Texans Respond to License to Carry

[oljames3]

Texas Tech Faculty, Staff Group Petitions Against ‘Campus Carry’
http://www.kcbd.com/story/30284314/texa ... mpus-carry

KVIA, El Paso (Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/KVIATV/videos/ ... 707273931/

[Glockster]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

[Taypo]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

[Glockster]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

[treadlightly]

From that Deadly Toxin, er, Daily Texan article:

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

If I'm to believe what he actually said, the 2nd is causing bloodshed and eventually we'll get rid of it, presumably to stop the bloodshed.

In other words, those who keep and bear under the 2nd are berserkers filling the gutters with innocent blood? The law-abiding are to blame?

Maybe he's on to something. Maybe his officers should give speeding tickets to drivers obeying posted limits. After all, if they weren't there within the constraints of the law, they wouldn't be inconveniencing those who would speed, forcing them to exceed the limit at the first opportunity.

Perfect sense.

[Glockster]

From that Deadly Toxin, er, Daily Texan article:

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

If I'm to believe what he actually said, the 2nd is causing bloodshed and eventually we'll get rid of it, presumably to stop the bloodshed.

In other words, those who keep and bear under the 2nd are berserkers filling the gutters with innocent blood? The law-abiding are to blame?

Maybe he's on to something. Maybe his officers should give speeding tickets to drivers obeying posted limits. After all, if they weren't there within the constraints of the law, they wouldn't be inconveniencing those who would speed, forcing them to exceed the limit at the first opportunity.

Perfect sense.

Now, now...let's not jump to conclusions about what his officers can or should do....they're probably busy arresting rape victims and domestic violence victims for too many 911 calls.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

Couple this with two rather shocking statements he made in Texas and one wonders how he ever got a COP job in Texas, much less a chief's position. The first statement was made after two APD officers made the news and social media for allegedly manhandling a young woman for jaywalking. Acevedo responded with a statement that many took to essentially translate to" What are you complaining about? COPs in other cities are raping women on duty." What!!? If his officer had raped her, would his response have been "at least they didn't kill her[!]? His "it could have been worse" attitude didn't sell well.

The second statement came when he was testifying under oath against both campus-carry and concealed-carry during a committee hearing. His testimony was that women should not carry a gun to defend themselves because they may get murdered with it. He said that women would be better off to seek rape victim assistance because there are many programs available.

Nude photos in his patrol car, a comment about rape that had absolutely no connection with a jaywalking complaint against his officer, followed by a suggestion that women are better off to submit to a rape then seek help rather than defend themselves sure make one wonder about Chief Acevedo's mindset. In my view, he isn't fit to wear a badge anywhere and certainly not in Texas, not even Austin (a/k/a "LA in Texas").

Remember, this is a man that is saying he should be armed, but not the rest of us. Scary isn't it?

Chas.

[Taypo]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures of a woman with whom he was having an affair in his state patrol vehicle and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

Couple this with two rather shocking statements he made in Texas and one wonders how he ever got a COP job in Texas, much less a chief's position. The first statement was made after two APD officers made the news and social media for allegedly manhandling a young woman for jaywalking. Acevedo responded with a statement that many took to essentially translate to" What are you complaining about? COPs in other cities are raping women on duty." What!!? If his officer had raped her, would his response have been "at least they didn't kill her[!]? His "it could have been worse" attitude didn't sell well.

The second statement came when he was testifying under oath against both campus-carry and concealed-carry during a committee hearing. His testimony was that women should not carry a gun to defend themselves because they may get murdered with it. He said that women would be better off to seek rape victim assistance because there are many programs available.

Nude photos in his patrol car, a comment about rape that had absolutely no connection with a jaywalking complaint against his officer, followed by a suggestion that women are better off to submit to a rape then seek help rather than defend themselves sure make one wonder about Chief Acevedo's mindset. In my view, he isn't fit to wear a badge anywhere and certainly not in Texas, not even Austin (a/k/a "LA in Texas").

Remember, this is a man that is saying he should be armed, but not the rest of us. Scary isn't it?

Chas.

I knew he was a Kalifornia transplant but the rest of that is news to me. Thanks for sharing.

[Glockster]

Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

Couple this with two rather shocking statements he made in Texas and one wonders how he ever got a COP job in Texas, much less a chief's position. The first statement was made after two APD officers made the news and social media for allegedly manhandling a young woman for jaywalking. Acevedo responded with a statement that many took to essentially translate to" What are you complaining about? COPs in other cities are raping women on duty." What!!? If his officer had raped her, would his response have been "at least they didn't kill her[!]? His "it could have been worse" attitude didn't sell well.

The second statement came when he was testifying under oath against both campus-carry and concealed-carry during a committee hearing. His testimony was that women should not carry a gun to defend themselves because they may get murdered with it. He said that women would be better off to seek rape victim assistance because there are many programs available.

Nude photos in his patrol car, a comment about rape that had absolutely no connection with a jaywalking complaint against his officer, followed by a suggestion that women are better off to submit to a rape then seek help rather than defend themselves sure make one wonder about Chief Acevedo's mindset. In my view, he isn't fit to wear a badge anywhere and certainly not in Texas, not even Austin (a/k/a "LA in Texas").

Remember, this is a man that is saying he should be armed, but not the rest of us. Scary isn't it?

Chas.

Whoa....didn't know all that, and didn't think that it was possible to think even less of him than I thought before!

[MONGOOSE]

Since we have had open carry here, I've only seen 4 people OC, and that was in the first 3 months.

[oljames3]

Since we have had open carry here, I've only seen 4 people OC, and that was in the first 3 months.

Which state is "here"?

[treadlightly]

Wow - with all the baggage of carrying pictures of what I presume was a workplace subordinate, I wonder if he would qualify for employment as a regular officer? Would APD hire him with his past?

Austin seems to really like him. I found a curious report in The Austin Chronicle, dismissing claims Acevedo sometimes releases false information:

Indeed, Acevedo has occasionally released misinformation. In October 2010, Officer Derrick Bowman shot and killed 16-year-old Devin Contreras during a botched break-in at a South Austin Big Lots. Shortly after the early morning incident, Acevedo told reporters that Bowman shot Contreras after the teen fired two rounds at him; Bowman had seen the muzzle flash, Acevedo had said, based on Bowman's first statements. It turns out that was not true; Contreras did point a gun at Bowman, but he never fired.

Acevedo says that he corrected the mistake quickly and argues that his handling of the incident in fact reflects APD's credibility and openness. Had the department wanted to cover the mistake and sustain the initial story, it would've been easy enough to take the .38 Contreras carried to the lab and fire a couple shots. The initial mistake, he says, reflects "the spirit of transparency and the spirit of giving people as much information as possible."

If that indirect quote is anything close to accurate, that he said it would have been easy enough to fake evidence, that's a pretty quick segue from an understandable pressure-of-the-moment misstatement to suggesting a godawful breach of ethics, particularly in light of Acevedo's service in California in CHP's Internal Affairs.

[MONGOOSE]

NM

[Glockster]

Since we have had open carry here, I've only seen 4 people OC, and that was in the first 3 months.

NM

That's pretty good though isn't it? I mean, 4 people is like what 10% of the population of NM or something like that?

Sorry, couldn't resist (and for the record, I do like NM!).

[MONGOOSE]

Your probably not far off around here.