Open Carry rules for Idiots....

[james.long48]

This is the typical "liberal" argument. The "Progressive Liberals" have been eating away at our God given freedoms since the beginning and all we do as law abiding citizens is take it and let them have their way eroding our rights a little bit here and there till we are afraid to exercise those very God given rights.

As a result, look at how Political Correctness has infected our society. This Political Correctness is now infecting some of our thoughts regarding the free exercise of our right to Open Carry. We should be defending our Constitutional rights and start taking back our freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution - we are the "We the People" in the Preamble of that amazing document. Seems a few here on this forum should take the time to read for the first time or re-read the U.S. Constitution and understand what is happening in our society and whether we are defending it or helping to erode those God given rights and freedoms.

Good point, it's crazy to think what are fore father's would think of our country today.

They overthrew their government for unfair taxing and a abusive central government.

 

[Younggun]

It's not illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The argument is false.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[txinvestigator]

It's not illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The argument is false.


Sent from my HAL 9000

really?

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:
(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.

 

[Sugar Land]

HaHa

 

[Younggun]

really?

So, where does it say it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre?

I didn't see that anywhere in your post.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

Seems they would need a defense to prosecution in case there was a play and it was part of the dialogue, or if there was an actual fire. Assuming it actually were illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Hoji]

Seems they would need a defense to prosecution in case there was a play and it was part of the dialogue, or if there was an actual fire. Assuming it actually were illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


Sent from my HAL 9000

You are sooooo much better at this when you are in the right. It is clear as day in the PC. Let this one go, he got you.

 

[Younggun]

You are sooooo much better at this when you are in the right. It is clear as day in the PC. Let this one go, he got you.

I read what he posted. It said nothing about yelling fire in a theatre (or anywhere else. It is not illegal to yell fire in a theatre or anywhere else. The PC does state that intentionally causing false alarm is a crime. But that's different.

When libs (or even some here) equate regulation of the 2A to regulation of the 1A citing the "yelling fire" example it lends credence to the idea that the right to bear arms is not being infringed via regulation. But it's a false argument.

Yelling fire is not inherently harmful nor does it inherently violate anyone's rights. The law makes it illegal to cause harm through certain actions, however the actions are still legal when not used in a manner to cause harm. It's not the speech that is regulated, it's the violation of people right to life that is illegal, the inciting of fear through a calculated action.

For that reason, the whole "can't yell fire in a theatre" argument is false and meaningless as it pertains to the 2A.

That's is why I don't like the example. It's an action, not the 1A that is regulated. The law protects rights from harmful action, not harmful speech.

If the same were applied to the 2A it would be "it's illegal to yell fire in a theatre so it should be illegal to fire guns in a theatre". It already is. But just as we still have the ability to say what we wish so long as we aren't violating anyone's rights or causing harm, we should still have the right to own and carry as we wish so long as we aren't violating anyone's rights or causing harm.

The argument is nothing more than a liberal spin, same as Feinsteins attempt at using child pornography as examples of regulation of rights.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Hoji]

I read what he posted. It said nothing about yelling fire in a theatre (or anywhere else. It is not illegal to yell fire in a theatre or anywhere else. The PC does state that intentionally causing false alarm is a crime. But that's different.

When libs (or even some here) equate regulation of the 2A to regulation of the 1A citing the "yelling fire" example it lends credence to the idea that the right to bear arms is not being infringed via regulation. But it's a false argument.

Yelling fire is not inherently harmful nor does it inherently violate anyone's rights. The law makes it illegal to cause harm through certain actions, however the actions are still legal when not used in a manner to cause harm. It's not the speech that is regulated, it's the violation of people right to life that is illegal, the inciting of fear through a calculated action.

For that reason, the whole "can't yell fire in a theatre" argument is false and meaningless as it pertains to the 2A.

That's is why I don't like the example. It's an action, not the 1A that is regulated. The law protects rights from harmful action, not harmful speech.

