Ok , almost afraid to post this one.

[bersaguy]

Ok, I know some folks have made their feelings known about infowars and I feel pretty much the same but this does raise an issue I think needs to be discussed a little. I will post my view on this and then ya'll can beat e up if you want to..... :ugh:

This is about what I think is somewhat stupid and see no need for it as all it does is give all anti-gunners more ammunition because it is folks like these that think they need to rub the anti-gun peoples noses in it. I do realize that it is their right to do what they did but I just think in my mind it is a stupid necessary action that should be done in the voting booth or someplace it will do good. Below is the article I am talking about.

 

Trooper stumbles for words after realizing man’s replica black powder revolver is not considered a firearm under Texas law.

(info Wars) – On a visit to the Texas state capital to show his appreciation for the Second Amendment right that we all enjoy, Texas Open Carry board member Terry Holcomb was arrested by Texas state troopers who appeared ignorant of state firearm laws.

 

http://www.teaparty.org/shock-video-texas-state-troopers-arrest-legally-armed-american-28403/
 

Edited September 16, 2013 by bersaguy

[Guest TresOsos]

I wouldn't worry so much about what others think, let them beat you up about Alex Jones if they want too.

 No source should just be ingnored, fact is Alex jones has been right more often than not and sometimes he's

years ahead of the curve.

[UncleJak]

I read infowars. He is right as much as any other news source. :)

sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

[mav]

I could be way off base here (not really), but it seems to me that if you are going to enforce the laws then perhaps you should know what the law is in the first place.  To make an arrest after you have been shown to be wrong isn't protecting and serving; it is just being a d***.

[R_Bert]

Cute spandex.  The chicks in Walmart did a better job.  These guys were just as DHed as the cop. 

[Randall53]

My job requires training...annual training, quarterly training at times and lots of update training. It's required and we all have to do it and keep it up to date or im down the road. I can't understand why so many LEO's don't know the rights of the people. I've known a few and they've said the job is often boring. Maybe they need to study some during down times. I mean they are on the taxpayers clock.

Of course some of them are in it to feed their egos, and peer pressure should correct these guys or they should be fired rather than their actions being covered up. Edited September 16, 2013 by Randall53

[Guest TresOsos]

I just don't think they care what the laws are or what your rights are, if they say it, by damn its so.

[Randall53]

I just don't think they care what the laws are or what your rights are, if they say it, by damn its so.

Yep and that's the ones my last sentence described. They should be fired rather than protected.

[Oh Shoot]

So, what was he actually charged with; couldn't make it out in background when they cuffed him. Like unlawful carry, since he was carrying openly?

 

Or carrying on posted property, maybe? I know Texas has two different signage laws. I'm assuming revo was loaded?

 

Oh and remember in TN there's nothing in TCA definitions AFAIK to exempt antique/replicas from any of the firearm laws (except AG has opined that a felon could own one), so I wouldn't try it here with a loaded one without a permit, or in restricted place even with one.

 

- OS

Edited September 16, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest The Itis]

Police officers are not lawyers, they only go by a rough idea of what is and isn't legal. They figure out the actual citation/statute when they spend forever in their cars looking up the statute on the computer.
In the scheme of things, the police officers do the grunt work but get undermined in court by lawyers and judges who actually know the law. Of course, lawyers and judges have the luxury of taking their time reading and deciding, whereas an officer has to decide right quick if something illegal might be going on before confirming it is indeed illegal.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Police officers are not lawyers, they only go by a rough idea of what is and isn't legal. They figure out the actual citation/statute when they spend forever in their cars looking up the statute on the computer.
In the scheme of things, the police officers do the grunt work but get undermined in court by lawyers and judges who actually know the law. Of course, lawyers and judges have the luxury of taking their time reading and deciding, whereas an officer has to decide right quick if something illegal might be going on before confirming it is indeed illegal.

They have a duty to understand the law if they are going to defend that law. They have no reason to arrest someone if

that person is not acting in a threatening position, and is not in violation of the law. In other words, if you don't know the

reason you are arresting someone, don't do it.

 

If that is grunt work and the court is undermining them, quit doing it. A more representative situation of the court undermining

a cop's action would be when he arrests a perp for a crime committed and being prosecuted for and the court disagreeing,

like meth, rape, DUI, etc., not something he knows nothing of.

[E4 No More]

Police officers are not lawyers, they only go by a rough idea of what is and isn't legal. They figure out the actual citation/statute when they spend forever in their cars looking up the statute on the computer.
In the scheme of things, the police officers do the grunt work but get undermined in court by lawyers and judges who actually know the law. Of course, lawyers and judges have the luxury of taking their time reading and deciding, whereas an officer has to decide right quick if something illegal might be going on before confirming it is indeed illegal.

In some cases they can gather the information, right up a report, and then go to the prosecuting attorney to decide whether a crime was committed. If not then no problem; if so they can get an arrest warrant. An arrest doesn't have to happen immediately.

[Defender]

Infowars sometimes is the first to break a real story...if I recall correctly, they were first to break the MRAP vehicles to Civilian Government agencies story...amd others...then again,. when Alex was on Piers Morgan's show about guns, he didnt help our side at all, and came across not so good...

[JayC]

Or instead of arresting somebody and making a fool of yourself...  Take down his information, consult with the DA and if the DA believes a crime has been committed go arrest the guy after the fact.

 

It's not like any sane person believed this guy was going to be hard to find a week from now.  He clearly wasn't a danger to the public, so why the rush to arrest him on the spot?

 

Police officers are not lawyers, they only go by a rough idea of what is and isn't legal. They figure out the actual citation/statute when they spend forever in their cars looking up the statute on the computer.
In the scheme of things, the police officers do the grunt work but get undermined in court by lawyers and judges who actually know the law. Of course, lawyers and judges have the luxury of taking their time reading and deciding, whereas an officer has to decide right quick if something illegal might be going on before confirming it is indeed illegal.

 

[bersaguy]

If I am not mistaken Any state or Federal Capitol Building is a place that is off limits to all firearms so I think that may have been the law they might have broken. I know you cannot carry any firearms up to the Tennessee capitol building or on capitol building grounds but I am just guessing since I don't know Texas laws..........jmho

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I wonder why that is? They should be the same as anywhere else. I never figured out what was so special about state and

federal property, which just so happens to belong to we, the people.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh, and don't be afraid to post from anywhere, so long as it isn't against a rule. There will always be someone to say some

negative remark on just about any source. Let them have their say.

[JayC]

You are mistaken.

 

We can legally carry on the state grounds of the capital, just not in the building...  and the only reason we can't carry in the building is because the RINO Harwell refuses to sign a letter allowing the 39-17-1359 signs to be removed.

 

We could legally carry into the capital tomorrow if she would sign that letter.

 

If I am not mistaken Any state or Federal Capitol Building is a place that is off limits to all firearms so I think that may have been the law they might have broken. I know you cannot carry any firearms up to the Tennessee capitol building or on capitol building grounds but I am just guessing since I don't know Texas laws..........jmho

Edited September 16, 2013 by JayC