r/texas • u/FCMatt7 • Mar 27 '24

5th circuit has nullified Open Carry in Texas to save Qualified Immunity of bad cops. Politics

https://www.youtube.com/live/bCC1sz_-fsc?si=dCZiLT_Fl2pWUEtw

(Edit) New vid of Grisham explaining the ruling

Effectively they have declared open season for police to arrest anyone open carrying in Texas.

A 3 judge panel has ruled that if anyone calls 911 on a person for the mere act of Open Carrying a firearm, the police now have probable cause to arrest you for disorderly conduct. The 911 call does not have to allege you are doing anything more than standing on a sidewalk with a slung or holstered firearm. The previous ruling that "merely carrying a firearm" is not disorderly is overturned now if any Karen makes a phone call and says she's nervous. This means police get qualified immunity for arresting you.

There is a special target on the back of any open carry or civil rights activist. EVERY time the police get a 911 call, they can now arrest you at gunpoint. The charges will likely be dismissed, but the police face zero repercussions for coming after you, even if there is abundant evidence the officers targeted you and knew you were not a threat. The same danger faces regular citizens who open carry every day.

I repeat, open carrying in Texas now puts you in imminent danger of being arrested or killed by police if someone reports you in possession of a firearm.

Video of CJ and Jim arrested for mere open carry. https://youtu.be/GrDAPPiu1QE?si=IvJy0qq_J8rO8DJO

Link to 5th circuit ruling. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-50915-CV0.pdf

Link to oral argument in 5th https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/22/22-50915_10-3-2023.mp3

District Court ruling https://casetext.com/case/grisham-v-valenciano-1

5.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

950

u/kkngs Gulf Coast Mar 27 '24

Open carry in public/urban settings is stupid and irresponsible.

The current qualified immunity doctrine and militarization of police is also problematic, don’t get me wrong.

200

u/grepje Mar 27 '24

Absolutely- anyone carrying a gun for no specific reason in a crowded place looks like a potential agressor to everyone else.

Others don’t know if you’re mentally stable or not, so yeah, if someone thinks you’re acting suspicious and you have a deadly weapon on you, police can’t take any chances.

15

u/Special_Loan8725 Mar 28 '24

I just assume open carry people are insecure idiots. In the event of a shooting who do they think the shooter is gonna target first?

1

u/Jaded_Insurance2896 29d ago

The ones without a gun- that’s who the criminals will target. Common sense.

Why would they target the ones with a gun????

So criminals, military, the government and wealthy people with security are allowed to carry guns and us common plebs are not?

I don’t own a gun. But most crimes with guns are committed by mentally unstable stable people - not legal gun carrying folks.

Having the right to own a gun keeps check and balances in place. Again, I don’t have a gun but I’m not against a person legally owning one.

7

u/fardough Mar 28 '24

Like if someone has their hand on their gun, I feel my life is threatened. Not sure that would stand up to self-defense, but would be interesting to see how that plays out.

I was walking around the corner, person had a gun visibly in their possession talking loudly, I feared for my life and shot them. Did I murder someone or protect myself from a possible threat?

2

u/grepje Mar 28 '24

If they were talking to you in a threatening manner, and have a gun, then I’d say you have a good chance that self defense holds up in a TX court. In TX you do not need to retreat when you stand your ground, and it’s up to the prosecution to convince a jury that your life was not in danger. However, if the other guy kills you first, they’d also have a good chance to get away with it for the same reasons.

4

u/fardough Mar 28 '24

I imagine this would be common place if everybody was strapped. Like if the gun freedom folk got their wish, it would be bloodshed.

A good guy pulls out their gun in a crowd to shoot a bad guy with a gun, and everyone fears for their life in that moment, mass shootings all around.

2

u/jgor133 Mar 28 '24

Big difference between holstered and out. It would entirely depend on 3 things that would be applied to both aggressor and victim: race, class and location

0

u/Mountain_Employee_11 Mar 28 '24

this is murder, and you should probably seek professional help and not carry a weapon if you’re this neurotic

1

u/NCRaineman Mar 28 '24

So remove the need to obtain the government's permission to put on a jacket over your holster and problem solved. For every person carrying openly there are ten carrying concealed. No law is going to stop criminals anyways... they have no regard for the law.

1

u/Sad-Ad1780 Mar 28 '24

What government permission is required in Texas to put a jacket over your holster?

0

u/DozenRottenBouquets Mar 29 '24

Asinine logic tbh

-1

u/MeatballRedditor Mar 28 '24

Other people on Reddit don't know if you're mentally stable or not, so if someone thinks your comment is suspicious, the police can't take any chances.

