Open Carry while on Property

[11B Combat Vet]

No....I'd say that like many others here, when someone comes in with a chip on their shoulder, we have to decide whether to knock it off, or just ignore 'em. Most choose to ignore.

You walk into a courtroom and present to a judge like that, I'd say you'll quickly find out how much you have yet to learn.

No doubt I have more to learn. Life is an endless process of learning I expect. I think when I do go to court (have been prior representing myself over infractions and won them all) I would be concerned with what I believe to be a proper interpretation of the law, and I would want to make sure the judge understood my position, not just what I think, but why I think what I think. It's served me well in the past. Of course I realize there's more to it than that, especially when dealing with cases other than infractions, but still, the philosophy remains I think.

I hope people on this board aren't assuming that all new members must defer to longer standing members when in disagreement, or virtually bow down to them rather than speak freely. This isn't the military, it's a public discussion forum.... and it's not the first time I've been a member of one... subject being firearms or otherwise.

There's no chip on my shoulder when it comes to anyone here. I don't know anyone here.

I would however appreciate your take on some of these things, being a working attorney. It is, after all, a field I have great interest in and something I am somewhat passionate about in the absence of the motivation to be interested in things I used to care about.

 

[M. Sage]

Interesting take on my recent "appearance".

I suppose I can see your point, but I must say, what prompted me to register on the board wasn't just some random happening... it was only after reading some of the things I just couldn't see allowing to stand that I was motivated to become a member and spit a little logic (in my view) as it were on the situation. I come from a decade in the Infantry and am not used to "thin skins" in the civilian world I guess. My bad for that.

As far as being the board "pinata", well, it takes more than that to shake me, lol. No thin skins here.

Look, you're doing a lot of spitting, but that's about all. If you want to impress people to your point of view, you damn well better break out some cites and handle this like you're the academic you claim to be. You're putting your arguments together poorly and then treating people like idiots or whiners when they disagree with you.

Do it right or don't do it at all.

Lay out your argument logically, with support and drop the bad boy attitude. It doesn't impress us.

 

[11B Combat Vet]

You suggested the family or friends would lie to the Police







Logic is logical. You said law is convoluted and open to interpretation, and that law is based in logic, and that people don't bother to consult logic when arguing. You are saying either that logic is convoluted, or that logic is the way to escape from the convolution, but either way you are inconsistent. Your premise here has been that law is about interpretations, not logic.




I know what your problem is and I'll tell you, even though you won't believe me for a few years. You've suddenly acquired a lot of specialized knowledge but you haven't mastered the concepts yet. This happens all the time in every field. You feel like an expert because you haven't grasped the big picture. Go take an intro to logic course in the philosophy dept. at your University if you want to learn what logic actually is.

And you are intentionally being rude with your tone and choice of words. I have never seen this level of behavior from a veteran. Stop it.

Sir, I didn't not suggest family members would or should lie.... I suggested that they would automatically agree you were "in control of the premises" for the sake of the meaning of the law by virture of being your close friend or family member. Example, my parents would automatically feel I had the right to OC in their household or on their property. This goes without saying in my family. Not a big deal, just the way of things. Big difference between me saying that and suggesting people should encourage their friends and family to lie for them.

 

[TexasRedneck]

You miss the point...and now I wonder if there is one. I'm not an attorney. Ex-LEO yes - many years ago. YOU have implied that you're studying law...where?

As to the chip, yeah - there is. Trust Me on that one. Your entire post (any many of your others) are full of inuendo and BS about how long-standing members pick on you. Kinda reminds me of the kid in school that constantly picks his nose, then whines because no one will play w/him. Or, mebbe that ain't yer nose......

 

[Bithabus]

Sir, I didn't not suggest family members would or should lie...

That is my interpretation.

 

[winchster]

TR, location would lend one to believe Texas Tech.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Sir, I didn't not suggest family members would or should lie.... I suggested that they would automatically agree you were "in control of the premises" for the sake of the meaning of the law by virture of being your close friend or family member.

What you, your family OR Donald Duck AGREES to has little bearing on LAW 90% of the time. Write that down.......

 

[TexasRedneck]

TR, location would lend one to believe Texas Tech.

Can't be - they don't allow folks in of his academic ability, do they?

 

[11B Combat Vet]

What you, your family OR Donald Duck AGREES to has little bearing on LAW 90% of the time. Write that down.......

Really guy?

 

[11B Combat Vet]

Can't be - they don't allow folks in of his academic ability, do they?

Yer just an asshole. Plain and simple. So **** you guy. Now go cry to a moderator and get me kicked off of here you *****.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Really guy?

Purty much!

 

[11B Combat Vet]

What are you waiting for TexasPunk? Why am I still here? Get to crying and get it done.

 

[M. Sage]

Yer just an asshole. Plain and simple. So **** you guy. Now go cry to a moderator and get me kicked off of here you *****.

Ahhh, who's got thin skin now, tough guy?

No crying needed on his part. Buh bye.

 

[Bithabus]

What a waste. If the guy could lose the attitude he might have something interesting to say.

 

[Glockster69]

Yer just an asshole. Plain and simple. So **** you guy. Now go cry to a moderator and get me kicked off of here you *****.

Self inflicted right there

That kind of language won't go over well in court with a judge once you graduate law school. Write that down

 

[Koinonia]

So, back to fruitful debate? I was enjoying this thread, as it was providing differing viewpoints in a civil manner. I'm frequently in control of a friends property, before she gets there, so we can work the horses and clear land. Would very much like to know more about the law, since I'd be the original in control of the property, until she gets there. We both open carry handguns and rifles...

 

[hkusp1]

Bagged02 is a army man now.

 

[alexrex20]

Bagged02 is a army man now.

And a lawyer!!

 

[M. Sage]

So, back to fruitful debate? I was enjoying this thread, as it was providing differing viewpoints in a civil manner. I'm frequently in control of a friends property, before she gets there, so we can work the horses and clear land. Would very much like to know more about the law, since I'd be the original in control of the property, until she gets there. We both open carry handguns and rifles...

TXI makes the argument that more than one person can be in control at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Note that the law about open carry ONLY applies to handguns. Open carry of rifles is legal as long as it's not done in a way meant to cause alarm (I forget the exact words, but that's the gist). Also note that actual cause of alarm doesn't mean that you MEANT to cause it.

 

[Koinonia]

That makes sense, I suppose. Maybe if I run into Texan2, I'll run it by him, as I'd be near his jurisdiction. I'd hate to be knowingly breaking the law. Possibly run it by frio county sheriff as well.

TXI makes the argument that more than one person can be in control at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Note that the law about open carry ONLY applies to handguns. Open carry of rifles is legal as long as it's not done in a way meant to cause alarm (I forget the exact words, but that's the gist). Also note that actual cause of alarm doesn't mean that you MEANT to cause it.