines:1) Signature lines are limited to 4 lines. Photos in signature lines 2) Photos in the signature line can be no larger that 128 x 256. If you would like to keep the same image ratio as the original, it is acceptable to make it 128 pixels high with an appropriate width not exceeding 384 pixels. No animated .gif's in signature lines.

TexasCHLforum is non-commercial!! With limited exceptions set out below in Rules 13, 14 & 18, do not advertise your business.
13. Posting items for sale/trade in the Market Section Except for the FFL subsection, the Market is intended solely for participating members (posts, not money) of TexasCHLforum.com. It was created as a courtesy to, and for the convenience of, our members, not as an open forum for marketing. Members must reach "Member" status, i.e. 45 posts, before posting anything for sale in the Market Section. (The transition from "Junior Member" to "Member" is done automatically.) If the majority of a Member's posts are in the market sections, they will be blocked from posting items for sale. Further, "for sale" posts cannot have a link to an auction website or any other website and all posts must list an asking price.All purchasers are strongly encouraged to get the full name, address and telephone number of a seller before purchasing an item and to verify that information. Refusal to provide that information to a purchaser will result in the seller being banned. If your signature line or the post contains a link to your website or any commercial website, a backlink to TexasCHLforum.com must be included in the linked site.

To avoid "for sale' threads from becoming stale, all threads will be locked and moved to the Closed section one month after the first post. Sellers, please edit the subject line to add "CLOSED" if the item is sold or withdrawn.

14. Posting classes in the Instructors, Classes & Training section. All posts in the Instructors, Classes & Training section must meet the requirements of Forum Rule 13. Post only one class at a time. If you have a website, you must post a link to the TexasCHLforum.com.

15. Cheesecake/beefcake threads and posts are not allowed here. If you want to look at or post pictures of scantily-clad women (or men) please do so elsewhere. This isn't the place for it.

16. Avatars area allowed but they are subject to all of the Forum Rules. If it wouldn't be allowed as a photo in a post, or if it sends a message that would violate forum rules, then it is not appropriate as an avatar. The default size limit is 80X80 and a maximum file size of 6144 kb. http://www.shrinkpictures.com/create-avatar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is one of numerous websites that allow you to create an avatar from an exiting photo.

17. Links to LiveLeak.com prohibited. LiveLeak.com has a number of videos that would be appropriate for posting on TexasCHLforum. Unfortunately, it also has advertising/links to porn sites on most if not all of its video. Therefore, links to LiveLeak.com are prohibited.

18. Business logos and use of business names as user names are prohibited Do not use a logo in signature lines, as an avatar, or in the body of posts. (Logos can be included in the body of a post, if it is germane to the subject matter of a post that is not commercial in nature.) This rule does not prohibit placing a link to your business website in your signature line once you have 45 meaningful posts, but such links must be in default font size. At no point can you use your business name as your username.

19. Posting material from other sources - When quoting material from other websites or sources, the following rules apply:
a. Give credit to the author and publication either at the beginning of the quote, or at the end. When the format allows, put the title of the article at the beginning;
b. Do not post the entire article, post no more than 200 words or 10% of the article, whichever is less;
c. Enclose the material in quotation marks or use italic font to clearly identify the material as a quote;Pld. Include a link to the website that contains the material or, if the material is not from a website, fully identify the source including the author.
20. Temporary or disposable email addresses & Spoofed IP Addresses. It is necessary to use legitimate email addresses. Most disposable or temporary email domains have been put on the banned list and others will be added as they are identified. Using so-called private proxy servers to spoof an IP address for registration or posting is also prohibited.

Nope. Did not find it here.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

So other than a bunch of incendiary YouTube videos, what had the open carry movement actually accomplished with all of this nonsense????

Got rid of OC in California...

[RPBrown]

I have read all 4 pages of this thread and here is what I have to offer:

1) This demonstration has effectively caused like minded individuals ON THIS FORUM to not only strongly disagree, but also become angry and demeaning toward each other. If it is going to cause this for all of us, what do you think it will do to those that are "on the fence" about open carry, pre-1899 firearms, or firearms in general?

2) The LEO's involved only have to suspect a crime is being committed to (a) ask for ID and (b) make an arrest. They do not have to know every detail of every law. That is the courts job.

3) They could have been arrested for Disorderly Conduct based on what I saw.

4) I am not too sure, as was stated earlier, that this may have been staged by the anti's to make us all look bad.

5) This type of behavior puts us all in a bad light and very well may have the opposite actions taken than what they were trying to achieve.

[TexasCajun]

I have read all 4 pages of this thread and here is what I have to offer:

1) This demonstration has effectively caused like minded individuals ON THIS FORUM to not only strongly disagree, but also become angry and demeaning toward each other. If it is going to cause this for all of us, what do you think it will do to those that are "on the fence" about open carry, pre-1899 firearms, or firearms in general?

2) The LEO's involved only have to suspect a crime is being committed to (a) ask for ID and (b) make an arrest. They do not have to know every detail of every law. That is the courts job.

3) They could have been arrested for Disorderly Conduct based on what I saw.

4) I am not too sure, as was stated earlier, that this may have been staged by the anti's to make us all look bad.

5) This type of behavior puts us all in a bad light and very well may have the opposite actions taken than what they were trying to achieve.

Not only have these stunts achieved 0 gains (whatever those may be), but they are actually doing harm to the entire 2nd Amendment community as a whole. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the OC movement is quickly becoming the Westboro Church of the 2A.

[Robert*PPS]

Look, our justice system is such that LEOs are not the determiners of what is just. They are enforcers of just laws as determined by the people. If a LEO suspects that a crime has been committed, they detain and charge. The DA prosecutes those charges. A law may or may not have been broken, but our system calls for that to be proved in a court of law....not on the side of the road or anywhere else. Now, it may be determined in a court of law that no law was broken, or it may not even be prosecuted at all, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a bad arrest.

I disagree with the notion that both sides handled poorly. If DPS gave the folks a chance to leave, that infers to me that the LEO was attempting to resolve the situation without making an arrest. In my opinion, that extra step puts the LEO in a positive light. The open carry folks who hurl insults and act childish are the ones who handled the whole thing poorly.

It has already been said, but I'll reiterate it....in your face tactics will not work to further this cause. It will almost certainly cause it to digress.

[Tic Tac]

Would it be acceptable for them to arrest all Hispanics? After all, "a police officer has no way of knowing" if the person is a citizen without checking.

[Keith B]

Would it be acceptable for them to arrest all Hispanics? After all, "a police officer has no way of knowing" if the person is a citizen without checking.

Not quite apples to apples and a totally different situation.

In this case, the issue is the DPS officers know it is a pistol and being openly carried. Without evidence that the gun is 'a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition', then they have to act on the visual evidence that it is an open carried pistol and potentially meets the definition of a firearm, and arrest for it.

As for identification in the field, we are gun people. Many, MANY LEO's are not. And, personally, while I am a gun guy, I am more of a modern gun guy. I could not tell you that a specific model of black power pistol was a replica of a model made prior to 1899 or not without having to do some research.

Bottom line, they went looking for a fight, were told that if they just left there would be no fight, but they refused. They had one agenda, and that was to get arrested, and they succeeded. I personally hope they get charged with Disorderly Conduct for not leaving when offered the chance and it costs them a pretty penny for their antics.