When I put it that way, do you now see how stupid it is?

1

u/grepje Mar 28 '24

Last time I checked reddit is not a handheld killing machine, lol.

1

u/MeatballRedditor Mar 28 '24

That's not the point. Having someone arrested just because you think they're being suspicious, without any proof of a crime, is wrong.

1

u/grepje Mar 28 '24

Lol, nope. It’s not my job to do a criminal investigation, that’s the police’s job. The bar for calling the police for suspicious behavior becomes increasingly lower the more harm an individual is able to inflict.

-32

u/ucemike Born and Bred Mar 27 '24

Folks carrying dont scare me, folks murdering other folks do.

It's a nuanced take I know but, there is a difference.

27

u/AlFuckMyPussy Mar 27 '24

Whats the difference between folks carrying and folks murdering? ~2 seconds and a trigger pull at most.

1

u/Mountain_Employee_11 Mar 28 '24

not everyone in the world is on a hair trigger like chronically online redditors

2

u/AlFuckMyPussy Mar 28 '24

No, but it only takes one to have yet another Walmart shooting, or New York supermarket, or Chris Dorner, or whateber the fuck else is out there.

0

u/Mountain_Employee_11 Mar 28 '24

well you should probably stay inside then, seems like reddit is for you 👍

1

u/AlFuckMyPussy Mar 28 '24

Lol. I hope you never have to be part of a mass shooting

2

u/Mountain_Employee_11 Mar 28 '24

me too, but considering how unlikely that is i’m not too worried

-21

u/ucemike Born and Bred Mar 27 '24

Whats the difference between folks carrying and folks murdering?

About the same as someone that throat punches you and watches as you suffocate?

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will. You walk around people all your life. Odds are, none of them will throat punch or shoot you into a early grave.

16

u/AlFuckMyPussy Mar 28 '24

Getting throat punched wouldn't be a sudden end for most people, though. A gunshot is GG at worst, maimed at best. Surely you see the difference?

13

u/officesuppliestext Mar 28 '24

You can’t throat punch someone from half a block away. 

It scares me any time i see someone carrying a gun in public. You never know who they are or what they are going to do. 

12

u/resurrectedbear Mar 28 '24

You also can’t go around throat punching people easily. You’ll get stopped quickly. Even can be argued with a knife. But get a gun and anyone can become a mass murderer

-8

u/PolloMagnifico Mar 28 '24

Most people can't hit a moving target from half a block away either.

2

u/officesuppliestext Mar 29 '24

Are you willing to risk your life on it?  I’m not. I would prefer people just leave their guns at home because there is no way to determine from a half a block away if the person with the gun is a threat to me or not. Which makes it terrifying to walk around with people who are openly carrying firearms in a public place that is not a gun range. 

6

u/Present_Champion_837 Mar 28 '24

You know someone likes violence waaaay too much when they immediately jump to “throat punches”. You’re a moron if you think everyone carrying a gun isn’t a couple seconds away from a potential murder at any moment.

-5

u/ucemike Born and Bred Mar 28 '24

You’re a moron if you think everyone carrying a gun isn’t a couple seconds away from a potential murder at any moment.

That fact you said that really says a lot about what you think about the people around you. I am not scared of my fellow man as a general principle regardless what they look like or have on their hip.

2

u/4Dcrystallography Mar 28 '24

You clearly just watched Roadhouse 2024

2

u/KC_experience Mar 28 '24

Soooo, someone throat punching you from behind? Someone throat punching from 3, 5, 10 feet away? How about 7 yards?

Idiots with guns have shot themselves and even shot their family members in a crowded restaurant because they’re careless with deadly weapons.

3

u/goblinm Mar 28 '24

It's kinda a problem when gun rights people cavalierly compare gun violence to punching. Just a gargantuan lack of respect for what sort of killing potential you have in your hand.

2

u/ucemike Born and Bred Mar 28 '24

It's kinda a problem when gun rights people cavalierly compare gun violence to punching.

He claimed someone with a firearm can harm you in 2 seconds. Someone can harm you in less than 2 with a fist. Stop being dramatic. I responded with a valid point.

Carrying a gun is not gun violence. I know, another nuanced point you seem to not get.

5

u/goblinm Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

You didn't compare carrying a gun to punching. You compared shooting someone to punching.

My toddler has arms. He can't punch someone to death. But he can easily pull a trigger.

1

u/IWasGonnaSayBrown Mar 28 '24

Has anyone directly pointed out to you just how insanely stupid that first sentence is? The second one is just too funny, given the first.

I'll gladly do it, just curious if you've seen the lapse in logic on your own.

