Tasered for openly carrying rifle in Texas

[hks95134]

Perhaps.


But can you guarantee that the cops wouldn't have taken his rifle from him and not returned it? If something like this happened in CA, they would have confiscated it just on "public nuisance" alone. I think that was more what the kid was doing; not trying to cause a scene (he did), but he was worried that he wasn't going to get his rifle back if he was illegally disarmed.

Now, my opinion could be wrong, I admit, but it does seem a reasonable assumption at this point, especially in light of how much gun-grabbing we've seen by LEO's all over the country lately.

When the LEO's say "put down the gun" all your other issues and priorities suddenly become insignificant. It would be very smart to do as they tell you, and very stupid not to. Darwinism is waiting in the wings to see what you will finally do. And you only have a second at most to decide.

[hks95134]

...and if the kid had done so and they reacted with:

"HE'S GOING FOR HIS GUN!!!"

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

Then what?

=8-)

Smart thing to do in my opinion is lie down without touching your own weapon and let THEM remove it - or the same standing. Notice that in a lot of open carry stops - the officer will approach and remove the firearm and check it over while the owner keeps his hands clear on the approach.

=8-)

Exactly !!!

[hks95134]

Rosa Parks was also a jerk to the bus driver who was, by the way, only following the law. She should've just moved to the back and there would have been no trouble.

Oh wait.... that's different.

That's way different ... Rosa Parks did not have a gun. Good thing too or she would have been a dead Rosa Parks and we would never have heard of her.

If you want to send a message about gun rights, then file a lawsuit like Peruta did.

[hks95134]

As San Antonio has an ordnance making this action illegal, I don't see the cops getting significant trouble...

Agreed, the LEO's were simply responding to a call and taking the appropriate action to disarm the "psycho." They were simply doing their job, what they are trained and paid to do.

... I do not see the need for the taser to effect the arrest for the local statute...

That is a decision which is the responsibility and purview of the LEO's on the scene. Tasers are used when someone is not cooperating and the situation does not yet warrant his/her being shot. It's a good thing the LEO's tazed him rather than shot him.

...I also see that statute getting reversed for not being a legal law.

You mean "ordinance" rather than "statute." State legislatures pass "statutes" whereas counties and cities pass "ordinances." Good to keep those two separated.

If a city or state wants to take away your open carry privilege/right (whatever you want to call it), then according to Peruta as long as you have another available right (such as shall-issue concealed carry according to the petit Peruta court) then your rights have not been infringed.

Ergo your view is not necessarily justifiable. I think the city's ordinance will stand.

Think about the power and deadliness of a rifle or carbine (in this case it was actually a carbine, but for lack of better understanding of gun history, the weapon is being called a rifle). Open carrying a rifle or carbine whether loaded or unloaded is a serious risk to the safety of the populace in an urban setting -- at least that is what the demigod R.W. Reagan as governor concluded back in 1967 with his signing of the Mulford Act in response to the Black Panters open carrying their rifles in Sacramento.

Thus I suspect that the ordinance will survive, even though it is Texas.

[hks95134]

The problems with current gun rights begin with posts like this.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And the 64 thousand dollar prize is when Darwinism kicks in and you do not live to reproduce.

[hks95134]

He doesnt have to surrender his privacy and property if he is not committing a crime.

Sometimes it is possible to actually see a Darwin Award coming in the future to a time and place near you.

It seems amazing to me when fools cannot understand plain English about "put down the gun."

Your gun is empty and unloaded yet you are strutting around town with it like a bantam rooster.

You are confronted by several armed and well trained men.

They tell you to put down the gun.

Robert's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt ... you really should put down the gun without wasting time, or risking a Darwin Award.

[hks95134]

I kind of love this video.

Kid baits cops with camera and open carrying a rifle
-Cops respond and talk to him reasonably
-Kid tells cops he broke the law without realizing he broke the law
-Officers taze his *** and put him in handcuffs

I don't really get why they became so much more aggressive at about 10:30 in the video, it seems like a supervisor or sergeant showed up or something, because the officers tone changed dramatically at that point. But I really can't blame them for tazing this kid. He broke the law, he was baiting cops by having his camera out recording, he was being a smartass. He pretty much got what he deserved.

Bravo !!! There is hope for us yet. And a glimmering of reasonableness in every crowd. Even this one.

[fastdice]

Dumb *** kid should of just went home the first time he was asked to and he never would of been tazed. I know a lot of people here are defending his rights bla bla bla. But in the end this will lead to more restrictions because it's just plain stupid. He has no reason to be out at night with a chambered Ar.

Thanks for wasting the Leo's time and taxpayer money dumb ***

This is the answer.

[IVC]

That's way different ... Rosa Parks did not have a gun.

It's a straw man argument. Akin to saying "way different... the kid didn't ride on a bus." True, but irrelevant.

