TexasCHLforum.com

What good is a right if you feel that by lawfully exercising it, it will be taken away? Or lead to your arrest?

Publicly coming together to "stand and fight" as the NRA might put it was instrumental in anti-gun legislation defeat. Granted writing to congressmen and women and the help of the NRA went a long way, but if I remember correctly the protests did include the open carry of long guns in places where it was lawful to do so.

Exercising your lawful right is a great way to stand up and fight for them, not hiding them away fear of having them taken away.

I understand the politics of picking your battles, but to me the battle needs to be fought. If not now, when? The anti's will never stop neither should we.

The PD's across Texas need to be educated as well as the public. How better to do it than by a mass event? So next time someone see's a MWAG and the police show up, instead of threats and intimidation, you don 't get arrested for exercising your legal right.

LSUTiger wrote:What good is a right if you feel that by lawfully exercising it, it will be taken away? Or lead to your arrest?

Publicly coming together to "stand and fight" as the NRA might put it was instrumental in anti-gun legislation defeat. Granted writing to congressmen and women and the help of the NRA went a long way, but if I remember correctly the protests did include the open carry of long guns in places where it was lawful to do so.

Exercising your lawful right is a great way to stand up and fight for them, not hiding them away fear of having them taken away.

I understand the politics of picking your battles, but to me the battle needs to be fought. If not now, when? The anti's will never stop neither should we.

The PD's across Texas need to be educated as well as the public. How better to do it than by a mass event? So next time someone see's a MWAG and the police show up, instead of threats and intimidation, you don 't get arrested for exercising your legal right.

I know some would say steering the pot could stink sometime. However, if you do NOT show real support of your right, the right would go away.

It is ridiculous that there is a Judge who signed on a drag-net for all the info that NSA can eat for free. That idiot Judge should be disbarred as the warrant is unconstitutional and in violation of the 4th.

If no one is defending the 4th after hush-hush destruction of the 4th, the 4th is history.

Be a patriot and support the Rand Paul in hist Federal Suit against the Federal Government and Support Rand Paul in efforts in the restoration of the 4thA.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=838" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To hear some people talk, those lunch counter sit-ins must have set the civil rights movement back ten years.

LSUTiger wrote:What good is a right if you feel that by lawfully exercising it, it will be taken away? Or lead to your arrest?

Even though the law says I can legally walk down the loop with my AR slung over my back I won't do it cause if I did I know I would be going to jail. The term *cannot carry in a manner calculated to cause alarm* can be interpreted alot of ways. Im sure the arresting officer is the one who makes that call.

nightmare69 wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:What good is a right if you feel that by lawfully exercising it, it will be taken away? Or lead to your arrest?

Even though the law says I can legally walk down the loop with my AR slung over my back I won't do it cause if I did I know I would be going to jail. The term *cannot carry in a manner calculated to cause alarm* can be interpreted alot of ways. Im sure the arresting officer is the one who makes that call.

If it is slung on your back, magazine in your pocket, and the bolt locked open, you are not trying to alarm. If it is a bolt action, you have slung over your back with the bolt in your pocket, you are not trying to alarm. The officer should see that right quick. If you are carrying it at present arms, magazine inserted and bolt closed, that's another story.

MeMelYup wrote: If it is slung on your back, magazine in your pocket, and the bolt locked open, you are not trying to alarm. If it is a bolt action, you have slung over your back with the bolt in your pocket, you are not trying to alarm. The officer should see that right quick. If you are carrying it at present arms, magazine inserted and bolt closed, that's another story.

I did not know there was a law saying I could not carry a chambered gun or one with the mag inserted. I would open carry with alot of people but never by myself. Wonder what would happen if I played the rights game with the officer like this guy...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE[/youtube]

nightmare69 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote: If it is slung on your back, magazine in your pocket, and the bolt locked open, you are not trying to alarm. If it is a bolt action, you have slung over your back with the bolt in your pocket, you are not trying to alarm. The officer should see that right quick. If you are carrying it at present arms, magazine inserted and bolt closed, that's another story.

I did not know there was a law saying I could not carry a chambered gun or one with the mag inserted. I would open carry with alot of people but never by myself. Wonder what would happen if I played the rights game with the officer like this guy...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE[/youtube]

A similar stop occurred at the Texas Capitol 2A rally. A gentleman identified as the "Texas Mob Father" was openly carrying an AR15. Two of bicycle patrol troopers stopped him, one with hand on weapon, and discussed his right to carry. The gentleman defended his rights and after 5-10 minutes or so joined the crowd at the rally.

My youngest son, my BIL, my nephew and I attended the rally and recorded the stop. We were about 10 yards behind the troopers on the sidewalk along side the Capitol building. The troopers acted reasonably and professionally and the stop was unremarked by the majority of the crowd.

My take away from this is that threat is all in perception. While the troopers were focused on the open carried rifle, there were at least 6 pistols and 2 knives being carried, those being carried by myself and my party, plus innumerable other CHL, within a few feet of them.

Why was the legally carried rifle perceived as a threat? While other members of the crowd, of which a sizable percentage were legally carrying weapons, were not stopped and questioned as to whether they had a weapon or not?

Either open carry is legal and should go unremarked or it's threatening behavior that will result in stops by LEOs, which?

Rights unexercised are rights lost.

I expect potshots form the anti-gunner crowd. I don't expect backstabbing from people who start with "I support the 2nd Amendment, but . . . ".

Dadtodabone wrote: My take away from this is that threat is all in perception. While the troopers were focused on the open carried rifle, there were at least 6 pistols and 2 knives being carried, those being carried by myself and my party, plus innumerable other CHL, within a few feet of them.

So you were open carrying pistols? Surprised you were not arrested.

I briefly reviewed the dontcomply.com website. One position on the website is that police protection is a monopoly by the state. This is contrary to the founding of our country. One of the ONLY legitimate powers granted to the state is the right of the people to be secure in their homes. To that end, the state is granted the power to establish security procedures, methodologies and practices that will ensure that safety. The every man for himself philosophy is called anarchy.

The Declaration of Independence says, in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". So clearly our founding fathers thought that the purpose of government is to defend and secure our rights.

This is the philosophy of voluntaryism, as described on the website:

If you believe that all forms of human association should be voluntary then you are a Voluntaryist. The core pribciples are the NonAgression Principle and a respect for property rights.

Many base their thinking on -First, every government “presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. Individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so”; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled “taxation”. “All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property.”

That is not American Constitutional Republicanism.

It is also false, at least in America. Many businesses hire and retain their own security. Others contract with security companies; so do entire residential communities. These private security forces work in cooperation with the police, not at cross purposes.

Since taxation is in the Constitution, the rejection of it, necessarily, is a rejection of American Constitutional Republicanism. Given that, one has to ask, what form of government do they seek to establish? As near as I can surmise, it's democracy. Our founders rejected democracy because it does not secure all citizens' rights, it secures only the rights of the majority.

The dontcomply.com website, however, does not ascribe to that philosophy. They seek to involve both voluntaryists and constitutionalists in taking back our rights.