If the same were applied to the 2A it would be "it's illegal to yell fire in a theatre so it should be illegal to fire guns in a theatre". It already is. But just as we still have the ability to say what we wish so long as we aren't violating anyone's rights or causing harm, we should still have the right to own and carry as we wish so long as we aren't violating anyone's rights or causing harm.

The argument is nothing more than a liberal spin, same as Feinsteins attempt at using child pornography as examples of regulation of rights.


Sent from my HAL 9000

A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless
.
You should have, in your original statement, said there is no law against shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, if there is a fire.

Lots of words for a patently weak argument against what is clearly defined in the Texas Penal Code. Yelling fire in a crowded theater clearly meets the criteria.
As much as you hate to admit you are wrong to TXI, here you clearly are.

 

[Younggun]

I knew of the law TXI posted before making my initial statement. My point was too complicated I guess. Or maybe you are too hung up on something you've always heard to actually take a closer look at it.

It's illegal to cause alarm, no yell fire. But that's only the basis to the larger point I made in the previous post that it seems you really didn't read very well.

Not trying to be a dick, but my point is valid. Just no something people really consider when making the statement.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[txinvestigator]

I knew of the law TXI posted before making my initial statement. My point was too complicated I guess. Or maybe you are too hung up on something you've always heard to actually take a closer look at it.

It's illegal to cause alarm, no yell fire. But that's only the basis to the larger point I made in the previous post that it seems you really didn't read very well.

Not trying to be a dick, but my point is valid. Just no something people really consider when making the statement.


Sent from my HAL 9000

Just give it up. You are mistaken here.

 

[Younggun]

Lol.

No I'm not.


Is it illegal to yell "fire" if I'm at the movies and see that a fire has broken out?


Give it up, you were being closed minded. You aren't always right. Deal with it.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[scap99]

Y'all need to hug it out....

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

Lol.

No I'm not.


Is it illegal to yell "fire" if I'm at the movies and see that a fire has broken out?


Give it up, you were being closed minded. You aren't always right. Deal with it.


Sent from my HAL 9000

Really, that is your argument against your statement?

Do you argue with street signs and take wrong roads?

 

[Younggun]

Really, that is your argument against your statement?

Do you argue with street signs and take wrong roads?

Why would I argue against my statement? My statement was correct. And it was the basis for making a larger point.

I'm sorry you can't get past something so basic, it's really not that complicated if you would stop letting your pride get in the way.

Do you always refuse to answer questions that prove you are wrong?


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Shorts]

On one hand Younggun is kinda right about the actual yelling not being illegal.

But, for comparison, think about a person calling in a bomb hoax on a local elementary school at 10am on a Tuesday.

The responses generated for these call type are highest priority response with many lives at stake. The scene is huge, the response is huge. Commanders will want answers and someone will be held accountable.

 

[txinvestigator]

On one hand Younggun is kinda right about the actual yelling not being illegal.

But, for comparison, think about a person calling in a bomb hoax on a local elementary school at 10am on a Tuesday.

The responses generated for these call type are highest priority response with many lives at stake. The scene is huge, the response is huge. Commanders will want answers and someone will be held accountable.

If a person yells fire in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, he has committed an offense. His blanket statement is wrong. But what do I know?

 

[Vaquero]

This should be interesting in the morning.
I'll get double coffee to catch up.

 

[cbigclarke]

I thought this was a thread about open carry?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

If a person yells fire in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, he has committed an offense. His blanket statement is wrong. But what do I know?

If say the opposite is true. That your blanket statement is wrong.

Causing false alarm is illegal, always. Yelling fire in the theatre is not always illegal. Which is why you finally decided to add "when there is no fire". That was never part of the original statement. Of course "FIRE!" could also be a line in a play in which case yelling fire in a theater would also be perfectly legal even if no fire were present.

It's also the reason why the "yelling fire I a theatre" argument is crap when it comes to justifying the regulation of rights. It's causing alarm that is illegal (when it's not justified), not the speech.


Sent from my HAL 9000