Quantcast

Open Carry, TX. style

Discussion in 'Legal' started by calaverasslim, Apr 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. elhombreconnonombre

    elhombreconnonombre Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    San Leanna, Tx. along Slaughter Creek. a day's rid
    Refering back to my last post and to steve4102's, whrn the dust settles and time comes to OC I will defer to TX/US Law Sheild regarding the property SOP for dealing with LE stops just to jaw with you concerning your open carry. I belive that having your CHL and DL on one side with operative statutes on the other side will go along way to defusing law enforcement interest in your existence...that and a Go-Pro or Shade-Cam.
     
  2. calaverasslim

    calaverasslim Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    San Antonio de Bejar
    Wrong answer, glock1978. U.S. Courts have held for years that the owners rights are absolute and until just recently, the bakery case, that was it. And even then, that was a case about sales vice trespassing.

    They still side with the property owner in the right to carry. I may not agree with it but your argument holds no water.
     
  3. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,651
    Gonna be real interesting in Jan. when all the bottled up exhibitionism of the Texans can be released. I bet there will be plenty of people with their hair on fire over all the hardware that gets shown on the public streets. With 6 months for LEO to realize that TX is far from the first OC allowed state I doubt there will be much trouble from them, they should have it figured out by then.
    Holster makers are going to be busy up until then though, gotta have them Barbecue Rigs by Christmas.
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,575
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    More of the usual blather and uninformed, uneducated opinions.

    1. Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):

    2. In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

    3. Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

    4. Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

    5. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. In general, gun owners aren't a protected class, nor is having a gun generally an impermissible basis upon which a private business might discriminate.

    6. So in general a person or business may lawfully bar persons carrying guns from the premises.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2015
  5. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Thanks for the facts Frank.
     
  6. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    Unfortunately, the next fact was conveniently excluded:

    10. To implement these principles, courts must consider from time to time where the governmental sphere ends and the private sphere begins. Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints. This is the jurisprudence of state action, which explores the "essential dichotomy" between the private sphere and the public sphere, with all its attendant constitutional obligations. Moose Lodge, supra, 407 U.S., at 172, 92 S.Ct., at 1971.
    http://openjurist.org/500/us/614/edmonson-v-leesville-concrete-company-inc
     
  7. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,575
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    However, your reliance on that quote illustrates the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You don't understand the case or the context in which this issue arises, or, indeed, what is actually going on. You don't understand how to read and apply a court decision.

    As the Court stated in Edmonson (500 U. S. 614, at 616):
    So the issue being framed by the Court is where private conduct (outside the purview of the Constitution) ends and governmental conduct (subject to the Constitution) begins. And the question arises in the context of the selection of persons who will serve as jurors in a civil trial.

    So the Court in Edmonson begins to look at the established framework for a state action analysis (Edmonson, at 620):

    That is only the beginning of the analysis. If you wish to contend that a private business excluding persons carrying guns is "state action", you would need to be able to successfully apply the entire "state action" framework to those essentially private actions. Good luck. Indeed state actions is a rare result.

    Let's look at some cases to get a sense of how a “state action” analysis plays out:

    • Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946)

      • The result in Marsh is clearly attributable to the unique public character of the "private" property.

      • As described by the Court (326 U.S. 501, at 502 to 503):

      • And as later noted by the Court, the private corporation was assuming a quasi government role (326 U.S. 501, at 509, emphasis added):

      • And in any case, the issue in Marsh was not the liability of a private actor. It was the power of the State of Alabama. As the Court describes the issue (326 U.S. 501, at 502):

    • Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc, 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968)

      • A major factor in Logan Valley was the quasi public character of the the property, a large shopping center filling the social role of a municipal business district. As the Court put it (391 U. S. 308, at 317 – 318, footnotes omitted):

      • But a further factor in Logan Valley is that the picketing (which the defendants asserted constituted the trespass) related to one particular store in the shopping center (391 U. S. 308, at 321 - 322):

        1. Clearly the fact that the picketing was directly related to a business in the shopping center was material. Subsequent to Logan Valley, in Lloyd Corporation, Ltd v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) the Court upheld the right of a large, privately owned shopping center to prohibit the distribution of handbills. In Lloyd, the Court distinguished Marsh and Logan Valley thusly (407 U.S. 551, at 551):

          • The Court further noted in Lloyd (407 U.S. 551, at 561 - 562, footnotes omitted):

          • And so, as the Court ruled in Lloyd (407 U.S. 551, at 570):

        2. The Court then later, following Lloyd, further narrowed, Logan Valley in Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507, 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 96 S.Ct. 1029 (1976) finding (424 U.S. 507, at 520 - 521):

