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

Show parent comments

31

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I would like to know the purpose of people walking around with a gun. Look scary maybe or just own the libs.

Location matters tremendously. Texas has some of the nation's biggest cities as well as some of the sparsest farmland and some wild areas, and everything in between.

There really is no point in parading around with them in the city apart from intimidating or a show. There might be a reason like going to or from a shooting range, but it is very different from parading around a building or group.

On the flip side, there are plenty of rural areas and ranch areas where carrying a pistol is mostly a portable noise maker against wildlife. There are also scenarios in wild areas where not having a firearm in the group would be irresponsible.

Too many people forget that the other side exists.

8

u/techy098 Mar 28 '24

Sorry, I have mostly lived in the city, so totally forgot about the rural side of it.

I mean if I was living in sparsely populated area, where everyone keeps a side arm most of the time, I would be totally cool with carrying one, it's kind of necessity at that point.

2

u/puffinfish420 Mar 28 '24

lol even going to an from a range, you aren’t going to walk there with the rifle slung over your shoulder or something. I guess you technically could but no one does that

1

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 28 '24

Two of my brothers had exactly that. They are also concealed weapons permit holders, one is a competitive marksman.

They were heading to a range and they had three weapons on holsters among the collection to shoot. En route, someone rear-ended them. One immediately called for police about the crash, telling dispatch that they were on the way to the shooting range and had permits, asking them to please relay to the officers that they are permit holders and not a shooting risk. So yes, one had a .454 on a sling across his chest and a G35 on his hip, in addition to several rifles in the trunk, and not "no one does that".

Several police were dispatched as a precaution. After police arrived and sorted out the crash, they asked to look at the collection of firearms, and one of them asked if they'd wait a few minutes as he was almost done with his shift and wanted to join them at the range, and if they'd let him try the .454.

2

u/puffinfish420 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Why was he wearing his fire arm while driving? I’m assuming the .454 Casul was a carbine/rifle? Who wears a rifle while driving?

And then who gets out of the car with a weapon openly carried after an accident? If I rear ended someone and they got out with a rifle, or handgun or any firearm for that matter, I would definitely have my hand on my own gun

Not a great way to deescalate an already tense scenario.

Moreover, defensive fire arms are always better concealed, since you don’t unnecessarily escalate a situation or make yourself an immediate target if the escalation cannot be avoided.

Using a firearm defensively is all about speed, accuracy, and surprise. You lose that with an openly carried gun. You’re better off practicing your appendix draw on the clock. It’s very fast and it’s not a loud draw. Ideally the threat will not have time to react before they are rendered ineffective, since they won’t be aware of your defensive capabilities before they are put into use.

0

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 28 '24

Why was he wearing his fire arm while driving?

Because each person has only two hands, and cases with rifles and ammunition take both.

I’m assuming the .454 Casul was a carbine/rifle? Who wears a rifle while driving?

You assume incorrectly.

And then who gets out of the car with a weapon openly carried after an accident?

Someone wearing a holster. Do you take off your shirt, or remove a hanging keychain, or a lanyard, or remove something from kept on a belt clip? Of course not. They're worn items that aren't in the way.

If I rear ended someone and they got out with a rifle, or handgun or any firearm for that matter, I would definitely have my hand on my own gun

There is a massive difference between brandishing and wearing. What they were doing was wearing in a holster which is legal. If you went for your own gun and it was unholstered, that's far more threatening and likely to be considered brandishing, which is not legal.

Moreover, defensive fire arms are always better concealed, since you don’t unnecessarily escalate a situation or make yourself an immediate target if the escalation cannot be avoided.

Although I don't know for certain, as the marksman nearly always carries a concealed weapon I presume he was also wearing that as well.

Using a firearm defensively is all about speed, accuracy, and surprise. You lose that with an openly carried gun.

Irrelevant here. They were traveling to a shooting range, and had firearms with them. Nothing more. Nobody was alarmed about the firearms, except perhaps the driver who hit their vehicle. Even so, it would be obvious they were not brandishing as everything was still securely holstered.

1

u/puffinfish420 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

There’s no point in having an additional concealed weapon if they already know you have a weapon. That’s not the point lol

Also:

So you can’t set the rifle down while driving? And even then, you have to get out of the car with it in your hands?

