GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2013, 18:32   #76
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Watch as I prove I'm a bigger man...

I'll admit, in the example I gave, I was NOT talking about a man with a gun. I was talking about the police get a call from someone that says "there's a guy walking down my street, I don't recognize him, never seen him, he's not one of my neighbors, and I think he might be up to something!" and then proceeds to give a description of the person, what they're wearing, etc.

Now, I know - for a fact, because I've seen it happen - the cop that gets that call from dispatch is going to roll his eyes, but he'll respond to it (barring any other more immediate calls coming in). The cop is likely going to approach it with the attitude of just satisfying the lady that called it in. He sees a guy that matches the exact description, and then he'll probably just ask the "hey, how's it goin'? Mind if I talk to you a minute?"

Now, you take that scenario, and THEN you add a gun into the mix - and not just a gun, but a gun at the ready position, and things aren't going to just be "Hey, mind if I talk to you?"




But it IS true. I did say that a police officer will and can stop someone to ask who they are WHEN RESPONDING TO AN INQUIRY BY A CITIZEN without any mention of a gun. They'll handle it however the person they're talking to decides it should be handled.


CF just appears to be of a mind that a police officer should never, ever, EVER talk to a citizen on the street unless they WITNESS that citizen committing a crime or the cop is violating every civil right in existence.
Now when the cop asks to talk the guy can. No prob. You said he had to. Couldnt keep walking unless he was willing to risk his life to do it. Small difference.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 18:35   #77
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Now when the cop asks to talk the guy can. No prob. You said he had to. Couldnt keep walking unless he was willing to risk his life to do it. Small difference.
You can keep walking if you want, but the cop IS going to stop you, I guarantee it. Because that, in and of itself, is not illegal, but it IS suspicious activity, especially when responding to a "suspicious person" call.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 18:40   #78
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post


Oh, and yes, walking down the street CAN be seen as a threat. someone calls the cops that there's a suspicious person walking down their street, they'll come to investigate. They get there, see you walking, and they're going to be on edge and order you to stop and keep you hands where they can be seen. This is both legal and proper. If you're dumb enough to keep walking or shove your hand in your pocket, your life is in YOUR hands, not the cops.

.
This is the nonsense I was referring to.

C'mon LEO'S. Terry stop?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 04-16-2013 at 18:49..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 18:48   #79
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You can keep walking if you want, but the cop IS going to stop you, I guarantee it. Because that, in and of itself, is not illegal, but it IS suspicious activity, especially when responding to a "suspicious person" call.
Suspicion of what? Being black in a white neighborhood.

Walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion OF A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY which is what Terry v Ohio requires.

So when I'm walking down the street doing nothing wrong a cop doesn't have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and takes me down because I won't stop and explain myself -- and cracks my head on the concrete -- who exactly do you think will be facing criminal charges?

Failing to stop and explain who you are and why you're walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion just because some old lady thinks you don't belong in her neighborhood.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 18:53   #80
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Absolutely not correct. I've already cited the Texas law that was being broken. It's disorderly conduct.



It wasn't over his shoulder, it was cross-slung over his chest, mag in, bolt closed. You can see it in the video.
Mag in bolt closed? What does that have to do with anything? Slung over his chest is a manner meant to alarm? What you're describing is how a rifle is supposed to be carried. You really think if the bolt was open that changes things. Good lord

No. Waving a pistol is manner meant to alarm. Good luck getting that conviction. Maybe in illinois. The fact that you think this is disorderly conduct is laughable.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 04-16-2013 at 18:54..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:06   #81
wprebeck
Die, bird, die!
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a swamp, if I'm lucky
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Suspicion of what? Being black in a white neighborhood.

Walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion OF A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY which is what Terry v Ohio requires.

So when I'm walking down the street doing nothing wrong a cop doesn't have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and takes me down because I won't stop and explain myself -- and cracks my head on the concrete -- who exactly do you think will be facing criminal charges?

Failing to stop and explain who you are and why you're walking down the street is not reasonable suspicion just because some old lady thinks you don't belong in her neighborhood.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Go ahead and cite the full Terry decision. You know, the part where I have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.



Yeah, try and keep it honest. Keeping with your example, exactly how do you know what the complaint was? A little old lady may have called in any number of things. Let's assume it was limited to a stranger in her neighborhood with a rifle. First, I'd hate to think that someone might take ownership in her community, and thereby be proactive in heading off crime where she lives. That'd just be bad, wouldn't it, because someone would be on their way to tell CF "No", and you just can't deal with that...it's evident in ALL of your posts.

