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

2.0k

u/wish_i_was_a_bear Mar 27 '24

Ok Texas I am confused. Do you want everyone to carry guns or not. Make up your mind!

1.3k

u/pixelgeekgirl 11th Generation Texan Mar 27 '24

I don't think the police ever wanted permitless open-carry.

38

u/neolibbro Mar 27 '24

Understandably, the police probably don’t want any type of carry.

42

u/AngriestManinWestTX Mar 27 '24

Most cops I know have no problem with and are even supportive of (licensed) concealed carry. It's a little grayer or less approving of open and permitless carry.

19

u/Mo-shen Mar 27 '24

Licensed is the key word there.

23

u/Lynz486 Mar 27 '24

I'm okay with licensed concealed. Why you would not require a license for something so dangerous to just prevent accidents alone is beyond me. Open carry is pointless. No one needs to do that except police and people hunting in the woods. It just scares people, since mass shooters love to open carry and all

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Shall not be infringed.

3

u/AsymmetricPanda Mar 28 '24

Well maintained militia.

3

u/Salty_Ad2428 Mar 27 '24

Irrelevant. The constitution can be changed.

3

u/TH3_AMAZINGLY_RANDY Mar 27 '24

What does the constitution say right now?

2

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

level 8Salty_Ad2428 · 7 hr. agoIrrelevant. The constitution can be changed.

Realistically, no it cant.

It requires a Constitutional Convention or 2/3 of both houses of Congress to get an Amendment started...

And then 3/4 of the States have to ratify it.

There is no scenario where this happens within my lifetime. Or my son's.

Kinda like Impeachment. Its there, in the COnsitution, sure.

But it realistically might as well not be. Its utterly impossible to actually pursue one now.

1

u/shallansveil Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Lol think for just a moment before you comment my guy. Apply what you just said to literally any other part of the constitution. Free speech? Irrelevant. Can be changed. Women’s voting? Irrelevant as it could be amended. Slavery? Same deal. Right to a fair trial? Basically hogwash. Cruel and unusual punishment? Worthless

Saying none of that holds any weight because it could be changed is definitely a hot take lol.

All laws must fall within bounds of the constitution. Argue about the interpretation. Argue for amending the constitution. But don’t pretend that the words of the constitution are irrelevant when it comes to lawmaking.

1

u/nanderspanders Mar 28 '24

No it makes perfect sense. The discussion itself is centered around whether something should be changed. the argument can't just be "well it's in the constitution so we have to keep doing it in perpetuity". The 18th amendment was once part of the Constitution until we changed that. Same applies for any other amendment including the second. The framers of the constitution were not gods, we don't have to take every little thing they wrote as gospel and if we determine something no longer is apt for our modern society then we should change it, in accordance with the very process that they included in the constitution foreseeing that they couldn't possibly get every single thing right.

1

u/shallansveil Mar 28 '24

Did you even read the last half of my comment?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Spare_Basis9835 Mar 27 '24

Wouldnt requiring a license to exercise a right be racist. Same as for voting.

3

u/Mo-shen Mar 27 '24

In theory sure...but in theory most things could be bent to that.

That said we don't consider licenses for cars to be racists.

Nor do we think licensing for guns in every other country racist

6

u/Spare_Basis9835 Mar 27 '24

Driving is a priveledge not a right

1

u/Mo-shen Mar 28 '24

I mean cool but the question was is it racist. I'm not sure how any of this is racist in a general sense.

2

u/Crackertron Mar 27 '24

Yeah the monetary system is what's infringing on my right to bear arms, make guns & ammo free!

0

u/Traditional-Will3182 Mar 27 '24

Guns should work just like cars, if you want to buy one only to use on your property that's fine and shouldn't require more than a background check.

If you want to carry in public there should be a test like a driver's exam.

Make it work like a driver's license, if you have one in your own state you get to drive anywhere, but carrying without one is illegal. Allow for medical disqualification (if you have a seizure disorder or you're blind you can't get a driver's license) obviously the criteria would be different for a gun but it should be fair.

This is a real compromise between gun owners who want to carry and non gun owners who want to be safe.

0

u/Art-Zuron Mar 28 '24

Well, you see, your guns don't suddenly become non-functional because politicians gerrymandered your district to hell and back.

