Legal Issues

Gun Owner Illegally Cited for Crime

A membership in Texas Law Shield is like insurance against the worst that could happen.

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.

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)

  1. 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.

  2. 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..

  3. 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.

    1. 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.

  4. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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).

  5. 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”.

    1. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. 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.

  7. 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.

    1. “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.

  8. Open carry is scary enough already with police going off on legalized murder mayhem and what has grown to be a cops only year round hunting season for vagrants and pet dogs and cats and one case of killing a canary, bad idea to let public open carry.
    I know we in US do not mind killing and beating of migrants and homeless people in US andbany damn person outside of US id now a terrorist, but you let some cop kill a mans dog, it might be hard to convict the man if he shoots the cop; temporary insanity and jury from public at large outrage at killing a dog?,oh my goodness, how that hurts american sensabilitys.
    That said I am all for it, as within the first year the population wouldvget thinned out a bit, helping with lowering the unemployed numbers; and hell who knows maybe they would allow evrryone to hunt cats and dogs , or parrots, which could help keep meat prices in line.
    I guided for a few winters and most of my customers were active and retired military officers and senior NCO’s, now thinking of them publicly packing an AR, AK or anythong more potent than a Red Ryder BB gun scares the hell out of me.
    But it might be interesting.
    First though let us go find the Constitution with its Bill of Rights that we no longer have!

    1. WOW… just, WOW. I think you’ve just won the prize for the most incomprehensible pile of drivel ever composed in these forums.

  9. I think that July 4th, Independence Day, should be the National Open Carry Day. As I read over the last few posts, I do not advocate carrying where it is not legal. I carry my long arm through my neighborhood as protection against unleashed aggressive dogs (all dogs must be on a leash in our city) , coyotes, and bobcats that are in our subdivision. As for the statement about unwanted attention, that is just one of the benefits of open carry in this day and age, everyone will know that I have a weapon…the good and the bad guys. Peace through deterrence.

  10. Get rid of the Gun Free Zones first and you may see a decline in planned attacks against the unprotected. Especially since they may run into someone open carry or CCW to prevent their onslaught. Weapons can be use just as much for good as bad. People afraid of people with weapons need to learn not everyone with one will hurt them or their families. .

    … WELL, I DO !.. And I HAVE for MANY a DECADE…

    “” A WEAPON”” instead of a “‘TOOL”…

    Sincerely< SGT. E. G. ROCK

    "" youngest daughter is an Assist. DA in a Major Mid-West City, and that she will “come to YOUR rescue” Post Haste""…

    WELL, "WE" don't all have D.A. daughters…
    so "WE THE PEOPLE" will have to depend of The CONSTITUTION and the AMENDMENTS SET FORTH that KEEP this COUNTRY FREE from TYRANNY and a GOVERNMENT which believes it CARRIES ABSOLUTE POWER. .

    1. “SGT. E. G. ROCK” – First, you may want to check your ‘caps lock’ key… seems to be acting up.

      Second, you may want to rethink your stance on carrying a rifle into your local mall. Malls are not public places, they are someone’s property and thus the OWNER makes the rules.

      In fact, ALL human rights are derived from the concept of ownership. This is the most fundamentally important constitutional premise. We fought our way out from under a king who claimed control of all the lands, all the people and all the wealth under his purview. We won that war and we claimed the human right of OWNERSHIP… of ourselves, of our thoughts, of our speech, of our lands, and of the fruits of our labors.

      This simple premise was clearly codified and protected in the Bill of Rights. We own ourselves, our beliefs, our movement and our speech (1st amendment). We can protect to the death, that which is ours (2nd amendment). We own our homes and possessions (3rd and 4th amendments). We have the right to redress when someone takes that which is ours, or when we stand accused of the same (5th, 6th, 7th & 8th amendments). The ninth and tenth amendments cap it off with the premise that all of our rights are equally important and that the federal government CANNOT exceed their constitutional mandate to trump state or individual rights.

      What this should tell you is that you can stand on a street corner and preach religion to your heart’s content, but you do NOT have the right to do it in my living room. Your rights to free speech and religion end the moment you enter my property… unless I grant you my permission. Likewise, if you plan on carrying a firearm into a mall, you’d BETTER have the owner’s permission. Otherwise it’s no different than standing in your neighbor’s backyard brandishing a shotgun. You’d be arrested for trespassing and probably some charge for intimidation or threatening (unless your neighbor has given you permission to do so).

