Failure to notify.

[Glockster69]

Class move 35Remington.


goodfellas: While we've never met in person, I've talked to 35R on numerous occasions/topics and done a little business with him, he strikes me as a good guy. Y'all are close enough to easily meet so I hope you do and good comes from it. Whatever that may be.

 

[FrEaK_aCcIdEnT]

Why more folks don't have a service Texas law shield for incidents like this is beyond me.

This--x 1000.


It amazes me how someone chooses not to take legal precautions. Its everyone's choice to make. Just sucks people choose not to. If I never have to use the service, the peace of mind is more than worth it.

 

[35Remington]

And there might be hope: SAPD Chief William McManus to step down

 

[FrEaK_aCcIdEnT]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I really mean it as a compliment. Your description of what happened that night, plus your posts in response to the members here, and also your story about retrieving the gun and what transpired at the station all suggest that you are way too well mannered, respectful, and intelligent to be making only $16,000 a year. You have a CHL so obviously your record is clean.

Send me a PM if you're interested in maybe changing careers. I might be able to find you something, and at the very least can put in a good word for you.

There ya go!!

 

[TheDan]

...you are way too well mannered, respectful, and intelligent to be making only $16,000 a year.

That's a very nice offer, but ever consider he likes it that way? Personally I am looking forward to the day when I can only make $16k/yr. As soon as the mortgage is paid off I'm done with being a wage slave and will semi-retire.

 

[Driller]

When did that happen? The penalty was removed several years ago.

I concur. Still a law but was amended to not allow a penalty I believe.

 

[London]

And there might be hope: SAPD Chief William McManus to step down

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus is stepping down from the department to take a position at CPS Energy as senior director of security.

Holy shit. Someone must have some MAJOR dirt on him. I used to work security for CPS. All of my coworkers with authority were the most ego-tripping, uneducated, ignorant, lazy, mentally imbalanced people you'd ever meet. It was de-facto required for promotion, as any worker with even a sliver of true leadership potential or competency quit or was fired in six months. Welcome to the security guard version of Keystone Kops.

This is like a four star Admiral "Quitting" to head a fleet of tuna ships, only tuna fisherman are a lot better workers.

 

[newguy4104]

There is plenty of case law for this. Basically, if you can lunge and reach it, it is about your person.

Hope this helps....

+++ 1

I have had many arguments with pro-gun friends who carry in their vehicle under the thought that it's fine tucked under their seat or in the console. I am glad to see the thought of prior case law and legal precidence being mentioned.

 

[Younggun]

+++ 1

I have had many arguments with pro-gun friends who carry in their vehicle under the thought that it's fine tucked under their seat or in the console. I am glad to see the thought of prior case law and legal precidence being mentioned.

It is.

So long as you meet certain standards (out if plain view, not a gang member, not committing other crimes) anyone can carry in their vehicle.

 

[newguy4104]

Thank you for the response Younggun, in the spirit of debate let me ask this;

Texas law allows for the unlicensed carry in a vehicle with the presumption that this is to allow a gun owner the ability to transport it to the location of use (ex: gun range, hunting grounds, ect.). Now with case law and legal precidence set and mentioned by TXI above, if an individual has the gun tucked under their seat, this could be used to build a case that they were carrying illegally. The premise being that the individual had the firearm "on, or about their person(s)".

The risk being that an overzealous LEO may take the concept of on or about your person and make an arrest for illegal concealed carry. Now while many would argue that this is illegal, to which I agree, the possibility is still present. It was to this point that I was applauding TXI for mentioning case law and legal precidence.

Thank you Younggun for the response and I hope for a gentlemanly discussion on this, have a great weekend.

 

[stdreb27]

Thank you for the response Younggun, in the spirit of debate let me ask this;

Texas law allows for the unlicensed carry in a vehicle with the presumption that this is to allow a gun owner the ability to transport it to the location of use (ex: gun range, hunting grounds, ect.). Now with case law and legal precidence set and mentioned by TXI above, if an individual has the gun tucked under their seat, this could be used to build a case that they were carrying illegally. The premise being that the individual had the firearm "on, or about their person(s)".