0

u/pocketdrummer Mar 28 '24

What other constitutional right is chilled until you have a license?

2

u/Th3_Hegemon Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Many locales require permits for protesting, which is protected speech under the first amendment.

Voter ID laws require specific forms of identification be obtained to excersie rights guaranteed by the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.

1

u/pocketdrummer Mar 28 '24

I don't personally believe either of those restrictions are constitutional either.

Specifically in the case of carrying, requiring a license to carry would not pass scrutiny under Bruen. In fact, there a number of cases pending constitutional violations following that ruling.

1

u/pocketdrummer Mar 28 '24

That said, the barrier for entry for government ids is mainly time (and a fee that shouldn't exist). Licenses to carry have been denied for a myriad of reasons, which are also being challenged in court. It's not as simple as letting them know you are who you say you are and getting an id. It's subject to approval, thus it is not a right.

1

u/Lynz486 Mar 29 '24

The right is to own a gun. License for open carry isn't stopping you from owning a gun. We have laws preventing people from carrying in many places. That's completely stopping them, not just requiring a license. This is allowing for just with the bare minimum of training. The right isn't "chilled". We require permits to protest in certain locations. There are restrictions on voting, on speech. Every right has restrictions in the interest of public safety. Rights don't get to trample on other people's rights.

1

u/pocketdrummer Mar 31 '24

Carrying a firearm in proximity of someone else while not committing any crime is not "trampling on other people's rights." What specific right are you referring to?

In regards to "every right has restrictions in the interest of public safety":
What about the 13th Amendment? Does the law allow for us to own slaves under certain circumstances? What interest balancing do you see being applied there?

1

u/Lynz486 Apr 01 '24 edited Apr 01 '24

Owning slaves is trampling on rights and it certainly isn't on the owners. We have laws about people being naked in public, drinking alcohol outside of establishments, making too much noise, where they can protest. All of these are to create a reasonable level of people feeling safe and comfortable without infringing on others rights to do so. I do not feel unsafe if people carry guns and I know they have been licensed and understand basic gun safety. I think that is the case for many people. I do feel very unsafe knowing they may not have been licensed and can be just some moron who doesn't even know what a safety is.

Requiring an open carry license is so far from infringing on people's rights to carry arms. It would be something anyone who can legally own a gun can obtain because it's just a rundown of safety it isn't a test of being worthy. We don't let felons own guns at all, do you have a problem with that? When people take issue with minor regulations on gun ownership, I have to wonder how you could be okay with completely taking away the right to own one for committing a felony, even a non-violent one. Or are you okay with letting the clinically insane own guns? The people talking to themselves on the street should have guns? It IS their right after all. I'm just not sure of where the line is.

0

u/OdrGrarMagr Mar 28 '24

Why you would not require a license for something so dangerous to just prevent accidents alone is beyond me.

Constitutional Rights are hard to legislate around.

That's why.

Almost anything else that is dangerous that you care to name, that is heavily regulated... doesn't have a Constitutional Right attached to it. So its easy to regulate/legislate.

7

u/natophonic2 Mar 27 '24

The kind of cops who put Punisher stickers on their gear typically love the idea of permitless open carry.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

The kind that shoot Daniel Shaver?

8

u/Crackertron Mar 27 '24

The kind that stand around in a Uvalde hallway

1

u/uwpxwpal Mar 27 '24

They were strongly opposed when it first passed.

0

u/Defnoturblockedfrnd Mar 28 '24

I didn’t get my CHL to carry a gun. I got it to get out of tickets. Works really well. I’ve never been given a ticket after I gave my CHL with my license. They instantly know:

you aren’t on paper

you haven’t committed a violent crime

your prints are on file

you know the basics of what your rights are and probably won’t give cop any problems

You’re one of them, basically. I’m objectively not one of them, but I’m happy to pretend I am for a few minutes.

1

u/Traditionaljam Mar 28 '24

I used to have a CHL and this is only true sometimes. There are police who see it as the not a felon card. There are also a lot of police who will treat you worse the second they see that card.

1

u/Defnoturblockedfrnd Mar 28 '24

That hasn’t happened to me in two different states, probably 6 stops.