    2. @M40: Your reply to SGT. E. G. ROCK has nothing to do with his very pointed statement towards M1917A1. I was disappointed because, though well written, it fizzled completely out of context. It was so disconnected that it looked as if you had mistakenly posted to the wrong person.

      Carrying a rifle in a mall has nothing to do with Sgt Rock’s repugnance towards a man that would hide behind the skirt of his daughter and then brag about it in a public forum. I too found M1917A1’s statement to be disgusting and am embarrassed that he has anything to do with this fine forum.

      Your assertion that, “ALL human rights are derived from the concept of ownership” is ludicrous; particularly when you espouse that to be a foundational factor in the creation of the Second Amendment.

      The length you put into posting such a twisted and misguided concept indicates to me that you are not worthy of debate. And so there will be none.

      This is not an attempt to engage you in further dialogue, but rather my response is to ensure other younger or more impressionable readers are alerted to your erroneous statements so they may know to do their own research.

      For other readers: Ownership is not absolute according to the Constitution. The concept has become even more convoluted as cases roll through the Supreme Court. Properties that are open to the public DO NOT (oops caps lock stuck) enjoy the same rights and protections as those afforded in personal dwellings. A good example of government control over supposed PRIVATE PROPERTY is mandatory handicap parking and wheelchair access or face fines and penalties. ‘Nuff said.

    3. Those who would blur the lines of ownership and not recognize that they are fundamental to human rights are Socialists.

      All of what I wrote is anathema to the very core beliefs of socialism where they have the imaginary “right” to raid your wallet and control your thoughts and actions. Bear in mind… if you do not own yourself in thought, speech and actions, and you lose your right of ownership to that which you produce with your labors… you are indeed a SLAVE.

      The Socialists of this world have been trying to obfuscate the ties between human rights and ownership for a century or more. Their goal is akin to human bondage. A condition where all “rights” are on loan from the government , and only applicable to those who conform to government edict. This is NOT the intention of the founders. You are BORN with rights, not awarded them by the government or by a piece of parchment.

    4. Who said (or even implied) that I was hiding behind her skirt, My Daughter knows The Law, so therefore I (and if you were in the same circumstances) would use her knowledge too prevent or lessen any time spent as a guest in the local “Cross Bar Hotel” or any funds to disbursed to prevent/lessen same. When you have an advantage, you use it. I didn’t pay that University Tuition for nothing, slick. (my advice to you, stay in the ‘shallow end’ of the pool and you won’t get hurt.)

    5. @ M1917A1: Who said you were hiding behind her skirt? Well quite clearly I did. The truth stings doesn’t it?

      But it is of no consequence anyhow, because you’d never need your daughter’s services when you clearly lack the courage and fortitude to open carry for the cause anyway. Your own comment is a contradictive oversight that makes you henceforth easy to dismiss.

      Worse is that you’d be willing to place your own daughter into a conflict of interest at her job without further considering as long as you got your money’s worth. So unlike you, this is precisely why I would NEVER use or abuse the love of my family in such a manner. So you’d be wrong, in your warped assumption that I would do likewise in the same circumstances.

      My advice to you would have been to stay out of the pool altogether, but you’re too timid to enter it anyway, slick.

    6. Actually…public places, even though they may be privately owned, have to conform to certain standards. For example, there are accessibility rules that prevent public businesses from architecturally discriminating against those with mobility impairments like wheelchairs. A racist owner who hates black people cannot ban them from his public property. That’s just 2 examples, there are many more. Further, a privately owned public place is required to make it clear (typically with signage) if they do not want guns carried there. In the absence of such signage, or a law preventing carry in that type of place (ie, a school), you can reasonably assume that you have the owner’s permission to carry on his premises. The objective of the open carry movement is simply to remove the legal restraints on carrying handguns openly, in the absence of signage that indicates the property owner desires to ban such carry on his property.

    7. This is a conundrum that results from “gray areas” in the law. There are similar “gray areas” in knife laws. While most states have strict laws concerning the length of blade you can conceal, there are almost no laws about openly carrying a larger blade. You can carry and use a machete or an axe while clearing brush on private property or even public property (ie; while camping, hunting, etc). However, carrying a machete around in your local mall will warrant a SWAT team response (and justifiably so).

