"Calculated to Alarm"
Police officers arrested McCauley outside that Starbucks, charging him with disorderly conduct, which under the Texas penal code, covers 11 categories of behavior, including that of a person who "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."
Those last three words – calculated to alarm – have inflamed passions on both sides. Leaders of the open carry movement, once regarded as fringe-y by more traditional gun rights organizations, are rapidly signing up new members and staging bolder public confrontations. Gun-control advocates, who failed to win legislative change following the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School, are using the image of semi-automatic weapons in public places to reinvigorate their supporters.
As McCauley awaits his day in court, both sides are escalating their tactics. In September, two men wearing AR-15s walked through a farmer's market in downtown Appleton, Wisconsin. Gun rights advocates scheduled a major rally at the Alamo on October 19, to coincide with a national event called Guns Next Door, where gun owners are encouraged to "for one hour stand or sit in your front yard armed." In response, Moms Demand Action is advising supporters who encounter someone carrying a semi-automatic rifle to "call 911 immediately."
4 comments:
The police need to educate the populace when and when not to call 911. Attacks of hoplophobia or getting your panties in a bunch do not constitute a medical emergency. When police start charging people for frivolous usage of 911 reporting "person with gun" with no other threats observed, then perhaps change will occur. In the meantime, the 911 operators need to quickly explain to the callers that the gun possession is completely legal and to only call if a crime is in progress or a medical emergency demands quick response, giving the caller the non-emergency number to call.
Based upon your quote, it would appear that the specific offense the Criminal District Attorney's Office is prosecuting those guys under TPC Section 42.01.(a)(8).
The statute begins by defining all offenses under 42.01.(a) thusly:
" A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:". Please note that, under 42.01(a) for proscribed conduct to rise to the level of an offense, the actor MUST haven intended the result or have been cognizant that the result would have been very likely to have occurred.
Subsection (8) defines one of the ways one might commit disorderly conduct is displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
In order to convict a person of this offense, the prosecution must prove 3 things beyond reasonable doubt:
1) the defendant did, in fact, commit the proscribed conduct. (in this instance, "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place")
2) that the defendant either intended for his display of a firearm to alarm passers by or he knew that such alarm would likely result from his actions.
3) that due to the manner in which he displayed his firearm, passersby would find his actions alarming.
The only easy part of that for a prosecutor would be proving that the defendant(s) did, indeed, display a firearm. Because the firearm was a rifle, that part of the incident is really not up for discussion.
The other tasks for the prosecution are infinitely more difficult. In Dallas or Houston - bastions of leftism/statism/progressivism that they are - it would be an uphill battle. Austin is, for all intents and purposes, a little chunk of Kali transplanted into Texas. If the Jury is made up solely of Austin residents it wouldn't exactly be a slam dunk but it would be a lot easier than San Antonio. A jury made up of San Antonio and Bexar County residents would be much more difficult to convince. If the prosecution elects to actually take this to trial, it should be interesting.
I more than half expect our great, statist/progressive Police Chief to order the crowd to disperse and when the people do not do so bring in a small army of Pigs and arrest everyone there either as a primary actor or an accessory/co-conspirator.
Disorderly conduct is normally a class "C" misdemeanor and - generally - is no more serious than a parking ticket. It carries no permanent legal liability.
Unfortunately, (a)(8) and (a)(9) are classified as "B" misdemeanors and can get you half a year in county lockup or a big fine or both. Additionally a conviction on either is almost certain to cost you your Concealed Handgun License for life. The bureaucrats who administer the CHL program all live in Texas' own little chunk of Kali. 'Nough said.
The article says Newtown was done with an AR. When will the lies end?
They have used a statute, inferior to the superior law contained in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, to defeat and up end the superior law. They do this wilfully and with knowledge of the texts involved and the manifest intent of the framers.
Nothing more needs to be said on this matter. "They" intend to have their way and only their opinions are of value or truthful.
Legally it amounts to being told, "yeah, so what. What are you going to do about it?"
Post a Comment