Armed Black Panthers March in Texas: ‘Off the Pigs’ (VIDEO)

[LSUTiger]

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/ ... bang-bang/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit:

Protesting would be a factor in the legality of carrying a firearm only if 1) the person was not a CHL; and 2) the city had an ordinance against carrying firearms at a political rally. The preemption statute was watered down slightly in response to the New Black Panthers carrying rifles and shotguns in a protest outside the Republican National Convention in Houston several years ago. The authority granted to cities and counties by this change does not apply to CHLs.

Chas.

Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; AIR GUNS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

• (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, air guns, ammunition, or firearm or air gun supplies; or
  
  . . .
  
  (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
  
  (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm or air gun by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
  
  . . .
  • (C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or . . .

Does this mean they can or can't be armed? And how do they get away with what looks like to me to be at least carrying "in a manner calculated to alarm" if not brandishing? (I hate "in a manner calculated to alarm", it needs to go away, but it is what the law is now and is abused IMHO to infringe on the 2A, but only when politically correct). If the wrong person was carrying a long gun slung over his shoulder with no magazine just walking down the street minding his own business he would immediately be disarmed, forced to the ground, arrested. These guys have weapons out, inhand, magazines in the gun and what appears to be ready to shoot.

"Many of the members of the group were armed with shotguns, hunting rifles and AR-15 style assault rifles. Most looked like they were simply holding the weapon they were carrying. One of the “soldiers” took a more aggressive grip on his weapon, holding his rifle with his finger “indexed” slightly above the trigger. This can be considered a “ready” position in a shooting situation."

[Taypo]

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/ ... bang-bang/

Just when you think the world can't get any dumber, it goes and surprises you.

[Charlies.Contingency]

This is very concerning.

[Cjwglock19]

It won't be long until it hits the fan!

[WildBill]

This is exactly why I do not participate or attend "protests".

[K.Mooneyham]

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/ ... bang-bang/

Edit:

Protesting would be a factor in the legality of carrying a firearm only if 1) the person was not a CHL; and 2) the city had an ordinance against carrying firearms at a political rally. The preemption statute was watered down slightly in response to the New Black Panthers carrying rifles and shotguns in a protest outside the Republican National Convention in Houston several years ago. The authority granted to cities and counties by this change does not apply to CHLs.

Chas.

Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; AIR GUNS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

• (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, air guns, ammunition, or firearm or air gun supplies; or
  
  . . .
  
  (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
  
  (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm or air gun by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
  
  . . .
  • (C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or . . .

Does this mean they can or can't be armed? And how do they get away with what looks like to me to be at least carrying "in a manner calculated to alarm" if not brandishing? (I hate "in a manner calculated to alarm", it needs to go away, but it is what the law is now and is abused IMHO to infringe on the 2A, but only when politically correct). If the wrong person was carrying a long gun slung over his shoulder with no magazine just walking down the street minding his own business he would immediately be disarmed, forced to the ground, arrested. These guys have weapons out, inhand, magazines in the gun and what appears to be ready to shoot.

"Many of the members of the group were armed with shotguns, hunting rifles and AR-15 style assault rifles. Most looked like they were simply holding the weapon they were carrying. One of the “soldiers” took a more aggressive grip on his weapon, holding his rifle with his finger “indexed” slightly above the trigger. This can be considered a “ready” position in a shooting situation."

You know, as much as I cannot stand the antics of a certain loud-mouth OC type, he was taken into custody for OCing a loaded AR, even though he wasn't really doing anything menacing with it at the time. Yet, this group of miscreants certainly intended to menace the police, and perhaps the local citizenry, with their firearms, yet they weren't disarmed, hand-cuffed and arrested. Not a day goes by anymore that I don't see some folks getting away with what others would be in trouble for doing, and all because of leftwing politicians and their mass-media propaganda machine buddies covering for the troublemakers. Oh, and not one of those scum is a soldier, they haven't earned the right to that title.

[TxRVer]

The threats were aimed toward the cops rather than the public. They would have loved it if the cops had tried to make arrests. It would have added fuel to the current fire.

The cops kept things peaceful, which was exactly the right thing to do at a time when relations with the black community are on edge.

[LSUTiger]

The threats were aimed toward the cops rather than the public. They would have loved it if the cops had tried to make arrests. It would have added fuel to the current fire.

The cops kept things peaceful, which was exactly the right thing to do at a time when relations with the black community are on edge.

Really? What's next? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... risis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They need to be held to the same standards as anyone else.

Edit 9/1/15

Did this add fuel to the fire?

http://abc13.com/news/suspect-charged-i ... ty/961336/

Whether it's black lives matter or the black panthers, when you don't hold all the same standards out of political correctness you empower them to do what they want. Was that "exactly the right thing"?

[Charles L. Cotton]

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/ ... bang-bang/

Edit:

Protesting would be a factor in the legality of carrying a firearm only if 1) the person was not a CHL; and 2) the city had an ordinance against carrying firearms at a political rally. The preemption statute was watered down slightly in response to the New Black Panthers carrying rifles and shotguns in a protest outside the Republican National Convention in Houston several years ago. The authority granted to cities and counties by this change does not apply to CHLs.

Chas.

Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; AIR GUNS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

• (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, air guns, ammunition, or firearm or air gun supplies; or
  
  . . .
  
  (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
  
  (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm or air gun by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
  
  . . .
  • (C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or . . .

Does this mean they can or can't be armed?

I was simply referring to the ability of cities to pass enforceable regulations prohibiting the carrying of firearms during political rallies and citing the relevant Code provisions. Whether the protesters could be disarmed would depend upon whether they violated any other Penal Code provisions, or whether it was necessary for officer safety.

The number of people openly carrying a long gun who have been disarmed and thrown to the ground are very few in number. The number of open-carry protesters who have carried long guns without being disarmed far outnumber those disarmed.

I'm not saying what the Black Panthers did is "right" or that it was legal. I believe it was clearly a violation of Penal Code §42.01(a)(8). They intended to be confrontational, threatening and intimidating and they should have been arrested.

Chas.

[Taypo]

The threats were aimed toward the cops rather than the public. They would have loved it if the cops had tried to make arrests. It would have added fuel to the current fire.

The cops kept things peaceful, which was exactly the right thing to do at a time when relations with the black community are on edge.

Really? What's next? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... risis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They need to be held to the same standards as anyone else.

Sadly, I agree with both of you. In a perfect world, they should have been disarmed, cuffed and booked. In the world we live in, they probably made the right call. A bunch of blowhards spouting off and going home with a minimum of publicity or an armed confrontation that ends up on every television in the country.

Im still trying to figure out all the outrage behind a jail cell suicide, though. She tried before, she was obviously a cutter based on the autopsy and she didn't appear all that mentally stable to begin with.

[VoiceofReason]

Because the police let them get away with it this time, they will push it a little further the next time, and a little further the next time. Eventually someone will cross the line and there will be bloodshed.

Did they announce their “protest” in advance? I don’t think it would be a good idea.

[powerboatr]

Because the police let them get away with it this time, they will push it a little further the next time, and a little further the next time. Eventually someone will cross the line and there will be bloodshed.

Did they announce their “protest” in advance? I don’t think it would be a good idea.

the guy with his hand just at the ready is scary...only takes a split second to go all wrong.
very disturbing