      These “gray areas” allow police and courts WIDE latitude in discerning when and where these tools are being appropriately used. This means people need to practice common sense. I sometimes carry when going to malls and stores, but it’s CONCEALED carry. Why provoke private store owners into adding the signage to ban firearms? All it would take is a few complaints from other customers, and pretty soon you’d see a LOT of stores with posted rules concerning carrying arms.

      I agree that open carry is a great thing, but if gun owners push the carry agenda too far, it can and will backfire. We don’t want to alienate private property owners. They can BAN whatever they like, and the constitution does NOT bar them from doing that… it’s their property, and their rules.

  12. My only problem is that it will draw attention (good or bad) to the “open Carrier”. You never know who is out there and what their intentions are.

  13. I was listening to the news here in Texas the other day. We had some folks trying a demonstration on open carry, wielding their rifles.
    While I am an avid hunter and Pro gun owner. The guys seemed to do a disservice to the cause. If we are to do this, then it needs to be much better organized and just not a bunch of guys getting all emotionally charged and really making things worse by misbehaving in the public.
    With that being said I listened to the opposed side. Some woman gets on the news and says OMG I am so scared at the site of a gun. These are the people that cause the whole system to un ravel with this kind of thinking. No merit to her comment. Just because someone did not grow up or take the time to understand a weapon or take lessons, Does not mean that we need to shelve owning guns.

    1. If those who do NOT understand what they are talking about as far as weapons go … we who do understand and believe in the CONSTITUTIOIN should put forth a new law that stops those hammerheads from driving a vehicle – any vehicle and see how the like being targeted for no reason.

    2. NOBODY, but the problem is the media coverage of ANY conservative protest will make it look that way.

      The last time I marched on the state house in a pro-gun rally, the organizers specifically told everyone, “decent attire, best behavior, no over-the-top signage”, etc… and everyone listened and complied with that request. We had about 500 gun owners, mostly middle aged and older, professional, respectable, middle class folks

      However, late in the day a small group of a half dozen or so ‘knuckle dragger’ types showed up. They were college aged kids decked in camouflage and waving signs that were fascist/anarchist in nature. They were OBVIOUSLY liberal “plants”. They stood alone off to one side.

      Take a wild guess who got the news coverage in that evenings news? Watching the news that night, you’d think our rally consisted NOT of hundreds of everyday citizens, but of a half dozen anarchist nut cases.

      This is something that needs to be addressed… the left WILL plant their own folks in protests in order to cast a bad light, and the media WILL play along.

    1. How many gang members do you know that do not have an extensive rap sheet…ie…. Can legally possess a firearm much less open carry.
      I am not affiliated with any gang so I cannot answer that question… You apparently can. I would be very interested to know.

  14. I personally would not “Open Carry” unless I’m hunting with a Pistol/Revolver/Thompson Contender (I don’t hunt). I don’t relish the thought of being the obvious target of a “Dirt Bag”, or harassed by the Local Police as above. I feel for the Kid. That’s why I so glad that my youngest daughter is an Assist. DA in a Major Mid-West City, she will “come to my rescue” Post Haste.

  15. There should be a national open carry day. An inexpensive grass roots effort could really get some mileage out of this. If a large enough portion of the population open carried their long arms all at the same time, it couldn’t help but make the news. They would have to increase the 911 operators on that day, but all the operators would have to say is that it is legal. If the Public Safety department was in any way pre-emptive, they would have PSA’s telling everyone it is legal to open carry, especially on open carry day.

    Just a thought.

    1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless you are a district attorny or a cop. People this incompetant should be fired for cause.

  16. I have been carrying open in Alabama for over 30 years. I have been detained by the police only one time. the officer had never heard of the law and was ready to take my weapon. I told him of the law but wasn’t believed but he did call the desk sgt which did know the law. I was allowed to leave with my weapon. but the young officer told me that I needed to be more careful and that he did not like the open carry law. however, after carrying open for so many years and only being stopped once is a pretty good record.

  17. This problem boils down to two types of officials: those that make honest mistakes due to their unfamiliarity with the laws and others that choose to ignore the law based on their personal anti-gun politics. Regardless, the overall problem could be curbed if we mounted a public service campaign to educate both civilians and law enforcement nationwide. The unfamiliar types would thus become familiar and the anti-gun types would be forced to comply once their counterparts became more aware of the actual rules on the books.