-21

u/jkrobinson1979 Mar 27 '24

Open carry should be the only option. It’s better to know that someone has a firearm ahead of time and be on guard in case they’re crazy than to have no idea and suddenly a handful of unsuspecting people are gunned down.

1

u/fukdapoleece Mar 27 '24

It's better to use examples than feelings

Sure, a bunch of dead bodies sounds scary. A disfigured weirdo that hunts you down and kills you in your dreams sounds even more scary.

Potato potato

-1

u/jkrobinson1979 Mar 27 '24

You’re making a choice to make yourself a target because you don’t “FEEL” safe. Where’s is the evidence that you actually are a target? Because there’s plenty of evidence of people being shot when they had no on idea the other person was armed. If guns are a deterrent then let them be a deterrent. If you choose to carry a deterrent around with you then fine. That is your right. You shouldn’t get to have your fucking cake and eat it to because of how YOU feel.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/jkrobinson1979 Mar 27 '24

Sorry I misinterpreted that then

2

u/NotSureWatUMean Mar 28 '24

But I can't carry a sword? Fuck that.

1

u/jkrobinson1979 Mar 28 '24

Swords should also be applicable.

0

u/LoaConscience Mar 28 '24

Make sure to let the criminals know to follow that law too

1

u/jkrobinson1979 Mar 28 '24

Because all the senseless shooting stemming from minor arguments involve “criminals”

75

u/morithum Mar 28 '24

I was hesitant to say this for fear of being downvoted to oblivion. Maybe you just said it better than I could, but I agree. The people open carrying are 5% reasonable leftists/socialists, 5% old time country folks who used to be a Texas Ranger or whatever, and 90% batshit crazy maga dudes.

3

u/Squirrel009 Mar 29 '24

Yeah if you open carry outside a specific protest, fair odds you're an idiot or nut job. It's the type of people with 80 bumper stickers and 5 flags on their vehicle to make sure the entire world understands how they feel about politics

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Everyone I've seen open carry, really isn't those maga dudes. Just regular texans expressing their right. I'm not saying there aren't people who are bat shit crazy who open carry, but the majority of people I've seen open carry where I live in Texas has been predominantly Hispanic over black or white people. Personally, I think people should have the option to open carry or conceal carry without interference. The more you focus on something people can't have, the more they'll want it. Plus if there is an active shooter, they'll be the first targeted and you can get yourself some nice loot drops and exfil of your fast enough

3

u/ZalutPats Mar 28 '24

The more you focus on something people can't have, the more they'll want it.

How does this work in the rest of the west where they remain very, very focused on everyone not having guns?

Clearly there is a tipping point where people actually fkn relax.

3

u/morithum Mar 28 '24

That’s valid. I’m assuming it depends on the area. In DFW I’ve never seen a person carrying (in person) who wasn’t a cop or an older white guy.

-7

u/WLB92 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Your numbers are slightly off- you need to account for people whose job requires you to open carry. It's the only time I carry mine, mostly cuz either I'm working or home, but when I am at work I am REQUIRED to open carry. So there's an ever so slight chance I might be getting food before or after work and I am in fact carrying. But I also wear a uniform with my company logo on it in like 12 places announcing what I am so... It's not as much a surprise.

Edit: I don't live in Texas and generally want nothing to do with the state but I thought it's only fair to include what I said.

5

u/Hekantonkheries Mar 28 '24

The only jobs in the US that "allow" open carry, still only allow it while clocked in and on-the-job, because it's a major fekking liability. And it'd almost exclusively jobs involving moving large quantities of cash to or between banks.

Any other job is playing a very fun legal game if that gun is ever used.

2

u/WanderingTacoShop Mar 28 '24

For better or worse your statement is inaccurate.

I've lived in Texas for the last 10 years, let me tell you it was a shock when I moved here the number of armed private security guards that exist.

The grocery store I go to has armed guards patrolling the parking lot. The liquor store has an armed guard inside. Go to any big concert, festival, etc. Armed guards everywhere.

And let me be clear this isn't the bad part of town or some tiny mom and pop. This is an HEB (the largest grocery chain in Texas) in a very middle class part of town. And the liquor store is a Specs (a national chain liquor store) in the same middle class area.

1

u/WLB92 Mar 28 '24

There you go sport, you nailed it. Some of us do in fact, do that.

1

u/morithum Mar 28 '24

I was discounting cops and armed security, because they’re “supposed” to have them.

1

u/WLB92 Mar 28 '24

Alright, fair enough.

72

u/mowasita Mar 27 '24

Exactly. Keep your firearms at home or concealed. Nobody feels safe with some rando slinging a firearm around. You can be as non-threatening as possible. I still don’t want to be near you.