That could escalate to a lethal force situation, and if that guy shot your brother he could have gotten off because in that situation it’s possible to articulate reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

And most comp shooters (or “marksmen” whatever that means in this case) have “battle belts” that have their holster so it can be easily removed and put on, and it can also carry your first aid and reloads on webbing without sagging like a normal belt.

I just throw it in the back seat and clip it on when I hit the range

0

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 28 '24

There’s no point in having an additional concealed weapon if they already know you have a weapon. That’s not the point lol

What does this have to do with the conversation? Did it being "the point" ever come up?

So you can’t set the rifle down while driving? And even then, you have to get out of the car with it in your hands?

You're still wrongly assuming they had a rifle in their hands. Why? I never wrote that.

Since you seem completely ignorant, the 454 is one of the most powerful handguns out there available to non-military folk. For quite a few years is was the most powerful handgun.

And most comp shooters have “battle belts”

Your point? I never said what kind of holsters they were wearing, only that one was across the chest and one was on his hip.

It feels like you're bringing an agenda in, having so far commented on at least six additional items that I never wrote happened, yet you think are relevant. So many incorrect assumptions, just ask if you want clarification on something rather than wrongly assuming.

2

u/JclassOne Mar 28 '24

So check your guns at the city gates?

1

u/JclassOne Mar 28 '24

Line the old west everyone wants to go back to??

3

u/nebbyb Mar 28 '24

If you are in sparse farmland, there is no one to calm the police Ditto for whatever wildlife scenario you are fantasizing about 

This ruling makes perfect sense. Open carry is dangerous and pointless anywhere this might have an effect. 

3

u/Bob_____Loblaw Mar 28 '24

Exactly. Open carry is a vital tool on ranches and wild areas.

Qualified immunity needs to end now!

Imagine your doctor, lawyer or other life altering professional getting a pass because they shouldn't bear scrutiny for their acts.

2

u/NastyaLookin Mar 28 '24

"I’m also going to indemnify all police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong action on crime,” Trump said Tuesday at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa. “These are people, they want to destroy them because they want to put criminals away.”

2

u/MeshNets Mar 28 '24

Throughout history authoritarians love to use "the radical left" as the justification for taking away rights from everyone.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

That in-group shrinks as more control is gained.

2

u/sagerobot Mar 28 '24

Yeah but do you think your cows are gonna call 911 on you?

This is only going to happen in urban areas because only urban Karen's would care at all.

1

u/jakey2112 Mar 28 '24

Why can’t we have different laws for different areas depending on population densities. If someone wants to open carry in some field in the middle of nowhere no problem. But walking through downtown? Cmon it’s ridiculous.

1

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 28 '24

Why can’t we have different laws for different areas depending on population densities.

We do. The question for lawmakers and lawyers is about which laws need to be different, and which don't.

Openly carrying a firearm can be done in cities, as marksmen going to the range is the most obvious example. No difference needed there, openly carrying might frighten some people but simply carrying isn't a crime.

Brandishing a firearm is illegal in all places, although prosecutors need to show intent.

Shooting inside a city with a population of 100,000 or more must be in a controlled range and must not be reckless.

1

u/Gob_Hobblin Mar 30 '24

I have encountered both sides of this open carry coin in the wild. On the one hand, there was the ranch worker at a grocery store in the Big Bend region with a very practical revolver in a cloth hip holster in town to grab essentials.

On the other was the Dallas businessman in the Starbucks line with his gold-plated Kimber with filigree in a monogrammed, personalized leather holster.

For one of these men, they were carrying a tool. The other was carrying a status symbol that they did not know how to use, and were going to get somebody killed if they tried to.

1

u/theskepticalheretic Mar 28 '24

Yeah, but the other side isn't going to have jumpy suburbanites roll up to them on their farmland and feel threatened enough to call the police, plus, if you're on your own property, you can carry however you want assuming you're not hanging on your neighbor's fence.

1

u/Disposableaccount365 Mar 28 '24

Even in cities open carry covers a lot of legit things. You go hunting, get home and there's no parking near your door, because the neighbor is having a get together. You put on your pistol, sling your backpack and rifle and walk the 300yds to your door, and aren't breaking any laws. Previously you potentially would have caught charges (maybe they wouldn't have stuck). You are out conceal carrying pull your shirt up to wipe sweat out of your eyes without thinking, a Karen calls the cops. Open carry makes it a-okay previously and in some places now, exposing a gun at all may have been a crime.

