State of emergency in Texas?

[RetArmySgt]

Texascop in that instance, a man that seems to be in a state of altered mental status then an officer would be able to "disarm" him anyway. It would be a public safety issue and to my understanding if a situation like that arises then LEO have the authority to disarm. What i am talking about is the checkpoints and house to house confiscations. The way its worded they can go into an area that has been declared an emergency zone and go to someone house and under the guise of officer safety for those patrolling the area start rounding up firearms. Im not saying that LEOs around here would do that but that clause allows them to.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

they dont have enough people to go around disarming people at their homes and probably dont wont try it. i dont know any local officers here who go out and do it they would be trying to keep theirs as well.if that time comes you will see all hell break loose in this country but hopefully it wont happen in our life time.

I understand that, but it doesn't even have to be large scale. On a small scale, it would be very easy to accomplish. For example, that Joe Stack dude that flew his plane into that Echelon building just a week or so ago. Heck, that is probably just enough justification to declare a state of emergency in Austin at least. Then a decision could be made that all people within the downtown area will be disarmed to "allow for everyone to cool off and no more blood to be shed" or some other nonsense excuse, then it could spread out to other areas of Austin away from downtown, and could simultaneously occur in the other major cities here. Obviously, that is a simplified extreme make believe situation, but that is EXACTLY what happened in NOLA and could certainly happen elsewhere. I, too, have had many friends and acquaintances in law enforcement, and pretty much all of them have said a situation like that is unforgivable and would be the day they lay their badges down. One thing many of them have also said is there are a great deal of younger, less educated and experienced officers out there that really don't know a thing about the Constitution and that could possibly blindly follow such blatantly unconstitutional orders. Heck, I've talked to some younger LE types like that, and it's scary some of the things they think. I think the recurring theme here is education or a lack thereof, which is actually probably the root cause of most problems.

 

[willygene]

Your right but there are more people here where i live that will tell them where to go i am one of them, i will not give up my weapons and if they take them i wont be easy going. I dont think you will see as much go on here like in No. Not sure what they were thinking when they did that i saw people being disarmed and treated like criminals in there own homes first hand while i was there i was armed carried pistol and a rifle openly i was not bothered one time and i was not there in a law enforecment capacity. After seeing that i will not be treated like that in my own home.

 

[Texan2]

What i am talking about is the checkpoints and house to house confiscations. The way its worded they can go into an area that has been declared an emergency zone and go to someone house and under the guise of officer safety for those patrolling the area start rounding up firearms. Im not saying that LEOs around here would do that but that clause allows them to.

Nothing in the Texas law allows LE to go house to house or to enter a residence to take a firearm. Even under a declared emergency.

GC 433.045 states that
A directive issued under this chapter may not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer's official duties during a state of emergency may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.

Going house to house when there is no IMMEDIATE danger is not disarming an individual, it is disarming the populace and would not be legal. It would be difficult if not immposible to justify this behavior.

 

[Major Woody]

Oathkeepers with good sense would be backed by the legal armed citizenry, but as some say, oathbreakers would have a harder time.

 

[APatriot]

While on the surface you may think you dont like it, I would bet after some thought the idea of "officer discretion" isn't so bad.
There are plenty of traffic stops that result is a warning. Take out the officer discretion and EVERY traffic stop would result in a citiation. Would you want a ticket everytime you have a tail light out?
There are plenty of folks that may be borderline intoxicated and an officer lets a sober friend drive them home. When a kid steals a candy bar and the cop takes him home to dad who makes sure that it never happens again.....Is it right to do? Who knows.
What people typically dont like is when "officer discretion" doesn't go THEIR way. When the general public gets a break...they love "officer discretion"

A big +1. I agree. The problem with "officer discretion" is the 1%ers.

 

[MiTX]

One thing many of them have also said is there are a great deal of younger, less educated and experienced officers out there that really don't know a thing about the Constitution and that could possibly blindly follow such blatantly unconstitutional orders. Heck, I've talked to some younger LE types like that, and it's scary some of the things they think. I think the recurring theme here is education or a lack thereof, which is actually probably the root cause of most problems.

Nothing in the Texas law allows LE to go house to house or to enter a residence to take a firearm. Even under a declared emergency.

GC 433.045 states that
A directive issued under this chapter may not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer's official duties during a state of emergency may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.

The lack of education in the younger officers is a grave concern. Texascop2, if the feds decide to come in and decide otherwise, what do you think would happen?

 

[Texan2]

The lack of education in the younger officers is a grave concern. Texascop2, if the feds decide to come in and decide otherwise, what do you think would happen?

I think that they would get very limited assistance from local LE. I have already seen that happen when they try to get local LE to help with immigration enforcement and other Federal issues that dont pertain to local LE.

 

[Partychief67]

Texas law: Government Code Chapter 433, State of Emergency:
Sec. 433.002. ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES. (a) After a state of emergency is proclaimed, the governor may issue reasonable directives calculated to control effectively and terminate the emergency and protect life and property....

(b) The directive may provide for:
(1) control of public and private transportation in the affected area;
(2) designation of specific zones in the affected area in which, if necessary, the use and occupancy of buildings and vehicles may be controlled;
(1) control of public and private transportation in the affected area;
(2) designation of specific zones in the affected area in which, if necessary, the use and occupancy of buildings and vehicles may be controlled;
(3) control of the movement of persons;
(4) control of places of amusement or assembly;
(5) establishment of curfews;
(6) control of the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages, weapons, and ammunition, except as provided by Section 433.0045; and
(7) control of the storage, use, and transportation of explosives or flammable materials considered dangerous to public safety.

You can find the law here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/

GC 433.045 states that
A directive issued under this chapter may not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer's official duties during a state of emergency may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.

That seems so wholly contradictory that I doubt my attorney uncle could clarify it!

So what exactly does this mean?

(a) They CAN "control of the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages, weapons, and ammunition"

(b) They CAN'T "A directive issued under this chapter may not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual"

(c) They CAN "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer's official duties during a state of emergency may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary"

So what's the plain english, unambiguous answer here????

 

[Texan2]

If you decided to open a gun shop in the middle of a ravaged neighborhood during a hurricane, they can stop your truckload of guns. If you are driving your truck with a gun on your hip...not so much.

Would that scenario fit?

I think the key is in the term "individual" but i agree it is muddy. Appears that they added text without editing previous text.

 

[murfdog]

I THANK GOD I live in TX.What a great State and I don't beleive that this would happen here.There are to many good people that are armed in this state that it would be very unlikey to happen.You can call me what ever you want but I still beleive most LEO's would be reluctant to follow that order!!!!

Murfdog