In any case, an officer responds to the call, and asks to speak with you. Now, we come to the crux of the matter. CF believes he can just keep on walking, because this is somehow a consensual contact with the police, and he doesn't have to stop (again, with the authority issues). Well, you're wrong.

As has been described ad nauseum on GT, this situation falls under Terry. A person who doesn't live in a certain neighborhood, carrying a rifle, most certainly does rise to RS under Terry. As TBO said, your beliefs of what the law SHOULD say, don't make those beliefs true in the real world, where CF has to listen to people who don't make as much money as he does (because being told "no" by a guy who barely makes $40k just chaps your ass).

So, feel free to not stop. Then, let us all know how it feels getting proned out at gunpoint. And then, when you go hire your fancy attorney, he's going to inform you of the "reasonable person" standard. In this case, a reasonable person would not walk down a street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, while carrying a rifle openly, and then refuse to stop when approached by the police.

Good luck with all that. And, as far as my other comments. Your posting history clearly indicates a guy who thinks that, because he has money, the rules don't apply. I know you, even though we've never met. Generally, your money is enough to get you out of most small fry problems you get yourself into, but every now and again, we get one that just can't buy his way out of trouble. One of those was featured on "The First 48" locally.

In any case, I know it really burns you that people can tell you "no". Get used to disappointment.
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:22   #82
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
Go ahead and cite the full Terry decision. You know, the part where I have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.



Yeah, try and keep it honest. Keeping with your example, exactly how do you know what the complaint was? A little old lady may have called in any number of things. Let's assume it was limited to a stranger in her neighborhood with a rifle. First, I'd hate to think that someone might take ownership in her community, and thereby be proactive in heading off crime where she lives. That'd just be bad, wouldn't it, because someone would be on their way to tell CF "No", and you just can't deal with that...it's evident in ALL of your posts.

In any case, an officer responds to the call, and asks to speak with you. Now, we come to the crux of the matter. CF believes he can just keep on walking, because this is somehow a consensual contact with the police, and he doesn't have to stop (again, with the authority issues). Well, you're wrong.

As has been described ad nauseum on GT, this situation falls under Terry. A person who doesn't live in a certain neighborhood, carrying a rifle, most certainly does rise to RS under Terry. As TBO said, your beliefs of what the law SHOULD say, don't make those beliefs true in the real world, where CF has to listen to people who don't make as much money as he does (because being told "no" by a guy who barely makes $40k just chaps your ass).

So, feel free to not stop. Then, let us all know how it feels getting proned out at gunpoint. And then, when you go hire your fancy attorney, he's going to inform you of the "reasonable person" standard. In this case, a reasonable person would not walk down a street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, while carrying a rifle openly, and then refuse to stop when approached by the police.

Good luck with all that. And, as far as my other comments. Your posting history clearly indicates a guy who thinks that, because he has money, the rules don't apply. I know you, even though we've never met. Generally, your money is enough to get you out of most small fry problems you get yourself into, but every now and again, we get one that just can't buy his way out of trouble. One of those was featured on "The First 48" locally.

In any case, I know it really burns you that people can tell you "no". Get used to disappointment.
Again, my example wasn't a guy with a gun. Just a guy that "looks suspicious" to someone familiar with their own neighborhood.

I'm a very big guy. I tend to wear jeans, black biker jacket (denim), and when it's cool out, I wear a black stocking cap, with dark Oakley sunglasses. I'm also frequently unshaved, looking like Lobo the Wolfman. Gun or not, I could easily see someone calling a cop on me while simply walking around.

Yes, I think that makes the person calling a nervous old biddy. But those biddies do exist, and the police DO respond to their calls like they do with other citizens.



That said, CF continues to insist that the guy in TX in this news article/video was EXACTLY THE SAME as just a guy walking down the street, or even a guy walking down the street with a rifle across his back.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb

Last edited by WarCry; 04-16-2013 at 19:23..
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:40   #83
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
Go ahead and cite the full Terry decision. You know, the part where I have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.



Yeah, try and keep it honest. Keeping with your example, exactly how do you know what the complaint was? A little old lady may have called in any number of things. Let's assume it was limited to a stranger in her neighborhood with a rifle. First, I'd hate to think that someone might take ownership in her community, and thereby be proactive in heading off crime where she lives. That'd just be bad, wouldn't it, because someone would be on their way to tell CF "No", and you just can't deal with that...it's evident in ALL of your posts.

