Man Tased for Rifle OC in San Antonio

[mamabearCali]

If a law is null and void, and you taze a person for not "obeying your authority" to enforce a law that is illegal in the start, I'd say you tazed him for no reason. I'd say you assaulted a law abiding citizen with a weapon because you did not like that he was engaging in controversial law abiding activity. Just following orders/procedure is no excuse either.

The LEO tazed him, arrested him, and deprived him of his constitutional rights because the LEO did not know the law. If I did that, I would be in the jail house cooling my heels for a good long time.

[EEllis]

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.

You are wrong. It is not directly stated that a city can not pass an ordinance relating to having a loaded firearm. That is not what the law I posted says. A judge does have to rule on any law, ordinance, or regulation for it to be non valid on the basis of it violating established law. And it is not the open and shut case some are trying to pretend. Now it may have already been ruled on and settled but there is an argument for the ordinance regardless of what we would like to believe. This has nothing to do with a judge making law just deciding between different interpretations of established law.

[EEllis]

If a law is null and void, and you taze a person for not "obeying your authority" to enforce a law that is illegal in the start, I'd say you tazed him for no reason. I'd say you assaulted a law abiding citizen with a weapon because you did not like that he was engaging in controversial law abiding activity. Just following orders/procedure is no excuse either.

The LEO tazed him, arrested him, and deprived him of his constitutional rights because the LEO did not know the law. If I did that, I would be in the jail house cooling my heels for a good long time.

Umm no one has posted any evidence that the law is "null and void". At best you have the argument for voiding that law not that is is voided. There is a difference.

[EEllis]

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

So how would you want different opinions on interpretations on the law worked out?

[mojo84]

People and lawyers to stop twisting things to make it work for them and accept the law as it is written and quit disregarding the Constitution and well written laws that are on the books. "Shall not be infringed" and the concept of preemption seems pretty clear that local ordinance should not try to override or circumvent state law and the Constitution.

[mamabearCali]

This is the law you posted

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

He was transporting a firearm and ammunition within said firearm in a law abiding manner. So I have no idea where you are getting that this is not crystal clear. It seems very clear to me.

What the TX state constitution says makes it even more clear that the legislature is to make laws not the cities


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.

But all this has already been pointed out.

This will go to court. Had I been the person tazed I would have already filed a lawsuit the moment I was released. This isn't some small thing. It is a big deal to have law enforcers going around assaulting citizens for behaving in a lawful if controversial manner. They act in the name of all the citizen of the state so when they behave brutally and irresponsibly, it is a big deal. It is a big deal when state law,that the people have passed, is trumped by an idiot police chief defending a policy that is illegal in the start.

[EEllis]

People and lawyers to stop twisting things to make it work for them and accept the law as it is written and quit disregarding the Constitution and well written laws that are on the books. "Shall not be infringed" and the concept of preemption seems pretty clear that local ordinance should not try to override or circumvent state law and the Constitution.

While I would tend to agree about preeminence in this case I think it's possible to disagree without someone being dishonest. I don't think the constitution prohibits these types of laws. I think we have a system for figuring this sort of stuff out and ignoring it doesn't help anyone.

[EEllis]

He was transporting a firearm and ammunition within said firearm in a law abiding manner. So I have no idea where you are getting that this is not crystal clear. It seems very clear to me.

So he couldn't transport the firearm without the round in the chamber? Of course he could so how is that interfering with transport?
Refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it disappear. While I think the intent is clear the language just doesn't directly cover this situation and I'm not up on the case law to give a stronger opinion. Are you?

This will go to court. Had I been the person tazed I would have already filed a lawsuit the moment I was released. This isn't some small thing. It is a big deal to have law enforcers going around assaulting citizens for behaving in a lawful if controversial manner. They act in the name of all the citizen of the state so when they behave brutally and irresponsibly, it is a big deal. It is a big deal when state law,that the people have passed, is trumped by an idiot police chief defending a policy that is illegal in the start.

You don't even know the courts stance on this ordinance but you would file anyway? If it hasn't been ruled on the the police have every right to enforce it. But hey it's your money, waste it as you wish.

[mamabearCali]

He was transporting a firearm and ammunition within said firearm in a law abiding manner. So I have no idea where you are getting that this is not crystal clear. It seems very clear to me.

So he couldn't transport the firearm without the round in the chamber? Of course he could so how is that interfering with transport?
Refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it disappear. While I think the intent is clear the language just doesn't directly cover this situation and I'm not up on the case law to give a stronger opinion. Are you?.

Obfuscating the intent for precise language including every little detail is what leftist statists and apologists working for a specific causes do. Are you one of those?

This will go to court. Had I been the person tazed I would have already filed a lawsuit the moment I was released. This isn't some small thing. It is a big deal to have law enforcers going around assaulting citizens for behaving in a lawful if controversial manner. They act in the name of all the citizen of the state so when they behave brutally and irresponsibly, it is a big deal. It is a big deal when state law,that the people have passed, is trumped by an idiot police chief defending a policy that is illegal in the start.

You don't even know the courts stance on this ordinance but you would file anyway? If it hasn't been ruled on the the police have every right to enforce it. But hey it's your money, waste it as you wish.

As he is not being charged with anything I think the DA knows the courts stance on this. If they could have charged him with ANYTHING they would have. If they could have charged him under the city ordinance they would have, but they didn't. So I think this tells us a great deal.



