Two arrested at Austin Capitol during open carry rally

[Beiruty]

how many licenses do the have in each staet and fed licenses..

Feds Pilots, Boat capts, Law practise before supreme court.. etc etc

Texas and other states,
Plumber, electrician, Air Condition, Architect, Nurse, Doctor, chiropractor, (Tatoo artist ??)
Bar owner, Meat market, fuel sales, and on and on there is a reason for all of them..

so why not for carrying a concealed gun..??

There should be a course or test just like for all the above FOR OPEN CARRY

I don't recall anywhere it being a right to be a plumber or pilot, nurse or doctor.

Anygunanywhere

Ability and opportunity to make gainful income from one's hard work is a human right.

[anygunanywhere]

how many licenses do the have in each staet and fed licenses..

Feds Pilots, Boat capts, Law practise before supreme court.. etc etc

Texas and other states,
Plumber, electrician, Air Condition, Architect, Nurse, Doctor, chiropractor, (Tatoo artist ??)
Bar owner, Meat market, fuel sales, and on and on there is a reason for all of them..

so why not for carrying a concealed gun..??

There should be a course or test just like for all the above FOR OPEN CARRY

I don't recall anywhere it being a right to be a plumber or pilot, nurse or doctor.

Anygunanywhere

Ability and opportunity to make gainful income from one's hard work is a human right.

True, but nothing in the constitution forbids the state from requiring licenses for professions. Requiring licenses for enumerated rights and infringing on enumerated rights is forbidden.

Anygunanywhere

[apostate]

Plumber, electrician, Air Condition, Architect, Nurse, Doctor, chiropractor, (Tatoo artist ??)
Bar owner, Meat market, fuel sales, and on and on there is a reason for all of them..

so why not for carrying a concealed gun..??

I think I see where you're confused. Those others you list are professional licenses. However, a CHL does not authorize somebody to work as armed security or a bodyguard. Working those jobs require a license from a different group at DPS.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/psb/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gigag04]

Lots of new names in this thread....



Jussayin...

[TrackinPat]

how many licenses do the have in each staet and fed licenses..

Feds Pilots, Boat capts, Law practise before supreme court.. etc etc

Texas and other states,
Plumber, electrician, Air Condition, Architect, Nurse, Doctor, chiropractor, (Tatoo artist ??)
Bar owner, Meat market, fuel sales, and on and on there is a reason for all of them..

so why not for carrying a concealed gun..??

There should be a course or test just like for all the above FOR OPEN CARRY

I don't recall anywhere it being a right to be a plumber or pilot, nurse or doctor.

Anygunanywhere

[jmra]

Lots of new names in this thread....



Jussayin...

Noticed that too.

[bizarrenormality]

Sometimes new blood questions the things the old guard takes for granted. Senator Ted Cruz is a good example.

[SherwoodForest]

Actually the Supreme Court has not held license/permit issuance requirements imposed on activities involving the exercise of civil rights to constitute a violation of the Constitution. The SCOTUS considered licensing programs designed to maintain peace and order -such as the Texas CHL law- to fall under the compelling public safety interests of the state.

The Supreme Court held that licensing requirements that do not function to suppress the exercise of a civil right, and apply license fees collected ONLY to the administration of the licensing program do not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Texas CHL program meets this test. Therefore the issuance of CHL's does not violate the 2nd Amendment because the purpose of the CHL law is to ensure that persons carrying concealed handguns do not pose a public safety risk.

The demonstration, exhibition last Saturday at the Capitol had nothing to do with the CHL. It had nothing to do with open carry, but it had everything to do with respect for TEXAS LAW - which they were NOT violating.

If I may illustrate the logical efficacy of permitting ( or NOT permitting ) the free exercise of a RIGHT for a moment............

Would anyone think for a second that if there was a militiaman serving under Gen. Washington at Valley Forge who was night after night getting into life threatening altercations with other militiamen.....that the good General would not have ordered this person to be relieved of his arms...at least temporarily ? He had a right to keep & bear arms......but he abused that right.

I am not pressing for "open carry" in Texas. I'm quite comfortable with my manner of carry when in Texas. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Charles Cotton ( SB299) . Thank you Charles.

Actually....my manner of carry in Colorado- where I 'm a resident - is pretty much the same as it is when I'm in Texas.

The issue we are addressing in this thread - is WHY people who are NOT violating any Texas law are essentially ordered to cease their LAWFUL CONDUCT and leave a public area in which they have every right to be.

Will this demonstration/ exhibition achieve anything for the advancement of the open carry effort in Texas ?

I have no idea. Only time will tell.

The 1st Amendment appears to be the paramount issue presented by the arrest of these citizens.

[EEllis]

The issue we are addressing in this thread - is WHY people who are NOT violating any Texas law are essentially ordered to cease their LAWFUL CONDUCT and leave a public area in which they have every right to be.

As I have said before, in this and other threads, there is ample reason to believe, or to have probable cause if you prefer, that these individuals were violating state law. As a matter of law the only way, besides a legislative change, for anyone to objectively state such a thing is for a person to be arrested, convicted, and have their case overturned to provide precedent that states that such activity doesn't violate State law. In this case we actually have case law that easily supports charges of both UCW and a DC so stating that the didn't trespass when they could clearly be charged with more serious crimes is either ignorance of the law, an advocate's position, or unwillingness to accept reality for what someone wants or believes to be true.