In any case, an officer responds to the call, and asks to speak with you. Now, we come to the crux of the matter. CF believes he can just keep on walking, because this is somehow a consensual contact with the police, and he doesn't have to stop (again, with the authority issues). Well, you're wrong.

As has been described ad nauseum on GT, this situation falls under Terry. A person who doesn't live in a certain neighborhood, carrying a rifle, most certainly does rise to RS under Terry. As TBO said, your beliefs of what the law SHOULD say, don't make those beliefs true in the real world, where CF has to listen to people who don't make as much money as he does (because being told "no" by a guy who barely makes $40k just chaps your ass).

So, feel free to not stop. Then, let us all know how it feels getting proned out at gunpoint. And then, when you go hire your fancy attorney, he's going to inform you of the "reasonable person" standard. In this case, a reasonable person would not walk down a street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, while carrying a rifle openly, and then refuse to stop when approached by the police.

Good luck with all that. And, as far as my other comments. Your posting history clearly indicates a guy who thinks that, because he has money, the rules don't apply. I know you, even though we've never met. Generally, your money is enough to get you out of most small fry problems you get yourself into, but every now and again, we get one that just can't buy his way out of trouble. One of those was featured on "The First 48" locally.

In any case, I know it really burns you that people can tell you "no". Get used to disappointment.
I'm guessing you're a guy who's been told no a lot in life and now that you have a badge you get off a bit getting to pay that forward to others. Anyway, we all have hangups.

We're talking about two different reasonable suspects suspected of suspiciousness here and I believe you've combined them into one super suspicious suspect. Lets look at each one:

Guy #1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry


Oh, and yes, walking down the street CAN be seen as a threat. someone calls the cops that there's a suspicious person walking down their street, they'll come to investigate. They get there, see you walking, and they're going to be on edge and order you to stop and keep you hands where they can be seen. This is both legal and proper. If you're dumb enough to keep walking or shove your hand in your pocket, your life is in YOUR hands, not the cops.
A guy simply walking down the street. Some old biddy calls the cops because she doesn't recognize him and he looks suspicious (maybe he's Mexican). LEO roll up, maybe watch a bit. Guy's just walking down the street. LEO roll up on him and ask him where he's going. He doesn't answer. LEO asks him where he lives. Doesn't answer. LEO requests ID. Doesn't answer. Keeps walking. Puts his hands in his pockets.

Do you have a Terry stop? Can you shoot him like WarCry insinuates?

If you do have a Terry stop, please explain:

where you have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.

Please be clear and keep it honest because the guy's not Mexican, he's me out for a walk and he's got really good representation.

Guy #2 in the video:

Walking down a rural road with his minor son with a rifle hanging on a sling. Please explain where you have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.

Please try and keep it honest because it is on video tape.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:50   #84
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post

In any case, an officer responds to the call, and asks to speak with you. Now, we come to the crux of the matter. CF believes he can just keep on walking, because this is somehow a consensual contact with the police, and he doesn't have to stop (again, with the authority issues). Well, you're wrong.

As has been described ad nauseum on GT, this situation falls under Terry. A person who doesn't live in a certain neighborhood, carrying a rifle, most certainly does rise to RS under Terry.
Here's the third suspect under suspicion for being suspicious. You say he has to talk to you or you can "prone him (I know you wish it was me) out at gunpoint.

Carrying a gun? The gun is hanging on a sling.

So you tell me, where you have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person being detained under Terry -

Is,

recently was,

or is about to be

involved in criminal activity.

Is having a rifle hanging on a sling and minding your own business reasonable suspicion? Why have the charges been reduced to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty – a class B misdemeanor. To save face? How much you want to bet there will be no charges before long and the county will be writing a check?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:51   #85
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


Wait for the court trial to conclude.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:52   #86
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,020
I think it might get back to that part of the statute that was discussing carrying in a threatening manner.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.

Last edited by Bruce M; 04-16-2013 at 19:54..
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:55   #87
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Again, my example wasn't a guy with a gun. Just a guy that "looks suspicious" to someone familiar with their own neighborhood.

I'm a very big guy. I tend to wear jeans, black biker jacket (denim), and when it's cool out, I wear a black stocking cap, with dark Oakley sunglasses. I'm also frequently unshaved, looking like Lobo the Wolfman. Gun or not, I could easily see someone calling a cop on me while simply walking around.

