Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 8:46:53 GMT -6
bb, google it your own self!! Didn't think you would or could...that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 20, 2013 9:01:29 GMT -6
Waa Waa Waa! "Spoon Feed me mama!!"
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Aug 20, 2013 9:16:47 GMT -6
Northsider is correct, Illinois is either the only one, or at best one of a handful of states that require a FOID. I stand corrected a CHC is required for the handgun, but the result was the same. ""The person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Justice White, Terry v Ohio Absent Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, a lack of cooperation isn't cause for detainment." BTW, the case isn't over yet, as the city PD is not cooperating with the atty's legal req. for the PO's video. etc.... Is THIS the Case YOU are referring to?
If so, it is OHIO and has been decided.Terry v. Ohio (No. 67) WHITE, J., Concurring Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
392 U.S. 1
Terry v. Ohio
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
No. 67 Argued: December 12, 1967 --- Decided: June 10, 1968 MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, reserving judgment, however, on some of the Court's general remarks about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule which the Court has fashioned in the process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment.
Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked, but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation. In my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective frisk for weapons. Perhaps the frisk itself, where proper, will have beneficial results whether questions are asked or not. If weapons are found, an arrest will follow. [p35] If none is found, the frisk may nevertheless serve preventive ends because of its unmistakable message that suspicion has been aroused. But if the investigative stop is sustainable at all, constitutional rights are not necessarily violated if pertinent questions are asked and the person is restrained briefly in the process.
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Aug 20, 2013 9:23:35 GMT -6
As of April 23 2013 the Laws in Texas for Carrying.
A person commits an offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun on or about his or her person unless the person is on one's own premise or premises under the person's control or inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control. It is unlawful to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carry on or about one's person a handgun in a motor vehicle if the handgun is in plain view or the person is engaged in criminal activity (other than a misdemeanor traffic violation), prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or is a member of a street gang. A person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun must apply by obtaining a request for application materials from a handgun dealer, the Department of Public Safety, or any other person approved by the department. The Department of Public Safety shall review all applications materials and make a preliminary determination as to whether or not the individual is qualified to receive a handgun license. The fee for a new license is $140.00 and the renewal fee is $100.00. The Department will forward application materials to qualified applicants, or send written notification with the reasons that that the preliminary review indicates the individual is not qualified to receive a license. On receipt of the application materials a criminal history record check is conducted by the Department of Public Safety. The Department must issue or deny the license within 60 days of receipt of the completed application. The Department must be notified within 30 days of a name or address change.
A new license expires on the first birthday of the license holder occurring after the fourth anniversary of the date of issuance. A renewed license expires on the license holder's birthday, five years after the date of expiration of the previous license.
The applicant must submit: a completed application form; two recent color passport photographs; fingerprints; proof of age (at least 21); proof of residency in Texas; a handgun proficiency certificate from a qualified handgun instructor; an affidavit stating that applicant has read and understands the law concerning a license to carry and the laws on use of deadly force and that the applicant fulfills all eligibility requirements; and an authorization to access records. The Department shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials. Eligibility requirements include no record of felonies, certain misdemeanors, addictions, mental illness or delinquency in child support payments or tax payments.
A person applying for a concealed carry license must successfully complete both the classroom and range components of the handgun proficiency course to receive a handgun proficiency certificate. The handgun proficiency certificate must be no more than two years old and shall specify if it is valid for a revolver or semi-auto pistol based on the proficiency certificate.
The Department will issue a license to carry only for the categories of firearms listed on the handgun proficiency certificate. A person who is renewing a license to carry a concealed handgun must renew their handgun proficiency certificate.
The Department of Public Safety by rule shall establish a procedure for a person who is a legal resident of a state that does not provide for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun, to obtain a Texas license. A non-resident applicant is required to pay a fee for the criminal history record check and investigation. Such permits remain valid until expiration and can be renewed until the other state issues a license recognized as a valid license in Texas
It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of: a government court; a business that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption; a school or educational institution, high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event that is taking place; a hospital or nursing home; an amusement park; a place of religious worship; a polling place on the day of an election; a meeting of a governing body; a race track; a secured area of an airport; a correctional facility; a correctional facility or within 1000 feet of such, on the day of an execution; the property of another after receiving notice that concealed handguns are forbidden on that property. It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a penal institution.
