Gun Owner Illegally Cited for Crime

By CTD Blogger published on in News, Videos

A guest post from Texas Law Shield.

Texas Law Shield Program Attorney Edwin Walker shares the story of a lawful gun owner who was illegally cited for a crime by overzealous police officers—open carry of a rifle for self-defense, not as a political statement.

The takeaway: Many officers don’t know the state’s law, and many district attorneys don’t like the state’s current open-carry laws. However, they do have to follow them, nonetheless.

What are your thoughts on open carry? Ask your questions in the comment section or contact U.S. Law Shield or Texas Law Shield lawyers.

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (53)

  • gee

    |

    @ hide behind

    two words
    punctuation
    spelling

    please try harder

    Reply

  • oldshooter

    |

    Personally, I think the best compromise between these issues is to have open carry rallies/demonstrations take place in public places, but NOT in private businesses, restaurants, malls, etc. It would achieve the objective of getting the public used to seeing guns in public, and raise public awareness of the need/desire for an open carry amendment to the TX Constitution, but WITHOUT the negative pressure on private companies that might lead to their putting up signs banning guns on their property.

    Reply

  • Hide Behind

    |

    ODD , The views expressed by Thomas Paine are taken as liberal but yes they were liberal even in his return from Jail in France and awanted Outlaw by Englands monarch he who had slmost single handily raised the consviousnedd of males in Americas on Rights not Priveledgrs should These 200 + years be denounced by an avowed “conservative.
    THENDeclaration of Independence days more upon Freedoms than does our last copy of Constitution and its included Bill of Rihhts.
    They are the most librtal words ever to describe how man should ; not be governed ; but govern
    My relatives back then and many of us today do not need to display, they mor I fought so we or you could have guns
    There is nothing conservative ny being those who sold the.2nd amendmen
    Sp they cam get permission from their betters to hide behind permits..

    Reply

  • oldshooter

    |

    I’m not a member of the Open Carry TX movement, but it seems clear to me that the fundamental issue with open carry demonstrations revolves around whether it is better (or perhaps necessary) to engage in behavior that may frighten some citizens in order to force the public to 1) become more familiar with (and therefore less frightened by) the obvious presence of guns in the public square, and
    2) raise the issue to a level of prominence that will generate legislative action to make the open carry of handguns legal.
    Is the open carry of handguns a good idea? Yes, of course it is. ANY increase in individual freedom and liberty is desirable; this is a matter of philosophy, not tactics, and all tactical arguments are irrelevant.

    If you only carry a gun to defend yourself, you might want to think about the fact that you only have the right to do so because others have made a public legal issue of that right. These things don’t just happen. Remember, folks in Washington DC or Chicago were denied their 2nd Amendment rights until recently, when people stood up and argued (and demonstrated) for those rights. So, should we change our laws (or, in the case of TX, our state Constitution) to allow open carry? Certainly! Especially since there is no apparent downside (most states have allowed open carry for many decades without any problems).

    A similar tactic (but in reverse) was used successfully in Ohio to get the state to pass a CCW law. It turns out that open carry was already legal there, and when citizens saw lots of folks carrying, they encouraged their reps to vote for a law that would allow it to be done concealed (maybe because many just didn’t want to have to SEE it!).

    In any case, in TX at least, our Constitution has a holdover from the Carpet Bagger days that generally forbids open carry of handguns. If you carry openly, you are violating a law, so there is no way to take that to court and win; it is a clear cut violation of a clearly constitutional law.
    This is the same situation faced in the late 1950s by the black community. If they wanted to eat in a “White’s Only” place, they couldn’t get any satisfaction by going to court, because they’d be stuck with an open and shut case – eating there clearly violated the existing law. Therefore, they had to use public demonstrations to make the issue public, and try to get the laws changed. It worked for them.

    The open carry issue is now becoming a public issue in TX, but probably only because it has been in the news more and more lately. Our next Governor, Greg Abbott, favors it, so we should have a decent chance to get the constitutional amendment passed in the next couple of years. But it would never even come up if it weren’t for the recent news stories about people’s actual rights under current law being violated, or citizens being firghtened.

    So, should we support the open carry movement, even if it upsets some citizens, and even if it causes police to over-react and violate some carrier’s rights? I say yes. I’m old enough to remember the civil rights movement of the 1950s an ’60s, and I remember it SCARED a lot of white people to see black folks standing up for their rights back then. That fear, and the over-reaction of the southern police departments, are the reasons it was newsworthy, and being in the news is why it worked! The same thing is happening right now with Open Carry TX, in both regards. So you don’t have to go out with them and risk getting in hot water with the Police, but you probably shouldn’t be denigrating their efforts either; they’re taking all the risks and they’re doing it for YOU, and for all the rest of us too!

    Just keep in mind that no one is saying open carry is the best tactic for self defense (although it seemed to work pretty well in the old west!), the argument is rather, “Would scaring people (which makes the news) be more likely to get the TX statehouse to amend our constitution to allow open carry, or would it be more likely to backfire and cause a backlash against open carry? THAT is the only question at issue now.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      Your words are my sentiment exactly. I have posted very similar comments to other past articles. However, I usually conclude my posts with an answer to your question as follows:

      In essence there is no question because one half of that query has already been tried and failed, that being silence and inaction, which has already lead to the obvious erosion of our gun rights. So the only obvious remaining option left would have to be activism.

      Reply

  • Hide Behind

    |

    Ah for the blessings of dogma instead of truth, “If that is not the way it was, then that is the way it should of been”.
    Of such memes does the stupidity of men in love with own vices and voices cause the destructions of free will as they try to tear down the very battlements that free men hide behind.