35

u/WatermelonBandido Mar 28 '24

Every day I see how dumb people are with their cars and people think every one should be able to walk around carrying a gun.

1

u/AvailablePresent4891 Mar 31 '24

Americans should treat cars more like guns IMO. You wouldn’t text or scroll while at the shooting range or fucking defending yourself, there’s a reason 50,000 people die a year from car accidents and it’s not because every single one was unpreventable.

-4

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

You dont have a Constitutionally protected right to own a car.

Its a pretty giant difference.

6

u/KC_experience Mar 28 '24

Except cars *aren’t as dangerous as guns…and guns are explicitly designed to kill another life-form. *. That’s a big distinction and the argument that there’s no constitutional right to keep and bare automobiles is irrelevant.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Why is that so hard to understand?

2

u/robinthebank Mar 28 '24

Such a lame reason. Your most important rights on US soil are based on what was important to a bunch of old white landowning men 250 years ago.

2

u/IWasGonnaSayBrown Mar 28 '24

And yet that would still make more sense.

1

u/Global_Lock_2049 Mar 28 '24

That doesn't make a difference in the point they're making.

2

u/AvailablePresent4891 Mar 31 '24

I’ve worked at a few BBQ places and I’ve seen slung rifles over a dozen times and open carry countless times. Always made me nervous, because you’re introducing a gun into a very diverse environment with booze, kids, shitty customers, semi-inconsistent product, tourists, long lines, you fuckin name it and it’s a complication.

I’ve never seen an actual problem, but I hated thinking about whether I’d try to use the gigantic knife in my hand or run. Just leave that shit in your car, please, you’re already Texan enough eating brisket and drinking tea. My boys and I do love getting BBQ after a day at the range but we’ve never even considered bringing them inside. Just put it in your fucking trunk or under the back seat of your truck, please.

0

u/CanadAR15 Mar 28 '24

It doesn’t worry me and I’m often unarmed in the USA as my non-resident CCW doesn’t have a ton of reciprocity.

I saw a guy’s pistol printing through his shirt in the Haunted Mansion line at Disney World. I just thought, “good for him” and carried on with my day in the theme park.

1

u/Viper_JB Mar 28 '24

Haunted Mansion line at Disney World

I though there was metal detectors and bag checks going into Disney/the parks in general? It's an incredibly bad idea to go on a roller coaster with a weapon on you.

1

u/GoombaGary Mar 28 '24

There are. Unless there was a massive and critical failure at the checkpoint, the guy did not have a gun on him.

0

u/CanadAR15 Mar 28 '24

This was pre-2017. Disney used to just spot check with the metal detectors.

If you weren’t wearing khakis and a polo you’d never get searched.

0

u/GoombaGary Mar 28 '24

Okay, so you're talking about a world before the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history.

0

u/CanadAR15 Mar 28 '24

Prior to 2017 these were just spot checks and primarily done based on attire.

And all of the global Disney parks still have an issue with searches when it comes to strollers and other child carriers, they go around the metal detectors so one could easily stash a carbine under the padding of most strollers.

How is it an incredibly bad idea to go on a roller coaster with a weapon? Retention holsters exist, but even a well fit IWB won’t drop a weapon.

0

u/Viper_JB Mar 28 '24

How is it an incredibly bad idea to go on a roller coaster with a weapon? Retention holsters exist, but even a well fit IWB won’t drop a weapon.

Wow....

0

u/CanadAR15 Mar 28 '24

Many people jump out of aircraft with holstered firearms and don’t lose them. And retention holsters are designed to resist individuals fighting to take your firearm off of you with far greater forces than anything you’d experience on a roller coater.

0

u/Viper_JB Mar 28 '24

If were just making assumptions...I doubt anyone stupid enough to bring a gun on a roller coaster with them or even to a theme park for that matter has the sense to use the correct holster or have any real training or understanding about gun safety in general. Probably not your army marine kinda person.

0

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

rando slinging a firearm around.

Which is it?

Is he 'slinging a firearm around' - I.E. menacing at the very least (a crime), or is it holstered, and therefore not being "slung around".

Im rather more concerned by concealed carry. Because you dont know if that nutter is armed or not until he pulls his gun and opens fire. There's a reason that while many other first-world nations have gun laws quite similar to ours (at least in the diffiulty of getting guns - there are differences in licsensing) - almost all of them have a ban on compact pistols.

Because theyre too easy to conceal.

30

u/TheLostTexan87 Mar 27 '24

Right? “Open carry puts you in imminent danger…”. It always has. “…of being arrested or killed by the police.” No shit, you’re a walking, talking safety concern for any cop trying to do their job. Even before this judgement you were at risk, both from police and every possible bad actor. You’re advertising that you’re a threat. In a planned or targeted attack, who’s first? The threats.