    The anti-gunners in positions of official capacity know what they are doing. They know the law is on our side, but still enjoy playing dumb in order to harass us with short term arrests, citations, court appearances, and temporary gun confiscations. However, with better public awareness the proverbial “cat is out of the bag” so-to-speak, and these officials will be less likely to pull such shenanigans due to increased public ridicule.

    Look, over the years the progressive left mounted an aggressive campaign to reshape our speech with unwitting political correctness police. Enough people pushed it down our throats over the years that it is now the new norm.

    Why could we not be just as effective if we did the same with a Second Amendment awareness campaign? Imagine flooding radio and TV for years with public service announcements using short Second Amendment commercials that explain the law. Create them just like the anti-drug and tobacco commercials with catchy phrases and jingles.

    Better yet, piss off the anti-gunners by using public funding to pay for it since it’s the law. We could effectively target the worst offenders by forcing MSNBC to run the bulk of the ads and catch the rest of the scholarly libs as they watch their daily news on The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and Real Time with Bill Maher.

    1. Love the idea. As a LEO I fully support this and think police chiefs and sheriffs should make PSA’s telling the public that open carry is legal (where applies) informing the public of the laws, thus reducing needless alarmed public / man with gun calls.

  18. Logic dictates that there cannot be any law governing guns, only their use. Otherwise “infringe” is meaningless rendering the Constitution feckless in preventing tyranny. And of course that is what has happened.

  19. What the citizens of this country have not done is to band together and force the government to follow the Constitution. We have relied on the Supreme Court to enforce it. There is a very strong movement to destroy it. The fools who vote for the free stuff don’t realize that when those who are using them get the total power that they want, they will no longer need those votes and there will be nothing left to protect them or any other citizen that the governments thugs want to go after.

  20. There is nothing wrong with open carry, I lived in Arizona for several years where they have open carry, I have never lived in a place where I felt more safe!

  21. There is an astounding lack of knowledge about our laws, history and constitutional principals among many of today’s law enforcement officers. For that I blame, primarily, our education system that no longer stresses history and the development of our republic, the hiring process of the Law Enforcement agencies and the failure to teach much about constitutional principals in Police Academy. Academys don’t teach this stuff. They teach liability and political correctness (cultural sensitivity). I’ve never even heard of a hiring process that tests a candidate’s knowledge of history or constitution principals. However, most of these officers are well intentioned but are just ignorant. Rather than hating them or showing them disrespect, I suggest finding a way to privately fund programs to work with the Law Enforcement agencies to provide a way to educate these officers, filling in the gap of knowledge today’s education system and academy training has left in them. A non-political effort . Otherwise it will only get worse. Don’t make enemies of them. Help educate them as friends.

  22. Do we have too many rules?
    “We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers –” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

  23. Harris County has the dirtiest and most crooked cops in Texas! Just go to Youtube and type in Harris County sheriffs dept. The one that will stand out is the mother who was raped in front of her three kids! And the idiot DA didn’t really want to dismiss?! I guess you can see that the corruption in Texas runs really deep!

  24. As a retired Police Officer, I tried to be aware of all current and newly passed laws that I may have to enforce. Apparently the last two officers where not educated by their Department. In reference to the Female States Attorney, Female’s in general hate to be proven wrong.

    1. How do you even BEGIN to educate police on gun laws when there’s a tangled web of some 20,000 firearms laws on the books? It’s becoming a mess. States need to start revising their current laws with CLEAR and CONCISE laws that are well-published and easy to interpret by the general public and by law enforcement.

      Problem is, the liberal agenda tends towards making it as complicated as possible to stay within the law. They make licensing, reporting and registration difficult so as to make the average person NOT want to wander into that paperwork mess.

  25. While this may be an argument for “national” firearms laws, taking away the right of the several states to create their own laws (state sovereignty), this would be a huge mistake. If the federal govt were to take over the right to determine firearms laws in every state, they would only abuse this power. We need to continue to try to educate all local LEOs and their departments. I say try because we all know educating people on the truth is nearly impossible.

    1. The ultimate law of the land says that our right to own and carry and gun we want will not be infringed. That law was again expressed in 1903 and any law that inhibits the posession or carry of a gun by the federal or state government is both invalids and illegal. It is already a federal matter but as we see over and over the Injustice department only enforces the laws it wants to.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.