Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3982
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#16

Post by Jusme » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:36 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Jusme wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Sec. 24-211. - Being in or about a public or private building in the nighttime.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to be in or about public or private building or premises in the nighttime without permission and without being able to give a satisfactory reason for his presence.
(Code 1985, § 27.200)

Sounds like a law written to allow police to stop anyone between sunset, and sunrise, without probable cause. The ambiguity, regarding either, public, or private, buildings, and just being in or "about" a building, without providing a distance, could mean someone walking down the street, within 500' of a building, would have to provide a "satisfactory" reason for being there.
So to answer the OP question, yes, I do have a problem with this ordinance.
Now, the issue, in my opinion, is, just because,this poorly written, ordinance is on the books, doesn't mean, it is being enforced, or that there is a legitimate charge, that could be filed on someone, who is determined to be in violation.
I know that several city and county ordinances, are still, in effect, that sound rediculous today, that are no longer enforced, but have not been challenged, to force their repeal.
In Cleburne, for example, if you plan to enter the city, in an automobile, you must telegraph, or telephone ahead, so that the horses can be secured, to prevent them from spooking, and running off. I don't think it has been enforced lately.
That ordinance was put on the books in 1985, not 1885. It's not like it was some old ordinance from the horse drawn carriage era. I do not know if it has been enforced or not lately.
Yeah I realized it was not a very old ordinance, and was probably written in response to groups of people loitering/living in vacant buildings, during the recession, in the mid 80s. This was soon after the SCOTUS decision, that prohibited, the mentally ill, from being held in psych wards, against their will, which meant that the homeless rate skyrocketed. Unfortunately, whoever drafted this law, did a very poor job, of articulating, a specific charge, a definition, of a satisfactory reason, or understanding, the potential, Unconstitutionality, of such an ordinance.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5495
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#17

Post by puma guy » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:36 pm

rotor wrote:Now we can be stopped and forced to give a "satisfactory" reason for lawful presence. Satisfactory to whom?
You could be charged with "vaguery" :biggrinjester:
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3982
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#18

Post by Jusme » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:39 pm

puma guy wrote:
rotor wrote:Now we can be stopped and forced to give a "satisfactory" reason for lawful presence. Satisfactory to whom?
You could be charged with "vaguery" :biggrinjester:

"rlol"

Or public ambiguity!! :smilelol5:
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17889
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#19

Post by Keith B » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:54 pm

Ordinance states 'in or about public or private building or premises'

What definition are they using for 'premises'? If it doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, etc, then no, wouldn't really have a problem with it.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#20

Post by mojo84 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:02 pm

Good comments. Looking for a few more and I'll pose another question or comment for consideration.

I think we also need to know what about means.

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#21

Post by mojo84 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:13 pm

Here is how they define premises.
Premises means a tract of land and the buildings thereon.


mayor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: N. Fort Worth

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#22

Post by mayor » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:18 pm

even if you're in "violation" of the (poorly written) ordinance, the punishment is a "move along" or a ticket. There's no ride.

Stupid laws are stupid.

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5495
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#23

Post by puma guy » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:56 pm

mayor wrote:even if you're in "violation" of the (poorly written) ordinance, the punishment is a "move along" or a ticket. There's no ride.

Stupid laws are stupid.
Like no "Ice Cold Beer" signs! :roll:
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#24

Post by twomillenium » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:58 pm

mojo84 wrote:
twomillenium wrote:If it a public building not private, then I as a taxpaying owner gave myself permission. In a building that has been locked is already burglary, if it is open you do not need a reason if it is open to the public no matter the time of day. A vague law like this makes it tough on LEOs (not all) that are seemingly have problems understanding the laws in black and white.
What about being outside of a building?
There are loitering laws that take care of that without passing new vague ones.
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#25

Post by KLB » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:08 pm

The ordinance is obviously intended to be enforced only against the "wrong sort." As such, it's highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. But I'm not volunteering to put myself and my pocketbook in jeopardy to test the ordinance, and I advise caution before anyone else does.


mayor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: N. Fort Worth

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#26

Post by mayor » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:34 pm

KLB wrote:The ordinance is obviously intended to be enforced only against the "wrong sort." As such, it's highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. But I'm not volunteering to put myself and my pocketbook in jeopardy to test the ordinance, and I advise caution before anyone else does.
If it's in Texas, according to this document, this is a list of municipal jurisdiction: https://www.municode.com/webcontent/sta ... ets/tx.pdf - may not be comprehensive. IANAL...


Rob72
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:08 am
Location: Gulf Coast

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#27

Post by Rob72 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:03 pm

Here's the deal- if we socially agree to allow property owners to beat/shoot/strongly physically dissuade those they do not wish to have in proximity to their establishment, we do not need the "stupid law."

If it isn't legal for the property owner to roust people, we have to rely on Law Enforcement. By definition, there has to be a law for them to enforce.


mayor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:47 pm
Location: N. Fort Worth

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#28

Post by mayor » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:27 pm

As mayor, no way I'd have let the council pass this. Or i wouldn't have signed it if they did. I'd have suggested they send it to the city attorney for assistance. There are no definitions.

actually, there may have been. We don't see the entire ordinance. I could be wrong.
Last edited by mayor on Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

Grundy1133
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:18 pm
Location: Gainesville

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#29

Post by Grundy1133 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:30 pm

mayor wrote:As mayor, no way I'd have let the council pass this. Or i wouldn't have signed it if they did. I'd have suggested they send it to the city attorney for assistance. There are no definitions.
:smilelol5:
Image
NRA Member

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 8232
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

#30

Post by mojo84 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:49 pm

Here you go. It is an Olmos Park, TX ordinance.

http://library.municode.com/tx/olmos_pa ... ABPUPRBUNI

Here are the questions. Should this ordinance get similar attention from self proclaimed protectors of our rights and Constitution? Is it just not sensational enough to draw the attention of the attention seekers?

For those of you that are zeroing in on the private property portion, take a moment to consider it includes "in or about" public buildings.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”