Yes, I think that makes the person calling a nervous old biddy. But those biddies do exist, and the police DO respond to their calls like they do with other citizens.


The police SHOULD respond to the call. They might arrive and find they have reasonable suspicion under Terry. Or they might not and might just watch him for a while, get a good description, follow him with the dash cam running. Whatever.

Quote:
That said, CF continues to insist that the guy in TX in this news article/video was EXACTLY THE SAME as just a guy walking down the street, or even a guy walking down the street with a rifle across his back.
I'm just following your lead, like when you said just walking down the street can be a threat and if the guy puts his hands in his pockets he may be lawfully shot.

Here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry


Oh, and yes, walking down the street CAN be seen as a threat. someone calls the cops that there's a suspicious person walking down their street, they'll come to investigate. They get there, see you walking, and they're going to be on edge and order you to stop and keep you hands where they can be seen. This is both legal and proper. If you're dumb enough to keep walking or shove your hand in your pocket, your life is in YOUR hands, not the cops.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 19:57   #88
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
I think it might get back to that part of the statute that was discussing carrying in a threatening manner.
But you can't say that, because CF has declared that if you're carrying a rifle across your chest in a ready position, mag in, bolt closed, only an idiot would find that to be in any way suspicious or alarming.



And if you disagree with CF, you're just wrong, always, because he is infallible and knows more than everyone. Just ask him!
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:00   #89
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
I think it might get back to that part of the statute that was discussing carrying in a threatening manner.
This?

Quote:
PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
The rifle was hanging from a sling. That's like saying open carrying a pistol in a holster is the same. Besides, why haven't they charged him with that?

I'm not going to do the research but dollars to donuts anyone convicted of the above was involved in brandishing, waving a gun, handling a gun in a public place.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:02   #90
vettely
Senior Member
 
vettely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 1,240
I'm not going to get involved in the debate but FYI here is our (Texas) statute for Unlawful Carrying. Notice it reads "handgun" not and/or rifle/shotgun:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
__________________
N.R.A. Life Member
vettely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:05   #91
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But you can't say that, because CF has declared that if you're carrying a rifle across your chest in a ready position, mag in, bolt closed, only an idiot would find that to be in any way suspicious or alarming.



And if you disagree with CF, you're just wrong, always, because he is infallible and knows more than everyone. Just ask him!
I carry a gun every day, mag in bolt closed. How do you carry?

"Ready position"? Its hanging from the sling.

Anyone notice the part about how the cop put him in the car and told him he couldn't get out until he answered his questions? I wonder if he asked to call his lawyer at that point and what response he got.

So now we have a guy walking down a country road with his minor son with a rifle hanging from a sling. He's disarmed, cuffed and placed in the patrol car and told he cannot leave until he surrenders his 5th Amendment rights. He isn't even suspected of a crime.

Told people around there don't care what the law says. I guess that means the officers shouldn't care either.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 04-16-2013 at 20:05..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:08   #92
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by vettely View Post
I'm not going to get involved in the debate but FYI here is our (Texas) statute for Unlawful Carrying. Notice it reads "handgun" not and/or rifle/shotgun:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
This is interesting because when I've teased Texans about not having open carry several of them have assured me they do because they can open carry a rifle.

Turns out they were right....well.....kinda. According to folks here that is grounds for arrest for disorderly conduct.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:08   #93
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by vettely View Post
I'm not going to get involved in the debate but FYI here is our (Texas) statute for Unlawful Carrying. Notice it reads "handgun" not and/or rifle/shotgun:
But it DOES fall under disorderly conduct.


Can anyone seriously say these methods of carrying a rifle appear the same to the general public?

The Okie Corral

The Okie Corral
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb

Last edited by WarCry; 04-16-2013 at 20:11..
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:08   #94
BlackPaladin
Senior Member
 
BlackPaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
we all have hangups.

Please try and keep it honest because it is on video tape.
Your hangup seems to be that you believe s h i t therefore it must be true.

Guy walking with rifle, it's getting checked out and guy is going to have rifle removed until further notice. He is going to get the rifle back, after things check out.

