Yeah, About that Claim of Terrorizing People….

….I’m gonna need you to, um…perhaps retract that outrageous claim. The Fort Worth Police department made the claim in an email

An email from Sgt. Ray Bush, with the Fort Worth Police Department, said Jack in the Box employees at the South Freeway location on Sycamore School Road, were scared about the armed men protesting outside of the restaurant.

“They locked themselves inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would rob them,” the email stated. “The demonstration had no signage that would have alerted anyone to their real purpose, and to our knowledge they did not attempt to contact anyone in the Fort Worth Police Department to advise us prior to the demonstration.”

The Media ran with it, seemingly without trying to vet, for days. Even when the story started falling part (from O.C.T.’s FB page)

Open carry activists at a Fort Worth Jack in the Box drew the attention of police following a 911 call. (Photo credit: Facebook)

From the Open Carry Tarrant County FB Page

The anti-rights advocates still haven’t seen fit to address the issue by printing a retraction — despite the company in question saying the story is false

An earlier version of this post included information from Sgt. Ray Bush of the Forth Worth Police Department, who wrote in an email last week that the employees at the Jack in the Box where Open Carry Texas staged a demonstration “locked themselves inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would rob them.” However, Brian Luscomb, vice president of corporate communications for Jack in the Box, told the New York Times this evening, “Our employees told us that they did not hide in the freezer.” We have amended the post to reflect this new information.

And don’t you love how the NYT puts the retraction at the very bottom of the page? Now, we are starting to get information regarding the — yes, I said THE – 911 call that was made. So far it is the only one that has been released in regards to this demonstration.
.

 

It looks like that is the only call made. So let’s see; friendly smiling faces (the guy posing with the OCT group is the manager), non -terrified appearing employees in the background, no 911 calls released from the employees. Even the 911 caller didn’t sound terrified or excited. You know what I think happened – NOTHING, at least until the police over reacted.

 

Come on seriously Fort Worth Police department; how many times have their been reports of Armed people strolling about in a parking lot and problems arise from it.  Not to often. Add to that no other reports of shots fired, no other 911 calls.

We can debate the merits of Open Carry and the methods used by this advocacy group all day long; in the end that misses any important point. The point that even in a state were Open Carry isn’t that common; it just doesn’t generate the level of hysteria or concern from ordinary people. Let’s keep going and make sure everyone realizes this; let’s point out the lies of the media and the Mom’s Demanding Attention And Bloomberg’s Money.

 

Please join the discussion.

Federal Property -Research

The recent kerfuffle; really should say the latest outbreak of the long running problem, had me doing a little research into the legal basis for federal ownership of property.

Found this informative report (PDF Alert)

Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal and Retention.

Put together by the Congressional Research Service; a group I never knew about until I found the report. I’m not through reading it yet but lots of great information and some really surprising numbers.

“The federal government has retained about a third of the 1.8 billion acres it acquired in North America. These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska but not Hawaii), where, in total, the federal government owns more than half of the land (ranging from 30% in Montana to 84% in Nevada). “

Emphasis Mine.

Take a look at the report if you are interested in the constitutional and legal issues. I’ll try to post more later (maybe today, maybe later this week).

Thanks for sticking around folks.

Texas CHL Law Update

I might have mentioned this in passing but I didn’t cover in any detail. On 1 Sep 2013, a few firearm related bills were enacted into law.

One of those was Senate Bill 299 which changed section 46.035 as shown below

AN ACT

relating to the intentional display of a handgun by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Subsections (a) and (h), Section 46.035, Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder’s person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays fails to conceal the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that  the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date. 

SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

How big of a change is this? Really really big folks.

Remember in Section 411.171 there is this definition:

(3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

This removes considerable worry about a shirt riding up or the wind blowing a cover garment up and exposing the firearm.Combine that with the protection of displaying in situations where the use of force or deadly force would be appropriate and the really helps the gun owner.
Not quite Open Carry but on the way. Even more importantly was the fact this bill wasn’t a stretch, it wasn’t an oddity in an otherwise hostile legislative session; it was 1 of 14 bills (Link edited — Happy Cormac???????)  that generally improved the rights of the people.

Please join the discussion.

 Aaron Spuler looked at the bills back in June 2013  - good recap

Positive Open Carry / LEO Interaction

Congrats not only to the Come and Take It – Texas group but the Austin Police officer !

This is how it should be.

.

.

Now if we can get Open Carry of Handguns.

 

What Would the Antis Suggest?

.

.

Okay…middle of the day; no apparent attempt to determine if the house was empty; dude just breaks a window and starts climbing in.

The home owner protecting at least his property; if not his life investigates the noise and sees the criminal breaking in. Shoots and kills the criminal breaking into his home. That is how it went down.

What will continue to go down is the police will finish their investigation, the District Attorney will present the case to a grand jury, and they’ll decide to bring charges or not. Still a costly process but one I don’t expect to end with charges brought. Especially not with the mom saying “yeah, this sounds like something he would do”.

But let’s turn the clock back and ask the antis what would they rather have the home owner do?

A.) Call the police and wait?
B.) Run out his house, leaving possessions – including a firearm behind for a criminal to steal and use for illegal drugs?C.) Fight him hand to hand after the criminal has gotten inside the house?
D.) Meekly stand there and let an unknown person with unknown intentions do what ever he wants to him?

3of those possibilities would have increased, not decreased, crime. One would still be violence but puts the home owner at a disadvantage. Either not used to physical violence, due to age, etc.

In contrast, the home owner’s actions not only stopped this crime but put an end to a long (some said 18 page rap sheet) career of crime.  Based on the recommendations of the anti-rights cultists; it is almost as if they want MORE crime to occur not less.

Please join the discussion.

 

An Argument Against “Gun Free Zones”

If people are willing to break the law over such a minor issue; do we really think that a sign prohibiting guns is going to work any better?

You’ve undoubtedly seen them on your way to work or home, panhandlers.

For the last year the City of Fort Worth has tested using signs to deter the practice by warning both panhandler and driver with the message, “soliciting from roadway prohibited.” However, at the first intersection where the signs were installed, about a year ago, you’ll still regularly see people begging for money or food. Those who work in the area said the signs don’t work.

“No they don’t, we still have them coming in here, panhandling every where,” said Alma Baca.

Baca works along the intersection at Interstate 20 and Hulen Street, where the signs were installed. She said they’ve done little to slow down those begging for spare change.

“I get one that stands right there and waits and waits and then walks out and asks people for money,” Baca said.

Standing next to a sign prohibiting the very same action — yep, really effective eh?

 

Reason for Open Carry?

How about 87 of them?

That was the High temp yesterday.
On November 17th.