Texas' earth shattering shock & awe news...but is it?

[solus]

Much hoopla going on in newspeek & social media circles regarding Texas' "constitutional" firearm carry legislation...found here:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01927H.pdf#navpanes=0

still has provisions for LEs to, quote:
...in the lawful discharge of the officers's official duties may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the person, officer, or another individual. Unquote.

still has numerous references to "licensed holder"

still my favorite, quote: [bold emphasis mine!]
(a-5) A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster. unquote

back to my query...much hoopla and merriment over this 20 page nonsense?

LE scared and decrying the sky is falling and texas' citizens are in extreme danger?

ps: SECTIONA23.AAThis Act takes effect September 1, 2021.

 

[color of law]

Texas gun rights just got worse, not better. And Gabby Giffords is sitting back and saying what me worry, having gun right activists doing my dirty work for me has been my whole goal.

 

[JTHunter2]

Texas gun rights just got worse, not better. And Gabby Giffords is sitting back and saying what me worry, having gun right activists doing my dirty work for me has been my whole goal.

Huh? How so?

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

It is not perfect oh no.

 

[solus]

It is not perfect oh no.

It is smoke and mirrors misleading john q lonestar citizens who believe they are outside the texas overseers

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Will I guess nothing should have passed.

Things would have been better than.

 

[color of law]

Huh? How so?

Apparently you did not read the bill that passed. If you had you would not be asking "how so."

 

[CJ4wd]

Apparently you did not read the bill that passed. If you had you would not be asking "how so."

I don't know about you but when I try to read those things, my eyes start to cross.

 

[solus]

I don't know about you but when I try to read those things, my eyes start to cross.

Alas the smoke and mirrors coupled w/the legislations expert and purposefully ability to obfuscation meaning from the state's citizenry...quoting Merriam-webster:
To obfuscate something means to make it so that it isn't clear or transparent, much like dirty water makes it hard to see to the bottom of a pond. The verb shares its ob- root (meaning "over, completely") with obscure, another word that can refer to the act of concealing something or making it more difficult to see or understand. The rest of obfuscate comes from Latin fuscus, which means "dark brown" and is distantly related to our word dusk.

Definition of OBFUSCATION

to throw into shadow : darken; to make obscure; confuse… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

kinda like the kind democratic / republican texas legislation to "clean up voting irregularities" in the texas' voting practice...HUH!

 

[color of law]

I don't know about you but when I try to read those things, my eyes start to cross.

SECTIONA3.AAArticle 14.03, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Subsection (h) to read as follows:
(h)(1) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the person, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the weapon to the person before discharging the person from the scene if the officer determines that the person is not a threat to the officer, person, or another individual and if the person has not committed a violation that results in the arrest of the person.

Sounds pretty clear to me. Cop can disarm you anytime he wants. That's just for starters.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Sounds pretty clear to me. Cop can disarm you anytime he wants. That's just for starters.

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes.

Sounds to me like he has to prove why he did so.

Reasonably believes is not as strong as having to have probable cause.

But it is stronger then just because they want to.

Both are defined


reasonably believes or " reasonable belief " means the belief that an ordinary, prudent man would form under the circumstances in question and one not recklessly or negligently formed.

Think Terry stop.

The term reasonable suspicion refers to a standard by which police officers are judged to have authority to briefly detain a person. Reasonable suspicion is a less strict standard then probable cause, but has very limited applications. To explore this concept, consider the following reasonable suspicion definition.

 

[solus]

Alas you didn't take time to cite your referenced definition from Texas statutory guidance or was the statement off the retired head of a N Wis LE...either way bad form don't you think...[think forum rule 5!]

at least CoL cited TX gobblygoop ~ you off the top of your head!

six years when texas passed their initial open carry initiative texas citizens had to have in hand their overseers conceal privilege permit to open carry. Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

PAPERS....PLEASE!!! [some have personally experienced this rhetoric in the last twenty years as we have walked the earth's continents and dealt with those continent's perceived overseers of judicial oversight!]

i seem to miss those terms you previously mentioned...reasonably? Believe?
BET YA didn't notice in my cite, Texas 411.205 "DEMANDS" ... there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of articulation of reasonable suspicion of a crime having been/or being committed ~ just a citizen oc/cc their trusty handgun! [mem serves that's a 4th violation...if mem serves]

as you were saying from your N Wis Leosa perspective ?

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I guess you didn't read the post by color of law just above mine.

 

[color of law]

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes.

Sounds to me like he has to prove why he did so.

Reasonably believes is not as strong as having to have probable cause.

But it is stronger then just because they want to.

Both are defined


reasonably believes or " reasonable belief " means the belief that an ordinary, prudent man would form under the circumstances in question and one not recklessly or negligently formed.

Think Terry stop.

The term reasonable suspicion refers to a standard by which police officers are judged to have authority to briefly detain a person. Reasonable suspicion is a less strict standard then probable cause, but has very limited applications. To explore this concept, consider the following reasonable suspicion definition.

This mess started when the supreme court intentionally redefined the Fourth Amendment by declaring that there are exceptions. Meaning that the term “unreasonable” applies to needing a warrant or not needing a warrant. But that is not what the Fourth Amendment says. It says without a warrant a search of is unreasonable, no exceptions.

