Man Tased for Rifle OC in San Antonio

[EEllis]

Shame is right.........if they tazed him for no reason at all.........then assault charges need to be filed on the officer. We do not need officers who amp up a situation and then taze law abiding citizens for giggles.

The police chief is trying CYA. Sadly in this day and age in that city it might work.

It's not like they tased him for no reason. The issue is the pre eminence of state law over local. City ordinance prohibit carrying a rifle thats loaded on city streets, as I understand it. The belief that most people have is that since by state law it is legal so the city can't have laws that are more restrictive, paraphrasing of course. Here city cops were enforcing a city ordinance. The guy wanted to argue about the legalities on the side of the street instead of complying with the police directions. Now I have some doubts about the legality also but as far as I know I haven't heard of any case actually saying that the SA law is illegal.

A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

So would that actually prevent the city from passing an ordinance against having a bullet in a rifle on a city street? If so it is implied not directly stated and would have to be either addressed by the legislature or struck down by the courts. You may be able to beat a case but that isn't quite the same as the law being illegal.

[Pawpaw]

Shame is right.........if they tazed him for no reason at all.........then assault charges need to be filed on the officer. We do not need officers who amp up a situation and then taze law abiding citizens for giggles.

The police chief is trying CYA. Sadly in this day and age in that city it might work.

It's not like they tased him for no reason. The issue is the pre eminence of state law over local. City ordinance prohibit carrying a rifle thats loaded on city streets, as I understand it. The belief that most people have is that since by state law it is legal so the city can't have laws that are more restrictive, paraphrasing of course. Here city cops were enforcing a city ordinance. The guy wanted to argue about the legalities on the side of the street instead of complying with the police directions. Now I have some doubts about the legality also but as far as I know I haven't heard of any case actually saying that the SA law is illegal.

A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

So would that actually prevent the city from passing an ordinance against having a bullet in a rifle on a city street? If so it is implied not directly stated and would have to be either addressed by the legislature or struck down by the courts. You may be able to beat a case but that isn't quite the same as the law being illegal.

From the Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights:

Sec.A23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

A city is not "the Legislature."

[EEllis]

A city is not "the Legislature."

Great but that doesn't matter as to the legality of the regulation until a court says it matters. I have already mentioned that I personally have an issue but there is a legal process which has to be followed for something to be "Officially" considered illegal or unconstitutional, and popping out buzzwords on the internet doesn't do it.

[Beiruty]

EEllis,
No charges, just assaulting a citizen and arresting him is Okay? Where is the probable cause for committing a crime? City ordinance are now arrestable offenses?!!
The Manager of City of SA should be interviewed and the his DA should be next to him explain this mess.

[mamabearCali]

Tazing is not a harmless thing like taking a questionable piece of candy from a child. It is violent, it can be lethal, it is an assault against a person. How would it be if the actions of that LEO caused the death of that man? Over an illegal city ordinance.


State law is not just state law only when a judge says so. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me in court it is no excuse for the officer to violently assault a citizen because he does not know the law. He was wrong. He used the long arm of state force against a citizen with no cause to do so. Contempt of cop is not a lethal offense calling for assault and possible summary execution.

[karder]

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me in court it is no excuse for the officer to violently assault a citizen because he does not know the law.

That is a good point.

[EEllis]

EEllis,
No charges, just assaulting a citizen and arresting him is Okay? Where is the probable cause for committing a crime? City ordinance are now arrestable offenses?!!
The Manager of City of SA should be interviewed and the his DA should be next to him explain this mess.

Where did I say that? He wouldn't of been arrested for the ordinance but for his actions while they were trying to enforce that ordinance but yes you can be arrested for violating city ordinances. PC ? He said he had a bullet in the chamber! Sure I question the validity of the ordinance but the man said he was violating it so PC is pretty dang easy to establish.

[puma guy]

Shame is right.........if they tazed him for no reason at all.........then assault charges need to be filed on the officer. We do not need officers who amp up a situation and then taze law abiding citizens for giggles.

The police chief is trying CYA. Sadly in this day and age in that city it might work.

It's not like they tased him for no reason. The issue is the pre eminence of state law over local. City ordinance prohibit carrying a rifle thats loaded on city streets, as I understand it. The belief that most people have is that since by state law it is legal so the city can't have laws that are more restrictive, paraphrasing of course. Here city cops were enforcing a city ordinance. The guy wanted to argue about the legalities on the side of the street instead of complying with the police directions. Now I have some doubts about the legality also but as far as I know I haven't heard of any case actually saying that the SA law is illegal.

A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

So would that actually prevent the city from passing an ordinance against having a bullet in a rifle on a city street? If so it is implied not directly stated and would have to be either addressed by the legislature or struck down by the courts. You may be able to beat a case but that isn't quite the same as the law being illegal.