What they have in common is that they both did something that was morally unacceptable for the time and place they did it. They both could've walked away without any inconvenience and they both could've filed a lawsuit later, rather than cause the confrontation. And, neither did.

[MeatyMac]

There are no guarantee's in life. And you have no idea if they would have confiscated his rifle in California. I have grown up with and still have a lot of friends that are police officers, and they all have no problem with concealed carry or open carry if it was still legal in California. Yes there are some officers that are against it and have attitude problems. And sadly most gun owners judge all officers based on a few. Just like the anti gun folk do to us gun owners. Which in my opinion makes those gun owners huge hypocrites when it comes to officers.

Hypocrites...

I wasn't aware that gun owners subscribe to a similar 'thin blue line' credo that cops do. We gun owners typically call each other out when our fellow gun owners do stupid and/or illegal things, this thread is good example. When the day comes that good cops realize their 'thin blue line' credo tarnishes all of them and their departments then they will be judged by the actions of the majority of good cops, instead of by the minority of bad ones.

[IVC]

Sometimes it is possible to actually see a Darwin Award coming in the future to a time and place near you.

You are completely missing the point.

What many of us are saying is not that the kid did the brightest thing in the world, that he should have gone out taunting LEO-s, not even that he didn't have to get tasered.

What many of us are saying is that the system where a constitutional right is marginalized to the point that a mere exercise will get you in trouble is a broken system. What we are saying is not "kid didn't do a stupid thing," but "we need to make 2A acceptable in public again to avoid having to face tasers for discreet and proper carrying in public."

Besides, as it turns out when you read Pertua, it was the obnoxious OC-ers who confronted LEO-s that resulted in AB-144, which in turn was a part of reasoning and decision in Peruta.

[Sleighter]

I'm not going to comment on the prudence of open carry, but my biggest concern was the inability of the responding officers to maintain control when confronted by another aggressive cop on the scene.

The situation was resolved, the officer and kid reached an agreement that he would go home and the deputy would follow him. Why couldnt that reasonable officer speak up to the aggressive officer and keep the situation from escalating?

THAT is the problem with LEOs. The aggressive are not stopped by the other LEOs on scene. Where is their integrity?

[sarabellum]

Dumb *** kid should of just went home the first time he was asked to and he never would of been tazed. I know a lot of people here are defending his rights bla bla bla. But in the end this will lead to more restrictions because it's just plain stupid. He has no reason to be out at night with a chambered Ar.

Thanks for wasting the Leo's time and taxpayer money dumb ***

He was on his way home, while open carrying a Mosin Nagant rifle as is his right in that state. Saying that it is foolish to open carry or "he got what he wanted" is no different than what klan folk said-y'all need to shut up or get water cannoned- when people of color wanted to exercise the 14th Amendment right to vote, have equal accommodations (i.e. the end to white only services), hold the same employment as white people, or attend desegregated schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVw9UjHPEt8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLDn7MjbF0

For everyone else, the young man did not "taunt," "act rude, or "mouth off" to the police officers. He told them calmly "just walking home...exercising my rights..." Even if he had said, "stick it," shocking a non-resisting "suspect" is a use of excessive force. We have a lot of fascists in the 2A community, who believe that the police can arbitrarily violate the 4th and 14th Amendments, just because they get emotional. We should not have mentally unstable people carrying a badge http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post13765307.

The cops are lucky that the young man did not fully exercise his 4th and 14th Amendment rights to resist an unlawful arrest. A person may resist an unlawful arrest. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 537 (1900). A person may use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest, which threatens death or bodily injury. United States v. Goodwin,440 F.2d 1152 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Linn, 438 F.2d 456 (10th Cir. 1971). In the 9th Circuit, the added element is lack of probable cause for the government to believe a crime is being committed in their presence. United States v. Moore, 483 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1973). The 1st police officer admitted that the young man was not committing a crime, when he told him to walk home. The young man informed the sargent that under Texas law he had the right to open carry. The officers are fortunate that the young man did not resist as was his right.


The people should not live in fear of the government. That is one of the many themes in the 2nd Amendment and in the physical, political act of openly carrying. We do need to openly carry to call into question capuccino notions that it is "unfashionable" to be able to defend oneself from thugs wearing droopy pants or a badge: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0#post13761680 .

Open carry has always been the norm. Open carry creates a gentle society where everyone is on notice that to take liberties with someone else's woman or someone's else's property is a risky vocation.

[Roering]

Meet Rob.
Rob likes to open carry.
When Rob openly carries, people get nervous.
When people get nervous, they call the cops.
When the cops show up and see the gun, they get nervous.
When cops get nervous, you get tazed.

DON'T GET TAZED!!!

[gunsmith]

and people will tell you how awesome Texas is for gun owners.