In CF land, cops don't exist. Just like the guy you were commenting to, you also don't like to be told no. Instead you come here to complain and run your mouth as though you expect people to stand behind your viewpoint. The thing is, you seem like a smart enough guy, however in every anti cop post you have made, in the end the cop comes out on top after the investigation/court ruling. Hate authority all you want, it's here, it's better than not being here, it's not leaving. CF, your views mean nothing outside of GT. You might have a small following or people that share your viewpoints. At the end of the day, your still going to bat zero, these cops are going to be ruled justified, your not going to like it.

I really would like to find something we agree on someday.
__________________
niners club #187
moto club #600
Bull dawgs club #55
RIP Ofc. Tommy Decker #6402 CSPD

Last edited by BlackPaladin; 04-16-2013 at 22:14..
BlackPaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:10   #95
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


The reason you need to wait for a court ruling is you are too biased and emotionally invested in this topic. You keep interjecting an entertaining facts not in evidence . In fact, things that are available so far counter the supposition you put fourth.
Wait for the court ruling.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:17   #96
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPaladin View Post
Your hangup seems to be that you believe s h i t therefore it must be true.

Guy walking with rifle, it's getting checked out and guy is going to have rifle removed until further notice. He is going to get the rifle back, after things check out.

In CF land, cops don't exist. Just like the guy you were commenting to, you also don't like to be told no. Instead you come here to complain and run your mouth as though you expect people to stand behind your viewpoint. The thing is, you seem like a smart enough guy, however in every anti cop post you have made, in the end the cop comes out on top after the investigation/court ruling. Hate authority all you want, it's here, it's better than not being here, it's not leaving. CF, your views mean nothing outside of GT. You might have a small following or people that share your viewpoints. At the end of the day, your still going to bat zero, these cops are going to be ruled justified, your not going to like it.

Out of spite for the other guy you insulted.

Dumbass.
Dumbass (you know he flung the dumbass first, right? I've remained civil and respectful)

What anticop post have I made? Which of them have you followed and cataloged to see that the cop has come out on top after the court ruling?

I'm not anti-cop. Never have been. Where have I made any slanderous comments or slurs about cops?

Just once in a thread like this it would be nice to see a cop stand up for a person's rights. In this case it would be nice to see a cop maybe say, "The guy is a jackass looking for a confrontation but he wouldn't have gotten one if those brothers in blue of mine weren't idiots."

It would be nice to see some cops say, "I know the court says I CAN do that to a citizen but I won't because I don't think its right or in the spirit of the Constitution."

But no, can't remember ever seeing that. It appears to me that cops tend to take sides in situations like this and any criticism of them is considered to be "anti-cop".
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:17   #97
gjk5
Pinche Gringo
 
gjk5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grand Junction Colorado
Posts: 9,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But it DOES fall under disorderly conduct.


Can anyone seriously say these methods of carrying a rifle appear the same to the general public?

The Okie Corral

The Okie Corral
I have not taken one side or the other here, but I feel I have to say that yes; to the general public there is no difference in those.
gjk5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:19   #98
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,558
Blog Entries: 1


CF, there's folks I've disarmed, and folks I've let keep their arms.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:27   #99
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
The reason you need to wait for a court ruling is you are too biased and emotionally invested in this topic. You keep interjecting an entertaining facts not in evidence . In fact, things that are available so far counter the supposition you put fourth.
Wait for the court ruling.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
What are the charges? What facts am I not aware of? I'm completely aware that I don't have all the facts here. It would be impossible. But I'm honestly curious now what you're referring to and what you believe the charges will be.

What got me going on this was WarCry saying this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry


Oh, and yes, walking down the street CAN be seen as a threat. someone calls the cops that there's a suspicious person walking down their street, they'll come to investigate. They get there, see you walking, and they're going to be on edge and order you to stop and keep you hands where they can be seen. This is both legal and proper. If you're dumb enough to keep walking or shove your hand in your pocket, your life is in YOUR hands, not the cops.
What do you think? WarCry correct? Guy walking down the street minding his own business can be forced to answer questions and you can shoot him if he puts his hands in his pocket while he walks?

Is walking down a country road with your 15 year old son with a rifle hanging in a sling reasonably suspicious that the guy is engaging or about to be engaged in criminal activity?

I'll exit the thread now unless folks want to attack me some more for taking a position they disagree with but I will check back to read your response TBO.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 20:29   #100
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,667


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
CF, there's folks I've disarmed, and folks I've let keep their arms.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2
I have no doubt. I'm sure every day you go to work you do your best to do the right thing, apply the law equitably and serve the public.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 824
194 Members
630 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42