I don't think a bullet loaded in a rifle is actually a loaded rifle unless it's a muzzle loader I guess. The law extends to vehicles as well, so don't drive in SA with a cartridge or shell loaded or bullet loaded in your rifle or shotgun; or a Buck 110 or 112 or a Puma Game Warden or any other folding lock blade knife that's legal under State statutes.

It is well established in Texas that a loaded long gun in a vehicle is legal.

A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

Seems clear to me. To answer your question YES it does prevent them from passing ordinances prohibiting loaded chambers in long guns.
Substitute "automobiles" for "firearms".
Sec. 21-16. Driving a fueled automobile (Carrying loaded rifle or shotgun)

It shall be unlawful for any person, other than duly authorized peace officers, to drive a fueled automobile (to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun) on any public street within the city or in a motor vehicle while the same is being operated on any public street within the city.

A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of automobiles, fuel, or automobile parts. Using your logic the city could pass ordinances prohibiting you from putting gasoline in your car.

[EEllis]

It is well established in Texas that a loaded long gun in a vehicle is legal.

Seems clear to me. To answer your question YES it does prevent them from passing ordinances prohibiting loaded chambers in long guns..

Yeah I get that you, and me and many others here, think so but that isn't how the legal system in Texas works. They don't have a "Puma say's so" exemption for enforcement of city ordinances.

[mamabearCali]

It is not Puma saying that it is TX state law that says that. As he pointed out.

[puma guy]

It is well established in Texas that a loaded long gun in a vehicle is legal.

Seems clear to me. To answer your question YES it does prevent them from passing ordinances prohibiting loaded chambers in long guns..

Yeah I get that you, and me and many others here, think so but that isn't how the legal system in Texas works. They don't have a "Puma say's so" exemption for enforcement of city ordinances.

If you read my earlier posts you'll see that I said the police are doing what they are told. This is not about my opinion. We're talking about the SA ordinance and the legality of it being passed in the first place. I guess I should have been more clear. I don't think preemption has to be proven on a case by case basis. i.e. the automobile analogy.
Currently there are only five states with no provision or statute expressly preempting local regulation of firearms or ammunition: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York. I can't cite any cases, but with 45 states having such laws I'm almost certain it's been challenged, probably Texas include. Need a lawyer here I guess.

SA's prohibition of knives may come under implied preemption, but Texas Legislators have passed none for knives that I know of. Texas has no preemption language for blue shirts either, so SA can outlaw them. Sorry, I Just had to say that!

There are probably thousand upon thousands of workers in SA that use a lock blade knife in their work and they are all criminals in the eyes of SA politicians and thus are subject to be tased, or worse if they refuse to give them up.
I found it very interesting (and telling that )the police refrained from confronting the protesters Sunday that were armed with long guns in front of the police station.

With recent SCOTUS decisions that the 2nd Amendment applies to states this may go further, we'll just have to wait and see. Of course we don't even know if a lawsuit has been filed.

[EEllis]

It is not Puma saying that it is TX state law that says that. As he pointed out.

First the "State Law" doesn't call people up and say "You can't do that".Second, the fact is the law doesn't say that. We think/believe that the language in the law would preclude the ordinance but a court could decide different because it is not directly and explicitly stated in that law. The ability to transport your firearm is not really inhibited by not being able to have a round loaded. So .....
Personally I believe that the intent is clear but a court would be the one to decide because it isn't directly covered in the language of the law.

[mamabearCali]

Read what Puma said about preemption. TX state has preemption which means that the local ordinances are null and void. A judge does not have to say that, though he likely will when this guy takes the cop/city to court, the law says it. A judge enforces the law. He does not make it.

[EEllis]

It is well established in Texas that a loaded long gun in a vehicle is legal.

Seems clear to me. To answer your question YES it does prevent them from passing ordinances prohibiting loaded chambers in long guns..

Yeah I get that you, and me and many others here, think so but that isn't how the legal system in Texas works. They don't have a "Puma say's so" exemption for enforcement of city ordinances.

If you read my earlier posts you'll see that I said the police are doing what they are told. This is not about my opinion. We're talking about the SA ordinance and the legality of it being passed in the first place. I guess I should have been more clear. I don't think preemption has to be proven on a case by case basis. i.e. the automobile analogy.

I can understand that but you were responding to a back and forth about the cops tasing a guy for "No reason". Even if you are correct there was a reason. I don't know what case law there is on this but yes I do think there is some case by case basis if you consider what constitutes preemption. So no not every guy in SA who gets stopped but maybe yes to every city that has a different ordinance. I don't know if the SA thing has been decided in court and until it has.....
I'm not feeling your auto analogy. Just don't think it fits.

[mojo84]

But the attorneys make more money when things have to be settled and clarified through the courts. Preemption tampers with their livelihood.