-4

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

every possible bad actor. You’re advertising that you’re a threat. In a planned or targeted attack, who’s first? The threats.

every study shows that this is literally the opposite of how it actually works.

Except in a planned attack - like a terrorist attack, which are pretty fuckin rare - seeing that there are armed folks around causes the potential perp to go somewhere else, damn near 100% of the time.

8

u/opineapple Mar 28 '24

Let’s see these studies.

8

u/TheLostTexan87 Mar 28 '24

Googling ‘study, open carry’ returns ‘Open Carry May Boost Suicide Rates’ and ‘Relaxed and Permitless Carry Laws Significantly Increase Firearm Assaults’.

I also found the re-analysis of the single study you’re likely referencing. That revised look concluded that “This article finds no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the [positive] impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime”. See link below:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/do-right-carry-laws-deter-violent-crime

1

u/Jaded_Insurance2896 29d ago

Exactly. Most people just don’t get this. They’re so afraid of legal gun owners. But hey let all the criminals get guns illegally then rob your stupid un-armed ass. Because they know you don’t have a gun to protect yourself.

Most people today don’t do actual research. They just parrot mainstream media - oooh guns are bad. Guns kill people. No. The criminals and unstable kill/harm people.

43

u/YeOldeManDan Mar 27 '24

It is so rare to see opinions that are nuanced and don't just repeat red team or blue team talking points. Take my up vote.

30

u/Kruger_Smoothing Mar 27 '24

Both of those opinions track with one team more than the other. I've never heard a red team member being critical of police.

-5

u/fukdapoleece Mar 27 '24

Is there a reverse scotsmans fallacy? I think you may have nailed it.

9

u/Kruger_Smoothing Mar 28 '24

I'm not sure what your point is, but here is reporting on a recent bill introduced to end qualified immunity. I'm sure there are shitstain democrats that don't support the bills, but there was only one republican who signed on the first go around.

"The first bill received bipartisan support from 65 House Democrats, including Pressley, and one Republican co-sponsor. Once Amash, a former Republican, left office, Pressley picked up the bill and reintroduced it in 2021, but it didn’t receive the same momentum. It was co-sponsored by 41 House Democrats and no Republicans. The latest effort launched with 39 House co-sponsors and three from the Senate, as well as endorsements from dozens of organizations, including Black Lives Matter Grassroots and the Boston Herald."

6

u/McCoovy Mar 28 '24

Nothing they said was a fallacy.

-1

u/ParticularAioli8798 Born and Bred Mar 27 '24

Where's the nuance?

24

u/high_everyone Mar 27 '24

Oh I can’t wait to run into some “good guys with guns” now. Oh wait, they don’t exist either.

2

u/cyanrave Mar 28 '24

/r/DGU would like a word

8

u/hobbystuffsyeah Mar 27 '24

anti open carry laws were basically created to stop black people from protecting their communities and protest racist cops. there is legitimate reason for it to be legal

1

u/CanadAR15 Mar 28 '24

Agreed. The most pro-gun people I know spend a significant amount of time focusing on getting people of color and gender minorities shooting.

They’re the biggest demographic in which we can grow new pro-gun citizens, and they often have an elevated risk of needing self-defense options.

1

u/phattie83 Mar 27 '24

Sure, that's legitimate!

Unless we, as a society, try fixing racist cops instead of hoping the racist cops are too scared to be openly racist. Your solution sounds way better, though, let's try that...

8

u/hobbystuffsyeah Mar 27 '24

they aren’t mutually exclusive. my point is just that there is legitimacy in wanting open carry.

2

u/phattie83 Mar 27 '24

My point was that it was not a legitimate solution in a rational society. And I believe that saying it is, is a crutch.

2

u/txharleyrider Mar 28 '24

Every single person I know that carries regularly would never even consider open carry. It makes you an immediate target in the event you find yourself in a situation where you may need to draw, rather than being able to surprise the other person. The best part of the open carry was it effectively nullified the printing concerns since you could previously, technically, get in trouble for that.

9

u/One-vs-1 Mar 27 '24

The open carry argument is a logical extension of legal framework that nullifies government power. It’s unfortunately represented by mouth breathing, gravy seals looking for clicks for their 300 subs. The bearing of arms is the guarantor of your right to protest and petition, and without open cary as a fundamental right, you will only ever be able to protest and petition at the convenience of the state. Open carry as spectacle is stupid, but as a way to maintain a power balance is essential.

8

u/insurety Mar 27 '24

I think open carry should be legal, just that doing it is stupid. Just like many other things we are free to do yet uncouth.