    • Let's look at Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 86 S.Ct. 486, 15 L.Ed.2d 373 (1966). The Court describes the circumstances as follows (382 U.S. 296, at 297, footnotes omitted):

      Ultimately, the City resigned as trustee, and private individuals were substituted. But nonetheless the Court ruled that the park could not be operated on a segregated basis. In support of the conclusion the Court noted (382 U.S. 296, at 301):

    • In Brentwood Academy v Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001). There were particular reasons that the Athletic Association was treated as a state actor. As the Court described the situation (emphasis added):

    These cases don't really involve a private party being subject to constitutional strictures as much as they involve the unique character or circumstance being such that one is no longer purely a private party. Fred's Shoe Repair putting up a "no guns" sign (or, in Texas, a 30.06 sign) just doesn't fit.
     
  8. calaverasslim

    calaverasslim Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    San Antonio de Bejar
    Thanks, Frank. Clear as mud...... :) :confused:

    That explains why I am not an attorney. :eek:
     
  9. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal."

    If you think about it, the nature of intelligence is itself discrimination, and the purpose of these laws and social pressures is to shut off certain thought paths assumed to be inherently destructive. Not too hard to see how the concept can be both abused and highly addicting to the users.

    TCB
     
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,575
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Well the path and back-story is complicated. But maybe I can simplify the bottom line.

    The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. However, there are rare situations in which, because of complicated characteristics, private conduct crosses a line and becomes governmental or quasi-governmental and subject to the Constitution. For this to happen is extraordinary. The only way to know it this exception to the general rules applies is to thoroughly analyze the situation under applicable case law.

    Those exception situations seldom happen, and it's best not to count on getting around the usual rule.
     
  11. Deltaboy1984

    Deltaboy1984 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    7,023
    Location:
    Johnson County Texas
    Can't wait till Jan 1. I got to see if a big group is going to Austin.
     
  12. elhombreconnonombre

    elhombreconnonombre Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    San Leanna, Tx. along Slaughter Creek. a day's rid
    Sorry Frank I meant Delta Boy
    Should someone get a parade permit? Lol
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2015
  13. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,575
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    I have no idea. I don't know exactly what is planned, and I don't want to know. Nor do I know what the applicable Texas or municipal law is, nor to I plan to do any research.
     
  14. elhombreconnonombre

    elhombreconnonombre Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    San Leanna, Tx. along Slaughter Creek. a day's rid
    Frank
    You forgot to include the "lol" from my original post.Maybe I should have specifically put in a disclaimer that my comment was tongue in cheek.

    In actuality, I was making a blind reference to the Open Carry Texas folks actually showing up enmass during the busy South by Southwest music festival carrying their longarms, much to the consternation of the local law enforcement. While I don't think that "poking the bear" is the best technique to support OC, their actions are a harbinger of things to come, especially here in Austin, given Chief Acevedo's opinion on the subject. After all he was recruited from California. LOL, wink wink
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2015
  15. calaverasslim

    calaverasslim Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    San Antonio de Bejar
    If they have a big pro open carry in Austin, you can count on my not being there. I am not gonna do anything to negate what we have done
     
  16. moxie

    moxie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,069
    Location:
    Erath Co., TX
    So much angst!

    We poor ignorant folk in Erath County hardly notice all the hooraw. Pretty certain there'll be no parades here and don't envision a convoy heading down to Austin either.
     
  17. elhombreconnonombre

    elhombreconnonombre Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,393
    Location:
    San Leanna, Tx. along Slaughter Creek. a day's rid
    You can bet the OCT bunch will be out in force next year carrying sidearms instead of slung longarms saying their actions turned the tide.
     
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Several of the OCT members are unable to obtain a CHL due to misdemeanor convictions, so they probably won't be taking advantage of the law change anytime soon.
     
  19. az_imuth

    az_imuth Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Estado de Lone Star
    Not to change the direction of this thread, but how long before the gov signs off on this bill? I won't consider it a done deal until that happens.
     
  20. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,571
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Isn't he supposed to sign in 10 days after passage?
    .
     
  21. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Signing is supposedly scheduled for June 11, but unless it is vetoed (not likely) the bill becomes law with or without his signature, 10 days after passage.
     
  22. az_imuth

    az_imuth Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Estado de Lone Star

    Thanks, guys...that's good to know.
     
  23. J.E. Walker

    J.E. Walker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    good
     
  24. Scout Dork

    Scout Dork Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Directly under the Earth's Sun...........Now
  25. jlr1962

    jlr1962 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2014
    Messages:
    545
    Location:
    Tejas
    Anybody wanna buy a belt buckle that will cc a GLOCK 21?:D

    Maybe an open carry day at an inviting restaurant around the first of the year would be fun.

    It would probably be a big revenue day for such a restaurant.:cool:
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice