TexasCHLforum.com

Since it was within 30 miles of where I work and I had time to make it after getting off work I decided to watch an OC event. Less than 5 minutes into my contact with the group Andrews PD showed up and shut it down. Everyone was well behaved but apparently Andrews city side walks are considered roadways and if two or more people are gathering on them they need a permit as if they are a parade. I will update with more details when I get home to a PC instead of using my phone to post.

Alright, I have made it home. First off I went to the event in order to have a face to face contact and to talk in person to the leadership of the group in order to arrange for an interview on the podcast. Looks like we have tentatively agreed on doing the interview on the next live show (Jan 12, 2014).

I showed up at the address originally posted on facebook only to learn that the starting location had been moved closer to the court house. I spoke with the significant other of the gentleman who had been previously arrested for OC and learned that the group expected police action against them. I then proceeded to meet with the group and within minutes an Andrews PD officer showed up and informed them that they were in violation of municple code 42-44 because the sidewalks are considered part of the roadway. The officer then had a short conversation with the leadership of the group, while that conversation was going on another APD officer arrived, followed shortly by someone I assumed was a county deputy due to the style of dress. Later I was told that the party I had assumed was a deputy was a US Marshal, this remains unverified and is considered speculative. Both parties remained polite, peaceful, and respectful to each other resulting in no riots cursing, or other bad actions. After the group moved to disperse an area reporter/camera man interviewed the group leaders while the LEOs watched from a distance.

The interesting things I walk away from this with are that #1. the Andrews ordinance is vauge and actually could be read so that two persons proceeding together along a street are sufficient to charge them with a violation (As was pointed out by the first officer to make contact). Permits for such events are issued by the police chief alone, which could be considered a conflict of interest since the group was protesting his departments actions against someone that was allegedly arrested for open carrying a long gun. I think it is time to do a little digging and look into the original arrest and see what I can turn up. Because right now I have parts of the story from one side and what I heard said by one officer.

Hmmm...sounds interesting. Should you decide to persue it for more in depth details, I can't wait to hear about what you find. Please keep us updated.

Thanks!

tomtexan wrote:Hmmm...sounds interesting. Should you decide to persue it for more in depth details, I can't wait to hear about what you find. Please keep us updated.

Thanks!

look forward to hearing what you find out.

Does that mean you can drive on the sidewalk?

I was there to observe and record, never to interfere (Who can tell me where that is from). I honestly thought about asking that very question, however I plan to make a call to Chief Bud Jones from APD and ask a few questions. Additionally I have found the city ord. in question, read it (Officer is right it is somewhat vauge and open to interpretation), I also found an interesting tidbit from the ACLU regarding marches along sidewalks that do not interrupt the traffic flow. The pgpodcast live show will be the time when I connect all the dots but until I have communicated with all the parties I do not want to repeat any information that could be incorrect at best. I am hoping to actually interview Chief Jones on the issue for the podcast so that his side gets out. I also plan to learn what I can about the original Nov. 30, 2013 arrest that started the issue.

I went to highschool in Andrews.
Don't miss it one bit.

[youtube][/youtube]

The city statute seems pretty limiting. Have statutes or ordinances like that been challenged before? Do they hold up?

Would someone please be kind enough to either quote or link the statute in question? I am curious enough to read it but not curious enough to try to figure out how to find it. Thnx.

The text of the ordinance: link to third party website with the text:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/13698/ ... PERECEPAPR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Some comments I have heard from those involved in the rally are: The ordinance says nothing about sidewalks, has no lower limit on how many persons are required to trigger it, has no provision for when the chief of police has a conflict of interest (protest against actions of his department).

Also here is a news story w/ video that contains an audio interview with APD Chief Bud Jones: http://www.newswest9.com/story/24321140 ... ews-police" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to me the statute is written to prevent obstruction of traffic. A bunch of people walking along the street on the sidewalk doesn't interfer or obstruct traffic. Seems to me the liberal interpretation of the statute in this instance interfers with the people's rights.

But they will arrest for "violating" it.
Immediate problem solved. Punishes whoever violates it via bail costs, public arrest record, and legal defense costs.
The 2nd amendment does not exist.

I'll admit, I had to look up Andrews on a map, and after staring at it for a bit, I've got to wonder how in the heck did a little west Texas town like that get such an uppity police chief??? Good god, its right in the middle of the one place I'd expect open carry to be tolerated.

Oh well, must be some Californians moved in to live the good life or something.

where can I get the tyranny response team shirt ?