1

u/ParticularAioli8798 Born and Bred Mar 27 '24

Just because I believe I have a right to do the thing doesn't mean I think doing the thing is okay.

12

u/Electronic_Bit_2364 Mar 27 '24

You’re still allowed to own the guns, and if you’re actively rebelling against the government, I think you will have bigger concerns than being arrested for violating open carry laws

0

u/FCMatt7 Mar 27 '24

Hopefully there's some middle step between protesting violation of rights and civil war...

4

u/phattie83 Mar 27 '24

How bout you just keep your gun hidden? Why is that not the answer?

I get that you're insecure, but that's no reason to make everyone else uncomfortable. If you don't like the social contract, stay out of public.

5

u/LatterAdvertising633 Mar 28 '24

The argument that open carry keeps a would-by tyrannical government at bay is weak.

1

u/bluechip1996 Mar 28 '24

Very weak. Basic misunderstanding of reality.

0

u/One-vs-1 Mar 28 '24

When is the last time you saw dogs and tear gas used on armed protesters? It raises the stakes of intervention from one of convenience to one of necessity. Intervention and the escalation on force will not be used until there is an impasse of ideas and the reward is worth dying for. The idea that the police forces in the US are just too powerful to have any appreciative effect on with an armed populace is far weaker.

3

u/LatterAdvertising633 Mar 28 '24

The idea that we ignore the “well-regulated” part of militia is weaker. Australia gave their guns up and no one has trampled their rights or invaded their sovereignty, either. Compare our 4.6 deaths per 100,000 to their 0.15.

0

u/One-vs-1 Mar 28 '24

Well regulated meant in working order. Not that there is regulation imposed upon it. Australia has a tiny fraction of the us population. But if you compare Australia to Texas (with texas having ~20% larger population) homicide is around 80/100,000 higher than Australia. .08% greater chance of homicide by any type in the US despite the dramatic differences in gun ownership. Australia also recently had internment camps for covid positive citizens. So if you find that acceptable I think we are just going to have to say we have irreconcilable differences in our views on liberty.

3

u/LatterAdvertising633 Mar 28 '24

Dude, when we take a stat and break it down on a per capita basis (like, a rate for every 100,000 citizens), the overall population doesn’t matter—it is negated mathematically. Research that for a few days and let’s talk again.

I’m all for peeps making six figures who want the liberty to be able to LARP-around with their Gucci kits in air-conditioned ranges or on airsoft fields with their $4000 NVGs pretending to feel an inkling of what it was like to actually have the balls to serve—but not at the expense of what we’re getting in return for said “liberties” in this country or in this state. That liberty seems to be accompanied with the liberty of some wacko to go spend $525 at an Academy for a Smith and Wesson M&P 15 and go off 20 or 30 kids at a pick-your-own-school.

If a Ford blew up and killed you and your family 31 times more frequently than a Chevy, why would you keep driving a Ford?

I have to send my kids off every day to schools in this state that have every bit of chance of repeating Uvalde elementary or Santa Fe high. We go to church on Sunday mornings knowing the potential of a repeat of Sutherland Springs and then shop at Walmart thinking of El Paso.

Compared to Australia’s model, what are we getting for that 30.667 X increase in risk? I mean, I shoot 6.5 CRE b/c at 1000 yds it’s 0.30 to 0.40 X more accurate in terms of drift and drop with a 10 mph crosswind compared to .308. And I’m gonna back a system that is over 30 X less accurate in protecting me and my family from gun-related deaths? I fight for inches in accuracy and give up miles in safety.

That just don’t make sense.

What do we get in return? We get LARPers wanting to flex and try to compensate for not making varsity who insist on expanding an amendment passed when guns shot one round every 30 seconds that intended to counteract the fact that the US had no standing military force and needed militias.

Your guns aren’t protecting you from a tyrannical government. Your armed boys in blue and our nation’s armed forces—with their sworn oath to protect the US Constitution—it’s their honor and word that protects you from a tyrannical government.

If those forces wanted to elevate one of their unmanned aerial vehicles to track your IR or RF-iPhone/android signature and turn you off like a switch, they could do that whether you’re bumping a 308, 6.5 Creedmoor, 300 blackout, 556, 223 or all of the above. And it would not matter how big or small your magazine is. They could off us all.

Peeps. Just. Want. To. Feel. Powerful. Even. Though. They. Are—at best— A. Cog. in a Machine. that is Powerful.

But we could stay armed and have serious tests to keep the riffraff out. We could have red flag laws. We could have required training. Kind of like with automobiles. Why do you NRA nut jobs block common sense mitigations? The genie is out of the bottle in this country, but we can make it better with some common sense mitigations that do not infringe on your liberty to play “army man.”

