Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

[SewTexas]

I have all sorts of problems with it!
maybe I work a swing shift, so I do my shopping at a 24 hour HEB at 4 am
maybe my kid woke up with a fever and I realized I don't have any children's Tylenol so I need to go to the store.
maybe I have insomnia and I want to take a walk
maybe it's none of their business why I'm out during the night.

[mayor]

Here you go. It is an Olmos Park, TX ordinance.

http://library.municode.com/tx/olmos_pa ... ABPUPRBUNI

Here are the questions. Should this ordinance get similar attention from self proclaimed protectors of our rights and Constitution? Is it just not sensational enough to draw the attention of the attention seekers?

For those of you that are zeroing in on the private property portion, take a moment to consider it includes "in or about" public buildings.

All of the following is IMHO about Sec. 24-211 (and we all know about opinions):
The ordinance was written in 1985. I'm sure the current council members are more intelligent and thoughtful than those in 1985 and much more capable of writing concise and specific ordinances that leave little room for abuse. 1985 was a different reality when police officers didn't roust the unwashed so ordinances like this one were far less apt to be abused. I think a polite request for the council to revisit and reword this particular section is in order. I'd put a request like that on the agenda, but I'm in a tiny speck of a city so life might be different here. We don't have a police patrol. Any response has to come from the county which takes about a half hour.

I believe that Sec. 24-210 regurgitates the Texas penal code for criminal trespass and is moot. Oh, yeah, the usual disclaimer: IANAL

[mojo84]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

[Grundy1133]

I have all sorts of problems with it!
maybe I work a swing shift, so I do my shopping at a 24 hour HEB at 4 am
maybe my kid woke up with a fever and I realized I don't have any children's Tylenol so I need to go to the store.
maybe I have insomnia and I want to take a walk
maybe it's none of their business why I'm out during the night.

[mayor]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

Stupid trick question...

[mojo84]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

Stupid trick question...

I do not see what is so stupid or tricky about it. Seems to .make a solid point in my mind.

[SewTexas]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

Actually.....homeschoolers in the late 80's through the 90's fought hard and did all sorts of various attention getting actions daytime curfew ordinances in various cities. AND, got them repealed. They just didn't end up in the papers or on the news, and the internet was in it's infancy, but today....

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Yeah, I have a huge problem with the ordinance. Essentially, it sez I can be cited merely for being sentient and breathing anytime between sunset and sunrise, at any location including inside my home, within city limits. And that the burden of proof of defense to prosecution is on me (and my attorney).

[BBYC]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. Since it' doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from gun rights organizations.

Thanks for participating.

[Abraham]

Would this ordinance (not if it's legal or illegal) be an attempt to keep teens from doing their 'flash mob' violence in areas it's found to be quite common or ...?

[mojo84]

Would this ordinance (not if it's legal or illegal) be an attempt to keep teens from doing their 'flash mob' violence in areas it's found to be quite common or ...?

It's not limited to teens and I have no idea what their intent was. It seems if they were concerned about teens they would have a youth curfew.

[Soccerdad1995]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

There are a lot of unjust infringements by government. If you're wondering why OCT didn't decide to protest this specific law, then I'd guess it has something to do with the fact that OCT is focused on gun rights, and specifically the right to open carry guns. I wouldn't expect PETA to get up in arms about voting rights issues for the same reason.

The ordinance in this thread is probably more in the wheelhouse of a group like the ACLU, at least in theory.

[mojo84]

My point isn't so much about the ordinance. It's about the fact it is less sensational than standing on the corner with a rifle across one's chest and challenging cops for attention and video recordings. Since it's at night when virtually no one will see what is going on and doesn't involve guns, it just doesn't get the same attention from the self appointed constitutional rights protectors that thrive on attention and publicity.

Thanks for participating.

There are a lot of unjust infringements by government. If you're wondering why OCT didn't decide to protest this specific law, then I'd guess it has something to do with the fact that OCT is focused on gun rights, and specifically the right to open carry guns. I wouldn't expect PETA to get up in arms about voting rights issues for the same reason.

The ordinance in this thread is probably more in the wheelhouse of a group like the ACLU, at least in theory.

My curiosity is not limited to OCT. I didn't limit my question to any one group of self appointed constitutional rights protectors. I just don't think it is sensational enough for most publicity seekers to pursue.