Thoughts from the Dallas MLK parade

[emmitt01]

Today, if you don't know, is MLK day.  A few observations...

1) Just for educational purposes 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/us/mlk-myths/index.html

2) As I was picking candy up off of the street to hand to kids a pit bull squeezed under the barricade and nipped at my hand (no real injury).  The owner said "he doesn't likr police".   Funny, I always thought your inbred breed of dog was just naturally aggressive, not anti-police.

3) I was asked by a gentleman (who I think was drunk at 11:30am) "are you Chief Brown"?  

4) A group of three women walked down the sidewalk carrying a shotgun and chanting "black power" through an amplifier on a cart.  They, shockingly, didn't offer me one of their fliers.  

5) I antipate this thread will be locked by page 2

[Army of Dad]

Locked or moved the Nest...

ETA: #4 would have been funnier if they were chanting 'black powder'.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Army of Dad

[Quoner]

Adding pitbulls was a really nice touch...like how guacamole is extra at Chipotle.

[Rudy]

Yep, I've thought for a while we're a far cry from what MLK envisioned. 

[Withers940]

Shotgun? Was it loaded?

 

Emmitt, your the cop and know the laws better than me. I know you can open carry a Rifle and now a pistol (with CHL) but does a shotgun fall under the Rifle category?

[untjim1995]

So, uhm...do you like your gig?

[Army of Dad]

11 minutes ago, Withers940 said:

Shotgun? Was it loaded?

 

Emmitt, your the cop and know the laws better than me. I know you can open carry a Rifle and now a pistol (with CHL) but does a shotgun fall under the Rifle category?

Rifles and shotguns are both allowed to be carried openly unless they are carried in a manner calculated to alarm.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Army of Dad

[HarringtonFishSmeller]

Thanks for the post.  I never knew MLK was a pitbull advocate.  The things parade goers can teach you.

Edited January 18, 2016 by HarringtonFishSmeller

[Coffee and TV]

I do like Chief Brown's hipster glasses that he wears.

[emmitt01]

37 minutes ago, Withers940 said:

Shotgun? Was it loaded?

 

Emmitt, your the cop and know the laws better than me. I know you can open carry a Rifle and now a pistol (with CHL) but does a shotgun fall under the Rifle category?

Yes, you are able to openly carry a shotgun unless you do so in a manner that intimidates or alarms others

[UNT90]

Was the parade a success or failure? Because if it was a failure, we all know who must have planned it.

Probably brought the Pit Bull along, also. 

[Quoner]

"Ask for money, then get advice. Take that advice, make money twice." - Rick Villarreal featuring Christina Aguilera

[HarringtonFishSmeller]

3 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

Yes, you are able to openly carry a shotgun unless you do so in a manner that intimidates or alarms others

Sounds like it will be up to a judge and jury to decide what constitutes "intimidates" and "alarms."  Personally, if I had the wife and kids at an event and saw someone with a loaded shotgun, I'd be alarmed.

Many attorneys will be made happy with the lawsuits that arise from this thing...for awhile. 

On the entities we write like schools and churches, insurers are already going back and revisiting the subject.  In the near future, I expect insurers to exclude claims that arise out of employees, volunteers, etc, of an organization "open carrying."  And, that will be the end of that on the business/entity side of the ledger.

Courts and insurers usually have the last say in what really happens because politicians don't often enough think deeply enough on the liability aspect - especially these days.  Easier for politicians to just say, "Look what we passed" without putting enough substance in the bills.

Edited January 18, 2016 by HarringtonFishSmeller

[UNT90]

16 hours ago, HarringtonFishSmeller said:

Sounds like it will be up to a judge and jury to decide what constitutes "intimidates" and "alarms."  Personally, if I had the wife and kids at an event and saw someone with a loaded shotgun, I'd be alarmed.

Many attorneys will be made happy with the lawsuits that arise from this thing...for awhile. 

On the entities we write like schools and churches, insurers are already going back and revisiting the subject.  In the near future, I expect insurers to exclude claims that arise out of employees, volunteers, etc, of an organization "open carrying."  And, that will be the end of that on the business/entity side of the ledger.

Courts and insurers usually have the last say in what really happens because politicians don't often enough think deeply enough on the liability aspect - especially these days.  Easier for politicians to just say, "Look what we passed" without putting enough substance in the bills.

Carrying shotguns openly has been legal for years without any great legal debate on what causes "alarm." 

As you well know, there is a reasonableness standard. It isn't what causes alarm to every person, it's what would cause alarm to a "reasonable person" in those same circumstances. If you are "alarmed" by someone simply carrying a loaded shotgun slung or pointed at the ground, you aren't a reasonable person, because the law clearly allows this to occur. 

But it's really a moot issue, because there really hasn't been any problem with this law.

Edited January 19, 2016 by UNT90

[HarringtonFishSmeller]

59 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Carrying shotguns openly has been legal for years without any great legal debate on what causes "alarm." 

As you well know, there is a reasonableness standard. It isn't what causes alarm to every person, it's what would cause alarm to a "reasonable person" in those same circumstances. If you are "alarmed" by someone simply carrying a loaded shotgun slung or pointed at the ground, you aren't a reasonable person, because the law clearly allows this to occur. 

But it's really a moot issue, because there really hasn't been any problem with this law.

So, if anyone is uncomfortable with the results of a law, they are unreasonable?  That's an interesting take.  Very popular as well, I'm sure, in places like China, North Korea, and Russia. 

Makes me wonder, though, why we have a system of checks and balances as well.  Seems to be pointless because passed laws, in your view, are not supposed to raise any questions in anyone's mind.   

I'll mark you down, then, as someone who, as a reasonable person, agrees with - and is comfortable with - every piece of legislation promulgated and passed under Barack Obama, executive orders included.

[UNT90]

On January 19, 2016 at 9:59 AM, HarringtonFishSmeller said:

So, if anyone is uncomfortable with the results of a law, they are unreasonable?  That's an interesting take.  Very popular as well, I'm sure, in places like China, North Korea, and Russia. 

Makes me wonder, though, why we have a system of checks and balances as well.  Seems to be pointless because passed laws, in your view, are not supposed to raise any questions in anyone's mind.   

I'll mark you down, then, as someone who, as a reasonable person, agrees with - and is comfortable with - every piece of legislation promulgated and passed under Barack Obama, executive orders included.

If you are unreasonable about your comfort level, you encroach on others rights. 

The gun laws were passed by the Texas legislature and signed into law by the governor. That's how our government is supposed to work. As you well know, simply saying "well, congress can't get me what I want, so I'll just bypass it" is wrong. For both parties (if a republican ever is president again).

Such weirdness from you on this.