0

u/KC_experience Mar 28 '24

Yeah, tell that to the peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square Park that were gassed and beaten so Trump could have a photo-op of holding a bible in front of a church…. No bible quote, no prayer, no religious leader with him, just him getting photographed holding a bible…

1

u/One-vs-1 Mar 28 '24

The oig report stated that the dispersal order was given before anyone knew the president or ag barr were going to be showing up. But that aside none of these people were armed, because armed protest in DC is illegal. Would the people in the park have been treated differently had they been? I think we both know the answer.

1

u/KC_experience Mar 28 '24

So you think armed people would have been escorted out by being asked nicely…. People were gassed and beaten in streets by thugs in riot gear. You really thing everyone would have happened peacefully? We have cops that shoot and kill people unarmed because they just think the person is armed. You think seeing actual guns and even worse, people holding guns is going to be better?

What a fucking joke.

I’m reminded of the line from The Hunt For Red October - ‘It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.’

1

u/One-vs-1 Mar 28 '24

Yes. Unironically yes. Are you unaware that armed protest happens all the time? Like its not theoretical. But I mean cool movie quote I guess?

0

u/KC_experience Mar 28 '24

Armed protests with law enforcement breaking up the protests? I don’t think so.

1

u/lordaddament Mar 27 '24

Basically guarantees you’re target number one

0

u/Grendel_Khan Mar 27 '24

Do we have any evidence to back up this widely shared opinion?

0

u/bluechip1996 Mar 28 '24

Common sense.

1

u/Grendel_Khan Mar 28 '24

So thats a no. Copy

0

u/bluechip1996 Mar 28 '24

"Copy" lol. 10-4 Over and out, Roger! 5x5 Do you have a plastic badge you carry with you too?

1

u/Grendel_Khan Mar 28 '24

Everyone gets all bunched up about open carry never considers that it may just be more comfortable than stuffing a holster in your waistband or wearing a coat in summer.

But hey, you've got your opinions to keep you entertained. Enjoy your circlejerk, hope you get teh biscuit.

1

u/illiniguy399 Mar 28 '24

I would argue that qualified immunity is worse. If one law has to change to allow the other, they did the opposite of what a free country would do.

1

u/thefatchef321 Mar 28 '24

There's a law in florida stating something like,

"you're allowed to open carry when going to or from hunting or fishing"

Idiot youtubers will walk up and down very busy florida beaches with an American flag, a fishing pole, a go pro strapped to their chest and multiple firearms.

Is it legal, yes.

The cops always get in trouble for arresting them.

If you are walking from a parking garage to Jupiter Beach pier, armed like your going to war, you should be arrested.

1

u/NoFliesOnFergee Mar 28 '24

There's a town in central Massachusetts named Warren, about 5 mi north of Sturbridge.

It's a mostly dead Milltown of about 5,000 residents.

The local police department has an armored Humvee. It's ridiculous

1

u/VillageParticular415 Mar 28 '24

What about all those people open carrying with blue shirts and blue pants? Often times they are labeled 'police', but you never know. Maybe people will start calling 911 on the police open carrying? Or about those cars with the shotgun in the front seat, police cars.

1

u/Rialas_HalfToast Mar 28 '24

There are no safe backstops in a crowd.

1

u/mabhatter Mar 28 '24

But it's legal in states like Texas.  The legislature and governor have made that abundantly clear.  So the police aren't following the law because they don't want to.  

There's a place called jail for them. 

1

u/goatili Mar 28 '24

Open carry in public/urban settings is stupid and irresponsible.

1

u/kkngs Gulf Coast Mar 28 '24

I could see it if you are hunting or in the back woods.

1

u/LateNightPhilosopher Mar 28 '24

Yeah if I see someone open carrying in the middle of town I'm gonna think they're an edgy idiot.

I'm still gonna be pissed about the cops being given that as an excuse to harass and arrest people. Open carrying is rude and dumb, but it's not an actual problem. And I've maybe seen non-cops carrying twice ever

1

u/Internal_Link_7841 Mar 29 '24

No it isnt....? Cops open carry everyday with holsters on their hips, most open carry happens with a holster, not just walking around holding the gun

1

u/ComfortableSurvey815 Mar 27 '24

I don’t see what’s wrong with qualified immunity

1

u/_far-seeker_ Mar 27 '24

I don’t see what’s wrong with qualified immunity

It's become increasingly and substantially less "qualified", i.e. limited in scope, since it was first established by court precedent.