All the ten Amendments are absolute except maybe for the Third Amendment. The Third is specific as to the exception.

The Supreme Court has specifically said that the First and Second Amendments are absolute then turned around and said we are not going to go by that.

Based on that illogical logic, boy can be girls, girls can be a little bit pregnant and carbon dioxide is destroying the earth.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition.
Reasonable belief. "Reasonable belief" or "probable cause" to make an arrest without a warrant exists when facts and circumstances within arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in belief that a felony has been or is being committed.

In other words, "Reasonable belief" and "probable cause" are synonymous.

Firearms Iinstuctor, your explanation is what gets cops in trouble. No, cops cannot disarm you just because they want to. Have a read: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

Your explanation is dishonest. The new law says “reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the person, officer, or another individual.” That means if a person is lawfully carrying a gun, minding his own business (exercising a constitutionally protected right), but the officer “reasonability believes” (no probable cause) it is endangering the public the officer can disarm the lawful person. Hogwash.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Once again they are the same.

reasonably believes or " reasonable belief " means the belief that an ordinary, prudent man would form under the circumstances in question and one not recklessly or negligently formed.

Of course it is not probable cause never said it was.

All law is subject to court rulings like it or not.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

SIXTH CIRCUIT different state, different law. doesn't mean it will be applied to Texas or Texas law.

 

[solus]

I guess you didn't read the post by color of law just above mine.

truly... you went there.

i guess you missed my comment in my recent post which stated

quote
at least CoL cited TX gobblygoop ~ you off the top of your head!
unquote

you launched into a titrate regarding LE CAN, w/o RAS, do whatever their wittle egos want just cuz they believe...

There was no reference nor cite nor contextual reference to interrupt your nonsense frame of reference to Texas/WI/or Timbuktu statutory judicial application.

i, as a citizen of of this great nation have encountered LEs who's bravado seems to forget who they serve and who DEMAND...and I walked away from them...they get red in the face, DEMAND i talk to them...recently two nice city LE's changed their tune when they chased me through the local Walmart demanding i stop and talk w/them - - NOPE....the nice SO deputy i asked for from 911 stopped that travesty and the nice city SGT, called by the nice Deputy, thought i was kidding when i asked for internal affairs officer -- NOPE those poor City LE's got a rip and counseling from internal affairs regarding their public bravado. filed under who cares.

let's not talk about the LEOSA in fedex hollar'g and berating the staff all the while carrying his pistol on marked no gun property....I left as the SO deputy arrived...

do what they want....right

 

[solus]

Once again they are the same.

reasonably believes or " reasonable belief " means the belief that an ordinary, prudent man would form under the circumstances in question and one not recklessly or negligently formed.

Of course it is not probable cause never said it was.

All law is subject to court rulings like it or not.

SIXTH CIRCUIT different state, different law. doesn't mean it will be applied to Texas or Texas law.

again without a single cite to back up your nonsensical rhetorical statements.

where is the cite all law is subject to courts rulings?...

you put words out there like there the gospel...w/o anything to back it up...

and yes we're chatting about texas mate...

Definition of believe
transitive verb

1a: to consider to be true or honest
believe the reports
you wouldn't believe how long it took
b: to accept the word or evidence of
I believe you
couldn't believe my ears
2: to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE
I believe it will rain soon
intransitive verb

1a: to accept something as true, genuine, or real
ideals we believe in
believes in ghosts
b: to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact
Do you believe?
—usually used with in
believe in the Scriptures
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something believe in exercise
3: to hold an opinion : THINK
I believe so
not believe
: to be astounded at
I couldn't believe my luck

Definition of BELIEVE

to consider to be true or honest; to accept the word or evidence of; to hold as an opinion : suppose… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
her belief in God
a belief in democracy
I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
contrary to popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
an individual's religious or political beliefs especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group the beliefs of the Catholic Church
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements

Definition of BELIEF

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

wow the word's meanings are different mate you have mislead my belief and believes

 

[color of law]

Once again they are the same.

reasonably believes or " reasonable belief " means the belief that an ordinary, prudent man would form under the circumstances in question and one not recklessly or negligently formed.

Of course it is not probable cause never said it was.

All law is subject to court rulings like it or not.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

SIXTH CIRCUIT different state, different law. doesn't mean it will be applied to Texas or Texas law.

The Fourth Amendment protects “the people” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The guarantee does not prevent the police from initiating “consensual encounter” with individuals—from approaching them on public streets and in other public places and asking them questions. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200–01 (2002). But it does prevent the police from stopping and frisking individuals in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27 (1968). More than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’” is needed to stop and frisk an individual; the officer must identify “specific and articulable facts” of criminality. Id. at 27.

Firearms Iinstuctor, tell me how the above quote does not apply to Texas.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Well
Texas is in the 5th circuit this was a 6th circuit case.

It is a wonder how facts can just keep getting in the way of some arguments.

 

[color of law]

Well
Texas is in the 5th circuit this was a 6th circuit case.

It is a wonder how facts can just keep getting in the way of some arguments.

You are correct, your arguments are getting in the way of the facts. Tell me how the two Supreme Court cases I quoted above don't apply to Texas?