[SherwoodForest]

The necessary threshold for a Section 42.01 (a)(8) Disorderly Conduct offense would be the use of threatening language directed towards another person in conjunction with THE DISPLAY of a deadly weapon in public IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO CAUSE ALARM.

Holstered NON "firearms" = "NON "handguns" , and the absence of any verbally abusive, or threatening language = NO offense.

I repeat.......NO CRIME......BUT ......."somebody" did not like the message being delivered.

WHAT was the message?

That a pre-1899 ( or replica) BLACK POWDER revolver is NOT covered by Section 46.02(a). Therefore ( high powers of the State liking it or not) it ain't ILLEGAL.

[EEllis]

The necessary threshold for a Section 42.01 (a)(8) Disorderly Conduct offense would be the use of threatening language directed towards another person in conjunction with THE DISPLAY of a deadly weapon in public IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO CAUSE ALARM.

Holstered NON "firearms" = "NON "handguns" , and the absence of any verbally abusive, or threatening language = NO offense.

I repeat.......NO CRIME......BUT ......."somebody" did not like the message being delivered.

WHAT was the message?

That a pre-1899 ( or replica) BLACK POWDER revolve is NOT covered by Section 46.02(a). Therefore ( high powers of the State liking it or not) it ain't ILLEGAL.

That is your interpretation of the law. Care to find a case where a higher court has agreed with you? Of course since, like I said, you would have to be convicted then appeal and win to get such a ruling it's a high bar but that is how it works. You have your theory the prosecutor has theirs and a court is the one that decides. There is case law that if one is treating a black powder firearm as a firearm and not as a antique or replica then the law can treat it as a firearm, which while it may be a bad ruling, is still there on the books until appealed and definitely gives PC for an arrest and prosecution. There is also the fact that no one can know by looking if the gun falls under the 1899 exemption and the courts have ruled that the said exemption doesn't bar arrest but allows the defendant to give evidence at trial that a gun isn't a firearm thus allowing all law enforcement action that could occur when open carrying a handgun. Look pretend all you want that merely reading the law is all it takes. That just isn't the way our legal system works.

[SherwoodForest]

Unfortunately the language used in the text of the laws actually DOES means things, and if it ain't "grass or weeds" it cannot be a code violation when it ain't cut.

[EEllis]

Unfortunately the language used in the text of the laws actually DOES means things, and if it ain't "grass or weeds" it cannot be a code violation when it ain't cut.

Of course it means something but it's not everything. These laws don't occur in a vacuum and what the words say and what courts rule is not always the same. In this case there is certainly precedent for arrests. That is how the system works. Even if incorrect, unless a ruling by a higher court occurs wrong is, well, right. Arguing that because you think otherwise it doesn't matter what the courts have ruled doesn't seem like a sound legal analysis.

[EEllis]

cantu vs state

furnishes a defendant with the chance to show that the weapon itself is an antique and, therefore, cannot be characterized as a firearm. Thus, he cannot be validly charged with possession of a firearm since the gun is not a firearm. Appellant had this opportunity at the suppression hearing and also at the trial on the merits.

This is a Texas case and as you can see by the language in it it doesn't bar arrest on weapons charges at all it just allows the defendant the chance to show that the object is not a weapon. It clearly supports the ability to arrest thus making an arrest of those open carrying C&R pistols legal.

Several defendants have sought to defend weapons cases or other cases involving use of
weapons by arguing that the weapons was made before 1899, therefore are antiques. The
courts have rejected this approach saying in effect that the antique or curio exception
applies to treating the items as antiques, not to using them as weapons.

http://ss.utpb.edu/media/files/universi ... N-LAWS.pdf
University of Texas of the Permian Basin

and just to finish off

You're right. I don't have the case any longer, but an attorney sent me one several years ago that dealt with this issue. If I remember correctly, it was a felon-in-possession case where he claimed a old black powder pistol wasn't a "firearm." The court rejected that argument holding that, for purposes of weapons offenses, it was not the legislature's intent to allow them to be possessed (or presumably carried). Since we don't get into legislative intent unless the statute is ambiguous, the holding was wrong, but nevertheless it's there.

Chas.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 99#p852910


Please understand that one of my biggest reasons for even posting on this topic is not just to debate but to correct what I see as horrible legal advice. People taking this crap to heart make decisions like the two who were arrested here and the ones last month over at the gov. mansion. I respect a persons right to protest or make any and all statements including going to jail. The fact is that in making this statement one should plan on going to jail. The only way to correct it, if you feel the law says otherwise, is to go to jail and hope you get a weapons charge that you can fight and win on appeal or by legislative action. Those are the facts. You can be arrested and legally charged with several different things and while you may beat the charge in court it would be totally legal and lawful, heck even reasonable under the current case law.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Unfortunately the language used in the text of the laws actually DOES means things, and if it ain't "grass or weeds" it cannot be a code violation when it ain't cut.

Laws mean only what lawyers and judges think it means.