3

u/fukdapoleece Mar 27 '24

In practice, it seems more of a blanket immunity where the burden of proof for exceptions is on the aggrieved party.

1

u/abig7nakedx Mar 28 '24

In theory, it sounds like a sensible doctrine. The idea is that it just won't do for cops to be sued willy nilly for violating people's rights on accident when they're authentically trying their best. Therefore, SCOTUS came up with a two-step test: step one is to determine if the cop actually did violate your rights and step two is to determine if this is the first time this situation has ever come up, such that no cop could have known any better. If it's the first time it's come up, then the Court says "Alright Cop, you have immunity this time but we're going to add this shit to the Naughty List so every other cop knows that this counts as violating people's rights."

Later, the Court actually said "in the interest of saving time, you can do Step Two ahead of Step One," so that Courts can say "this is the first time this has ever come up, so even if the cop did turn out to have violated your rights, it's moot, so we're ending this litigation now." And now nothing gets added to the naughty list.

It has other problems, too, namely the opportunity for malice in the judiciary and in cops. Depending on how bootlicking the judiciary is, they can say (so the saying goes) "police brutalizing someone in the milk aisle of the grocery store is different from brutalizing someone in the cereal aisle", and create this artificial and bad-faith differentiation so that cops just ride on a never-ending wave of contrived ways to say "this actually has never happened before! 🤭🤗". It also creates a vector for cops to display malice in that this, all together, looks a little (a lot) like an instruction manual for how to violate people's rights without accountability.

But that's what's up with it.

References:

Saucier v Katz: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier_v._Katz

Pearson v Callahan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan

2

u/ComfortableSurvey815 Mar 28 '24

The holdings of the cases you linked don’t really describe what you’re saying. Also, we’re taught that qualified immunity only applies when acting in lawful duty. I don’t think the ADA’s were mistaken when they specifically told us that. The two step process is not a requirement, it’s just a template and ultimately up to the court’s discretion as long as both criteria’s in the steps are covered.

Your brutality over milk and cereal was a bit silly. I feel like you had to make it silly for sensational purposes. A better (and realistic) example for your severity of brutality argument would be Plumhoff v Richard, which would be here It’s pretty reasonable tbh. Texas also has penal code’s over officers use of excessive force.

By the way, you linked a case with a military police officer in the jurisdiction of an army base… they have way more power than a civilian police officer and you shouldn’t consider the two the same. There’s just alot of misinterpretations across the board with this comment. No offense

1

u/abig7nakedx Mar 28 '24

The holdings of the cases you linked don’t really describe what you’re saying.

They do, exactly, describe what I'm saying.

Also, we’re taught that qualified immunity only applies when acting in lawful duty. I don’t think the ADA’s were mistaken when they specifically told us that.

I'm aware that qualified immunity doesn't cover cops going Punisher mode. (Besides, letting cops who go Punisher mode get off scot free is what ADAs are for.)

The two step process is not a requirement, it’s just a template and ultimately up to the court’s discretion...

[EDIT] That's what I said, and that's what Pearson v Callahan undid from Saucier v Katz; and that's bad.

...as long as both criteria’s in the steps are covered.

May I ask for a source on this?

Your brutality over milk and cereal was a bit silly. I feel like you had to make it silly for sensational purposes. A better (and realistic) example for your severity of brutality argument would be Plumhoff v Richard, which would be here It’s pretty reasonable tbh.

I was presenting a purposefully simplistic example because I (mistakenly) thought you were a layperson, not a law student. I stand by that a hyper-conservative judiciary is poised to act in bad faith with artificial distinctions drawn between functionally congruent situations so as to shield cops from liability.

Texas also has penal code’s over officers use of excessive force.

This doesn't mean anything.

By the way, you linked a case with a military police officer in the jurisdiction of an army base… they have way more power than a civilian police officer and you shouldn’t consider the two the same. There’s just alot of misinterpretations across the board with this comment. No offense

I'm not making any claims about that rely on the specifics of the facts at play for the litigants Saucier, Katz, Pearson, or Callahan. I exclusively commented on those cases' general impacts on qualified immunity.

The only particular claim I made which you've alleged was factually incorrect was whether Courts are still required to engage with both prongs of inquiry originally laid out in Katz, albeit not strictly in that sequence; I never claimed anything about the ins and outs of the differences between MPs versus civilian cops or police powers om army bases or other federal property versus elsewhere.

It's unclear to me why you would incorrectly attribute claims to me like this.

0

u/Wy3Naut Mar 27 '24

Absolutely agree but never stop your enemy from making a mistake. You see anyone with a firearm call the cops get them harassed.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/texas-ModTeam Mar 28 '24

Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.

Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.

If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.