It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun while intoxicated. It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun and intentionally fail to conceal the handgun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 9:24:26 GMT -6
Waa Waa Waa! "Spoon Feed me mama!!" Nice post.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 20, 2013 9:35:39 GMT -6
No troll, the law is based on THAT case, not the present being discussed. Re-read it!
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Aug 20, 2013 9:38:38 GMT -6
No troll, the law is based on THAT case, not the present being discussed. Re-read it! THEN could YOU PLEASE POST the Link to where YOU found Your INFORMATION.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 20, 2013 9:52:23 GMT -6
See the previous 2nd post above! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Aug 20, 2013 10:05:53 GMT -6
See the previous 2nd post above! LOL! Then I guess MY POST stands CORRECT.
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Aug 20, 2013 10:06:05 GMT -6
LOL
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 21, 2013 19:33:46 GMT -6
Troll, that statute refers to a handgun. I do not believe he was openly carrying his handgun. He was perfectly within his rights on the rifle, from: www.texasgunlaws.org/Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person? A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license. Carrying one with the muzzle down on a single point sling could only be cause for alarm for people such as Butters, and obviously this rouge cop.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Aug 21, 2013 19:54:30 GMT -6
And the person who called in to the cops and was alarmed.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 21, 2013 20:36:47 GMT -6
And the person who called in to the cops and was alarmed. So, if I see a group of individuals walking down the street and felt alarmed by them, I could call the police and they could stop and question and search them based solely on the fact that I felt alarmed by them, even if they werent doing anything illegal?
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Aug 21, 2013 20:58:31 GMT -6
To quote snipe, "Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.". Apparently someone called in and felt alarmed by the manner the individual was carrying his weapon. If that was the case then I would say yes, the cops could stop you because you are not properly handling your weapon.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 21, 2013 21:10:32 GMT -6
To quote snipe, "Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.". Apparently someone called in and felt alarmed by the manner the individual was carrying his weapon. If that was the case then I would say yes, the cops could stop you because you are not properly handling your weapon. I would be curious to hear the recording of the call to determine if the call was for someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a gun in a reckless manner.We also dont have any video of the initial encounter. I see Bluestar posted something about the PD refusing to give the defendant's lawyer a copy of the police video of the incident which would show how the guy was carrying the gun at the initial encounter.Like Sniper also said, muzzle down is a safe carry position. Here is some things I found on how the court has dealt with similar incidents: Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun, Eugene Volokh • October 1, 2009 3:47 pm if such open carrying in that place is generally not a crime. So holds St. John v. McColley (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2009), which grants summary judgment to the seized person on his Fourth Amendment claim: Defendants lacked a justifiable suspicion that Mr. St. John had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime. Indeed, Officer McColley conceded that he did not observe Mr. St. John committing any crimes and that he arrived at the theater with the suspicion that Mr. St. John was merely “showing a gun”, which is not illegal in the State of New Mexico. Nor was there any reason to believe that a crime was afoot. When they found him, Mr. St. John was peacefully sitting through the previews for his second movie of the day. Officers had no reason to believe that Mr. St. John had been, was, or would be involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. [Footnote: Defendants contend that Mr. St. John was about to commit a crime because, had he refused to comply with their request that he leave the premises, he would have been trespassing. If accepted, this argument would significantly erode Fourth Amendment protections. Because the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants' novel contention, no further discussion of it is necessary.] ... Moreover, Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention. For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Holding that the search violated Ubiles’ Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.” The Tenth Circuit has also dealt with this question. In United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) the Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.... Though the King court ultimately found that King’s detention was non-investigatory and could, thus, be justified under the officer’s community caretaker function while he advised King of the hazardous conditions that his honking created, the King rationale does not apply here because Defendants had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place. More broadly, Defendants’ actions are not protected by the community caretaker exception because they had no basis for believing that anyone’s safety was at risk. Defendants simply received a report that an individual was carrying a firearm in a location where individuals could lawfully carry firearms. They received no indication that Mr. St. John was behaving suspiciously or in a threatening manner. When Defendants arrived, they found Mr. St. John sitting peaceably in the Theater preparing to watch a movie. They had no basis for believing that Mr. St. John’s use of the weapon was likely to become criminal, cause a public disturbance or pose a threat to safety. Nor did anyone seem particularly alarmed by Mr. St. John’s weapon. Indeed, the record does not reveal that anyone—including the lone customer who spoke to Officer McColley about Mr. St. John’s gun—was even concerned enough to have left the Theater as a result.
|
|