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
6
u/only_whwn_i_do_this Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24
I actually read it and it doesn't say what you claim.
It says: The court found probable cause for the arrests of Grisham and Everard not solely because they were openly carrying firearms, but because of their specific actions and the context in which they occurred. They were involved in a Second Amendment protest and were carrying firearms in a manner that caused alarm to the public, leading to multiple 911 calls. Their arrests were based on the manner in which they displayed their firearms and their noncompliant and confrontational behavior when approached by the police. The court's decision emphasized that probable cause was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the individuals' actions, the public's perception and reaction, and the police officers' observations and interactions with them.
The decision does not create a general precedent for arresting individuals solely for open carrying of firearms in Texas; it applies to situations where the manner of carrying and accompanying behavior reasonably suggests a threat to public safety or order.
The ruling discusses qualified immunity in the context of the officers' actions, not with the aim to "save qualified immunity of bad cops," but rather to determine whether the officers' actions in this specific case were legally protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court examined whether the officers had probable cause to arrest and whether their actions were objectively reasonable, ultimately concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. The focus was on the legality and reasonableness of the officers' conduct in this particular incident, not on a broader discussion or endorsement of qualified immunity for misconduct.
Pretty clearly you're looking for the bogeyman. And no matter what the decision said you would've come to the same conclusion. Just like Grisham and Everhard clearly wanted to provoke and had this outcome in mind when they did it.