There are ordinances on the books regarding the operation of motorized carriages in cities and towns......should we permit LEO's to go around tazing people daring to drive automobiles. There ordinances about eating ice cream in public too, I suppose it is ok if a LEO enforces them as well. Just cause a city has an ordinance does not make it valid.

[EEllis]

Obfuscating the intent for precise language including every little detail is what leftist statists and apologists working for a specific causes do. Are you one of those?

First I can't be sure the intent. Second that is what the courts do, if the legislature wrote a law with holes then that is their fault not mine. Third was the guy on this forum who caught a weapons charge for a knife in the capital "Obfuscating the intent for precise language" when he beat his charge? It seems clear to me that the legislature was not intending to cover knives under the chl exemption but the language of the law does indeed appear to cover them. So he should of been convicted? Of course not because that isn't how it works. Fourth, I said what I think and then my interpretation of the legal issues. Being aware and acknowledging reality shouldn't be cause for insults. Last, what about a person who gets insulting and dismissive when disagreed with. What would you call someone like that?

As he is not being charged with anything I think the DA knows the courts stance on this. If they could have charged him with ANYTHING they would have. If they could have charged him under the city ordinance they would have, but they didn't. So I think this tells us a great deal.

Legally it means nothing and is not the basis for a suit. It could be that the DA thought the guy learned his lesson. That the DA didn't want it to go to court and thus establish a precedence so the cops could continue to enforce that ordinance. Or they could just not want to bother.

[mamabearCali]

First I can't be sure the intent. Second that is what the courts do, if the legislature wrote a law with holes then that is their fault not mine. Third was the guy on this forum who caught a weapons charge for a knife in the capital "Obfuscating the intent for precise language" when he beat his charge? It seems clear to me that the legislature was not intending to cover knives under the chl exemption but the language of the law does indeed appear to cover them. So he should of been convicted? Of course not because that isn't how it works. Fourth, I said what I think and then my interpretation of the legal issues. Being aware and acknowledging reality shouldn't be cause for insults. Last, what about a person who gets insulting and dismissive when disagreed with. What would you call someone like that?

First off, maybe I took it wrong but I took the "do you know the case laws" to mean unless I am a cop or a lawyer specializing in this field, I should shut on what the law means. So I was replying sarcastically tit for tat. You were snippy with me, so I was snippy back. Where I am from, that is called being a "spirited woman" and not a door mat. Second, your example was about knives. Guns and ammunition are specifically stated in the law you quoted, knives thought similar are not mentioned. I see no way that this was not pre-empted protected behavior. You are arguing that the law is unclear....that makes as much sense as arguing what the meaning of "is" is. Which was ridiculous in Washington DC, and should not stand a snowballs chance of holding up in a court in TX.

As he is not being charged with anything I think the DA knows the courts stance on this. If they could have charged him with ANYTHING they would have. If they could have charged him under the city ordinance they would have, but they didn't. So I think this tells us a great deal.

Legally it means nothing and is not the basis for a suit. It could be that the DA thought the guy learned his lesson. That the DA didn't want it to go to court and thus establish a precedence so the cops could continue to enforce that ordinance. Or they could just not want to bother.[/quote]


I have never seen a DA that was anywhere near as gracious as you are implying in this situation. If there is no charge, then there is no cause or cover for the LEO to assault the citizen. That leaves the city much more open to a civil rights/police abuse case, because they have no legitimate reason to have tazed him.

It seems to me that you don't think it is a big deal for the person to have been tazed (potentially lethal force) and arrested for carrying a gun lawfully. Perhaps I am misunderstanding things, but it seems that you view it as all included in a days work as part and parcel of being a gun owner. As a citizen who legally carries a gun openly from time to time in my state it would be a HUGE deal to me if I were attacked in such a manner and treated with such disdain. We have preemption here in VA, but local LEO's have been known to harass people OCing. So this is a little personal to me, because I could see something similar going down here. Additionally, tazing is DANGEROUS, as lethal as taking out a bat and hitting a person with it. They might live...they might not. It really bothers me how from time to time we see it used with impunity.

[SewTexas]

EEllis,

STOP! just stop.

this was a reasonable conversation.

just stop, either hold a reasonable conversation or stop the knee-jerk "cops are always right" guess what, I live in the San Antonio area, they aren't. We've got a couple I'm really sad to say who will be heading to trial. It happens. Sometimes cops are bullies.

[Keith B]

I personally hope the young man's family pursues a civil suit in an attempt to receive compensation for wrongfully being tazed. While I wouldn't test the waters like he did, he was totally legal and was standing strong on the law. The Sargent showed up and decided to end the discussion in a manner that was totally out of line.

[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.

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.

You don't know case law regarding preemption, yet you continue to argue it has to be decided by the courts.
With "all due respect" I can muster please read a post before you start trying to put words in my mouth. I wasn't responding to the tasing of the guy at all. I was responding to your suppositions and argument regarding laws and preemption . If you don't get the analogy I'm sorry. The 2nd Amendment has been affirmed by the SCOTUS with self defense a key element and it extends to the states. Did they say you can carry the weapon loaded? No, but only a really obtuse person would think they only meant unloaded weapons. Before you react - the last sentence was not directed at you. SA politicians fit the description to a "T".

[WildBill]

Case law can't be established until someone is prosecuted, found guilty and then is granted an appeal.

As long at the SA DA doesn't prosecute people for violation of this ordinance, they are free to arrest and harass as many people as they please.

It seems that somebody [not me] should ask for an AG opinion. That might do something to stop the harassment and arrests.