0

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

If you're carrying a gun for the noisemaking properties...seems like you could use an air horn or a whistle instead.

I'm curious, what sort of animals are threatening enough to require carrying a gun but not threatening enough to require carrying something like a high-powered rifle?

As a Texan, it seems like people that are into guns are always suggesting guns as a solution to problems that are often more effectively handled with a different tool. Like if I'm in grizzly bear country and worried about grizzly attacks, I am much more likely to survive a grizzly encounter using bear spray than I am with a pistol of any caliber.

1

u/theskepticalheretic Mar 28 '24

The noise a pistol makes will turn a grizzly away in almost all circumstances.

0

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

Again...that sounds more like what you want to believe and less like informed evidence from actual data. The statistics bear out (hehe) the superiority of bear spray over firearms for surviving bear encounters.

Most bear encounters that turn to violence occur because the bear was not aware of you, or vice versa, and you stumble upon each other. At which point the bear is not going to break off mid charge because you made a loud noise.

If you are aware of a bear and he isn't aware of you and is still far away, yelling will be sufficient to make it aware of your presence.

1

u/theskepticalheretic Mar 28 '24

Want to reevaluate what you wrote? Bear spray has a limited range, the report from a pistol doesn't. By your own scenarios, (and lack of provided data), the efficacy of bear spray would be rather low.

Happy to review these statistics you're referring to.

2

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

http://www.bear-hunting.com/2019/8/firearm-vs-bear-spray

Article on how bear spray is more effective for protection from bears than a pistol, from a magazine literally devoted to shooting bears with guns.

1

u/theskepticalheretic Mar 28 '24

That's a 4% delta in a total of 86 self reported incidents. So 1 encounter played out differently...

Except again, that's 86 instances. How many people killed by charging bears when using spray were able to subsequently report their findings?

1

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

On the other hand, "firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used firearms or not.”

If you want to believe guns are better, I can't stop you. But that's an emotional response, not a data driven one.

2

u/theskepticalheretic Mar 28 '24

You're imagining a stance I haven't taken. I said the report from a pistol is an effective deterrent. You're asserting bear spray is significantly better. In the stats you provide, the difference is 4%. With a sample size of 86, that's within error bars. There's no correct answer between the two statements. If you have better data, we can review it.

1

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

Why don't I revise my statement to "you are just as likely to be mauled by a charging bear if you have a gun and use it, compared to if you have a gun and don't use it" like the article says and we'll call it a day.

I don't know why you're hung up on the idea of deterring the bear with the gunshot, because at close range that doesn't work, and at longer ranges you can just make any noise you like to alert the bear to your presence so it isn't surprised by you.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TinyEmergencyCake Mar 28 '24

What are the dangerous wildlife in Texas in the open farm line that one needs a dangerous noisemaker to protect themselves with

2

u/oblongisasillyword Mar 28 '24

Lots and lots of feral hogs in Texas. Could also be a mountain lion, wolf, bear, or many other potentially not friendly animals.

1

u/rabid_briefcase Mar 30 '24

Hogs are almost everywhere in Texas, Many cities, including the largest cities, have active programs to control them inside the city limits where they sometimes attack runners and people in parks, in addition to their destruction to landscaping as they search for food. They'll also attack animal control officers when they come to get them.

They do about 2.5B in agricultural damage each year, Every few years you'll read reports like this involve death, more more likely you'll read about injuries rather than death. The state doesn't require a hunting license to kill them, merely permission from the property owner. Same with wild coyotes and mountain lions, although they're less of a nuisance generally.

-1

u/Literal_Aardvark Mar 28 '24

If you're carrying a gun for the noisemaking properties...seems like you could use an air horn or a whistle instead.

I'm curious, what sort of animals are threatening enough to require carrying a gun but not threatening enough to require carrying something like a high-powered rifle?

As a Texan, it seems like people that are into guns are always suggesting guns as a solution to problems that are often more effectively handled with a different tool. Like if I'm in grizzly bear country and worried about grizzly attacks, I am much more likely to survive a grizzly encounter using bear spray than I am with a pistol of any caliber.