The risk being that an overzealous LEO may take the concept of on or about your person and make an arrest for illegal concealed carry. Now while many would argue that this is illegal, to which I agree, the possibility is still present. It was to this point that I was applauding TXI for mentioning case law and legal precidence.

Thank you Younggun for the response and I hope for a gentlemanly discussion on this, have a great weekend.

Nope. Ditch your whole train of thought. It's 3 legislation sessions old.

Google texas motorist protection act.

 

[Glockster69]

Texas law allows for the unlicensed carry in a vehicle with the presumption that this is to allow a gun owner the ability to transport it to the location of use (ex: gun range, hunting grounds, ect.).

I think you're confusing carrying under a CHL, the Motorist Protection Act, and simply transportation of a firearm.

The way I read it, lately the conversation has been about under the MPA. Here it is:

80(R) HB 1815 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

 

[txinvestigator]

Thank you for the response Younggun, in the spirit of debate let me ask this;

Texas law allows for the unlicensed carry in a vehicle with the presumption that this is to allow a gun owner the ability to transport it to the location of use (ex: gun range, hunting grounds, ect.s).

That is not the presumption at all. In fact, the bill that allowed unlicensed car carry lawful in 2007 was named The Motorist Protection Act. It was passed for protection.

Now with case law and legal precidence set and mentioned by TXI above, if an individual has the gun tucked under their seat, this could be used to build a case that they were carrying illegally. The premise being that the individual had the firearm "on, or about their person(s)".

You have completely misunderstood. Your conclusion is inaccurate.

A handgun under the seat is on or about your person, but penal code 46.02 makes that lawful if you meet the 4 requirements listed therein.

The risk being that an overzealous LEO may take the concept of on or about your person and make an arrest for illegal concealed carry. Now while many would argue that this is illegal, to which I agree, the possibility is still present. It was to this point that I was applauding TXI for mentioning case law and legal precidence.

Thank you Younggun for the response and I hope for a gentlemanly discussion on this, have a great weekend.

I made no such point. Your understanding of the law and your comprehension of my posts are both lacking.

 

[txinvestigator]

I think you're confusing carrying under a CHL, the Motorist Protection Act, and simple transportation.

The way I read it, lately the conversation has been about under the MPA. Here it is:

80(R) HB 1815 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

The bill no longer exists. It has been codified into law. It is now simply a piece of penal code 46.02.

 

[Glockster69]

The bill no longer exists. It has been codified into law. It is now simply a piece of penal code 46.02.

Since the bill modifies 46.02, I linked to it. That way he doesn't have to read all of 46.02 to understand my point.

 

[txinvestigator]

Since the bill modifies 46.02, I linked to it. That way he doesn't have to read all of 46.02 to understand my point.

It modified 46.02. Past tense, not present.

 

[Glockster69]

"modifies" is a verb, not tense.

Don't make me head south for some one-on-one with the Most Hated Member ... lol

 

[seeker_two]

It's cases like these and PC's like San Antonio that make me want to rethink the concept of qualified immunity.....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[NeckBeard]

it's funny that we have a standing military roaming the streets under the guise of friendly neighborhood cops and you all still need to need to prove to each other that you're not "anti-leo".

It's almost as bad as "i'm not racist, but...." crap i read constantly.

It's like politically correct dick measuring.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

View attachment 29214

Nice choice. Cop probably shit his pants knowing there was a Ruger .357 in his vicinity.

I think you did your job by alerting the folks on this forum. At least people here can spread the word about Terrell Hills PD being full of commie, anti-gun dirtbags.

But you really should go out of your way, now that you have your LCR back, to shame the hell out of the offending officer and the department. Most lawyers are really not that expensive, unless it is a DWI, divorce, or something where a lot of time and money is at stake. At least talk to some, see what they say. Why don't you post the officer's name, right here, for the world to see.

The people who drive through that hellhole deserve this much.