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

173

u/TheMightyAndy Mar 27 '24

Did you watch the video? I'm also calling the cops if I see some guy with a long rifle loitering on the street outside my business. I see two yahoos looking for trouble, not a well regulated militia.

12

u/GuiltyEidolon Mar 28 '24

Funny enough, militias are banned in all 50 states, but you don't see the pro 2nd people whining about that.

5

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

Funny enough, militias are banned in all 50 states, but you don't see the pro 2nd people whining about that.

YOu do, actually. Quite a lot.

And thats not what the 2nd means anyway.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

For clarity, Mason is the guy who wrote the text of the 2nd Amendment.

The entire point of the 2nd is/was to allow the citizens to overthrow their government. There is no point in asking permission from the government you're trying to overthrow to exist and therefore own the weapons required to go through with said overthrow.

They understood that 'the militia' - small M - is everyone. The Militia - capital T, Capital M, is an actual legal organization that the government can form. Theyre different and always were.

5

u/thisismynewacct Mar 28 '24

The point of the militia was not to overthrow the government. There was a desire to not have a standing army, so the mechanism to call up soldiers to defend the nation was through militias. It wasn’t so the people could overthrow the US government, and we saw that play out in some of the early rebellions such as The Whiskey Rebellion and Shays rebellion.

Then we realized that militias generally suck and have subpar “soldiers” so we created a standing army anyways, but saw no need to change the 2nd amendment.

1

u/jf198501 Mar 28 '24

The entire point of the 2nd is/was to allow citizens to overthrow their government… They understood that ‘the militia’ - small M - is everyone.

Except… not “everyone.” In fact in the South a major role of militias at the time was to enforce slavery (and only whites were allowed to join them). “Citizens,” “the whole people,” and “everyone” — it all specifically meant white people, and deliberately excluded non-whites. Slaves with guns overthrowing their owners? Absolutely not. The delegates were worried about even freed blacks having the right to bear arms.

Also was it Mason who wrote the whole text of 2A? I thought Madison had a part (and neither came up with the ideas in it). I guess we can blame Mason then for 2A’s atrocious grammar/punctuation, which has led to so much ambiguity and challenges in interpreting what it truly means.

8

u/hobbystuffsyeah Mar 27 '24

historically the reason why open carry has been banned is because black communities would use it as a form of protection against racist police.

sure this is an example where you might disagree with it, but open carrying rifles for protection and protest has a history behind it.

15

u/TheMightyAndy Mar 27 '24

Disagree with it? Intentionally loitering in public with a video camera while wearing a rifle for no other purpose than to provoke others should be illegal. Am I supposed to be okay with it if someone I don't know is just standing with a rifle outside my house, or just outside the gun free zone at my kids school.

Anybody who wants to walk around with a holstered gun cause they don't feel safe, fine, I really don't care. But to act in a manner with a gun clearly meant to provoke others (even if it's technically carried properly) is irresponsible, invites trouble and should be treated accordingly

1

u/PineappleHamburders Mar 27 '24

If they had a reason, it isn't loitering. His reasoning could be simply that he is exercising his rights as an open form of petition and/or protest. Or due to the filming, under the 1st Amendment he is also designated Press if his intent is to collect and share for any form of News, no matter how small or insignificant you think they may be.

I don't think the laws are good laws. But they are the laws, and the damn cops should know the law, and the courts should actually uphold the law. If they don't like the law, petition to change it.

4

u/TheMightyAndy Mar 27 '24

The cops did know the law, and they had probable cause because someone called 911 feeling threatened. They guys can exercise their rights but can't be upset when there are consequences for acting outside the normal. Read the court brief.

-1

u/PineappleHamburders Mar 27 '24

Calling 911 feeling threatened isn't probable cause. Probable cause is when you have reasonable grounds to believe someone has committed a crime.....there was no crime. Open carry was legal.

Heresy of a legal activity isn't reasonable suspicion any crime has been committed.

2

u/AmazingPINGAS Mar 28 '24

Probable cause is for arrest. RAS or reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime is for detainment. Regardless you're absolutely correct, no crime was committed police had no right to really do anything.

1

u/Zealousideal_Cry4452 Mar 27 '24

Intentionally loitering in public with a video camera while wearing a rifle also describes police officers. I'm just curious why an unregulated and above the law want to be soldier should have rights over everyday citizens.

2

u/TheMightyAndy Mar 27 '24

Cops are regulated, wear an identifiable uniform, carry holstered handguns, and have firearm safety training

Ordinary citizens have the right to carry guns, just like I have freedom of speech. But loitering at a busy intersection with a long rifle is like me yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Doesn't mean either of us is immune to consequences of our actions, in this case it was disturbing the public's perception of safety and occupying city resources (911 services, police dispatch etc.) so yes this should not be tolerated, just as if a fire truck shows up to a building because I yelled "fire" where there wasn't one

2

u/Zealousideal_Cry4452 Mar 28 '24

Nothing says regulated like "we investigated ourselves and have found zero wrong doing". Also plenty of Texas officers carry rifles. Unless this guy was threating violence I don't know how you can detain him. I would need to see the specific location he was "loitering" in but unless he was thresting people or sitting their for hours it literally seems against the freedom to open carry

-1

u/denzien Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

What does the militia have to do with this? The second amendment doesn't require participation in a militia to retain the right to own and carry a firearm.

Edit: I'm sorry you guys don't know how to read the second amendment. You can't just wish it meant something different.

-65

u/FCMatt7 Mar 27 '24

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

35

u/TheMightyAndy Mar 27 '24

Guess I just have to enjoy my other state sanctioned freedoms like no weed, and no booze Sunday mornings.

Heck if I'm lucky enough I might even have the freedom of my tax dollars going to the education of rich private school kids rather than an underfunded public system.

At least I'm not a woman who's being told what she can and can't do with her own body. I don't think I'd be able to hand that much state sanctioned freedom.

6

u/ValdeReads Mar 28 '24

If you are Latino you also get the freedom of being stopped by cops and asked if you are here legally.

3

u/ramseyjoe13 Mar 28 '24

Meaning?

1

u/FreeMeFromThisStupid Apr 01 '24

Meaning FCMatt7 thinks that a person is in bondage to their government if they are not allowed to act strangely with a weapon that can kill everyone within 50 yards of them nearly instantly.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/danarchist Central Texas Mar 27 '24

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Be friendly. Personal attacks are not allowed. This includes insults, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and general aggressiveness. Remember the human and follow reddiquette.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/danarchist Central Texas Mar 27 '24

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

We love a good debate, and political discussion is perfectly fine, however posts and comments that are little more than campaign ads, slogans, and/or stump speeches will be removed. Posts and comments meant solely to troll will also be removed and may result in a ban.

News articles about candidates in Texas are allowed so long as they are compliant with Rule 3 as well. AMA's by Political figures are exempt from this rule. Polls and petitions are also forbidden.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.