    Reply

    • M40

      |

      Are you on some kind of prescription medication, or just a dyed in the wool foreign socialist using a bad translation program to post here?

      Reply

    • M1917A1

      |

      hide behind is just a Troll, unless of course he/she/it/they are going to “Hide Behind” a Cop that took on average 15 minutes to respond to a 911 call (in my area). Most Police will tell you (out the side of their mouths that they are just the “mop up crew” (when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away)). I myself would only open carry when hunting with a Pistol/Revolver/Thompson Contender (I don’t hunt with those types of firearms, I shoot High Power, 7.62 mm NATO or .50 BMG long range), but I would not stop or vote against a law for “open carry”. I just don’t want to be the obvious target in the room and as a previous poster stated you have to have permission to be on someone else’s property (the Food Court in the local Mall belongs to somebody) with a firearm of any type/caliber even in an “open Carry” State.

      Reply

    • M40

      |

      I used to rely on cops for protection, but even the skinny ones are a real pain to tote around. Glocks are so much lighter.

      Reply

    • M1917A1

      |

      I agree, even the skinny ones have way too much gear on (Vest/Duty Belt/Boots) and weigh too much to carry more that a few feet. My Conceal carry is a Glock 17 (Belly Band) and a Ruger LC9 (Lower Leg).

      Reply

  • larry

    |

    Your estimate of 100 million is quite low. From 1900-1999 the conservative estimate is 262 million private unarmed citizens have been slaughtered by their own governments. 96 million in China alone. The first thing that each government did in all cases was…”Ban and Confiscate All Privately Owned Firearms”.

    Reply

    • M40

      |

      Good catch, you are quite correct sir. I didn’t do any kind of accurate count… I was just going by rough recollection of the “historical exploits” of socialism and knew it to be in excess of a hundred million. Now that you mention the Chinese genocidal massacres of those who wouldn’t go along with the Socialist agenda… yup… the numbers are truly staggering.

      Funny how socialists… err, liberals… err, progressives… pretend to be “open minded” or “tolerant”. They are anything BUT. They are perhaps the most closed-minded folks on earth, and completely intolerant to any view but their own. Their history of slaughtering those who disagree is a testament to the worst that human nature has to offer.

      Reply

  • larry

    |

    There Will Be Blood.
    I am an avid supporter of our U.S. Constitution.
    I am an avid outdoors man.
    I am a regular participant in many shooting sports.
    I am a Marine Corps Expert with a M14.
    I am a NRA Certified Expert with a M1A and a 45acp.
    I do not carry for the sake of my right to do so. My reason to carry, If I carry, is for personal protection in a known hostile environment.
    Advocating rallies to carry for the sake of one’s right to do so, Creates a Hostile Environment that a law abiding citizen should avoid.
    Someone will do something stupid, blood will flow, the rally then becomes counter productive.
    If you wish to carry, do so. But don’t make it a sensationalist state of affairs.

    Reply

    • Mike Walker

      |

      I too shot expert with an M-14 and .45.
      I too have my CCW permit.
      I too think that brandishing a weapon negates advantage of surprise to the point that it actually calls unwanted attention to the bearer and borders on irresponsibility.

      Reply

  • Hide Behind

    |

    There is a Discipline of Philosophy called Epistemology that is a study og nature and scope of knowledge on telationships between beliefs as truths and whay is calledctheory of justification
    A part of that threepronged without an beginning or end is another term of “foundationalism” it os without a doubt the most regressive way of thinking by so many self proclaimed historians that are among tje Constitutionalist mindsets.
    Their basic beliefs and axioms have no chains of justification and instead rely upon unprovable memes, the oft heard talks.of ownership being badis of Human Rights is one such meme..
    Prove up or shall ee move on to real issue of open carry.
    Open carry has not one iota to do with the 2ndAmendment, and has become more a cultural battle of what Neitzsche called infividuals “Will to Power” and it is IMHO one very treacherous ground to walk into without caefull thought of the matter.
    THere is a legal right but then there is a social contract that by respect not by fear of power but consensous that holds a nation together.
    Today we have both sides minoritys each trying to exert their own Will to Power as a punishment and pain with a resulting pleasure by both sides; Acts of willing conscousness havimg no reality towards Freedom or Liberty. Destruction being goals at no matter the cost.
    Because I can legally prform an act does mot in all caes justify the act, it is intent that matters.

    Reply

    • M40

      |

      “Hide Behind” is a GREAT name for you. You and your ilk are indeed hiding behind many terms and names, but it’s not too hard to figure out who you are. The moment you called constitutionalists “regressive”, your true nature was revealed. You are a socialist.

      Socialists don’t like the stigma that follows them (more than a hundred million murders over the last century or so), so they changed their name to “liberal”. They were anything BUT liberal by the dictionary definition, and weren’t fooling anyone. When the name liberal became stigmatized, they again changed their name to “progressive” (again an oxymoronic term, as they stand for regression to a failed system).

      You will NOT bring your socialism to America. You will FAIL in that endeavor. There is a domestic army of more than a hundred million armed individuals who will stop you cold. THIS is why you socialists HATE the second amendment.

      Your ideas have failed every time and in every place they have ever been implemented. Your beliefs destroy nations, wreck economies, shred human rights and crush the human spirit. The track record of socialism is an abysmal, shameful stain on the history books. This is why folks like you who still espouse it need to “hide behind” other names. Luckily, you are a transparent bunch, and easy to spot.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


− 5 = zero