TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:21 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:15 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:01 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:34 pm ....
No, you miss a key point. The entire campus and all the buildings are a school. The moment he entered the building he was in violation. The Wednesday offence actually took place in one of the classrooms.

Let me summarize.

Bozo charged federally with 18 USC 922q(2)A...for carrying a gun in a school zone.
At the time Bozo has a Texas LTC that meets the criteria of 18 USC 922q(2)B(II), therefore A does not apply. If his lawyer is worth 2 cents she’ll move to dismiss that charge when he’s arraigned. Move on to the next charge. The entire campus and all buildings are federally school zones....so what. That portion of the Federal statute does not apply.

Licensed or not he was in violation upon entering the school building while armed which he admitted to the arresting officer when he was first interviewed and of course there were several complaining witnesses as well.

Let me be clear, I'm still on the fence as to this being federal overreach, I am however relating what I have picked up from the PD, church members and close friends familiar with both the case and the man who was arrested.

Apparently he's fairly well known for being a nut.

He WAS NOT guilty of violating 18 USC 922q GFSZA upon entering the building. He was violating TEXAS PC 46.03. That is completely irrelevant to the Federal charges.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:01 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:34 pm ....
No, you miss a key point. The entire campus and all the buildings are a school. The moment he entered the building he was in violation. The Wednesday offence actually took place in one of the classrooms.

Let me summarize.

Bozo charged federally with 18 USC 922q(2)A...for carrying a gun in a school zone.
At the time Bozo has a Texas LTC that meets the criteria of 18 USC 922q(2)B(II), therefore A does not apply. If his lawyer is worth 2 cents she’ll move to dismiss that charge when he’s arraigned. Move on to the next charge. The entire campus and all buildings are federally school zones....so what. That portion of the Federal statute does not apply.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:51 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:33 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:00 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 am
...
They don't have to, as soon as you are indicted on a disqualifying charge they can seize all of your firearms, ammunition, and permits.

Let's see how this case plays out, the Fed's frequently overreach just because they can but the more I look into this case I don't think that they are.

This guy is a walking, talking, living bad example that makes the rest of us look bad by association.

Since I assume you are talking about the Feds, I would like to know which law provides for the seizure of your property and state issued credentials prior to trial?

Of course, a magistrate judge could make it a term of your bail that you surrender your firearms, or they could be seized as evidence if the charge related to firearms (as it did in this case), but there is no law prohibiting you from possessing firearms until you are convicted or adjudicated. And a federal court has no jurisdiction to invalidate a state permit, though Texas provides for suspending it until the charges are tried.

The point being that when the guy was carrying in a school zone, he had a valid license. Whether he was a prohibited possessor remains to be determined.

AND.....he is still some kind of stupid.

Any judge can issue a seizure order when you've been arrested for a disqualifying offense. Your guns, ammo etc will be seized and held pending the outcome of the case. If you're lucky you may even eventually get them back. Many jurisdictions however make it virtually impossible even if the case is dropped or you are exonerated at trial.

If you can't legally possess a firearm you cannot have an LTC. Possession of illicit drugs is a disqualifying offense.

Ok let's follow the case. Guy shows up at a 'school' carrying, he has a LTC. He gets arrested. The feds then get a warrant for his house and find cannabis. They charge him with possession of firearm by a user of illegal drugs. However, that case has not been tried. They also charge him with possession of a firearm in a GFSZ. Only he had a state LTC at the time which is an exemption to GFSZA. They haven't convicted him of being an unlawful user of drugs yet, which would be GROUNDS to revoke his State LTC, but would not in itself revoke it. The State would, but after conviction. The GFSZA part of the federal charge is bogus and shouldn't fly.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:26 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:31 pmYour LTC becomes invalid the second you can no longer legally possess a firearm.

This is false. LTCs are valid until they are suspended or revoked by DPS.

Chas.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:19 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:29 am

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:58 pm No, they called the Feds in so Texas can keep looking all lovey dovey to gun owners and say "oh, he messed up and carried in a school so it was out of our hands", and this way Texas can try to get out of touching the church school problem.
Yes, this guy may or may not be an idiot, but he's a Texan. He deserves to the right to be dealt with by Texas....This feels like a cop out.

Umm no. The offense Wednesday happened in the school and during school hours. The Federal charges are in addition to the state charges, they didn't turn jurisdiction over to the feds.

The guy wasn't even a church member, he was peddling himself as some sort of security expert and surreptitiously snuck the guns in intentionally to show the membership just how easy it could be done in an attempt to market his expertise.

Forget about just how stupid that was, I have no use at all for dopers and even less for dopers with guns.

I had not read about anything happening during school hours, everything I read seemed to indicate incidents during church hours, if it happened during school hours, well, I did say he was an idiot.
...and to be perfect legalistic, there is nothing in the law that says someone has to be a member of the church in order to carry there, so why bring it up?

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:46 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:36 pm They submitted a warrant on probable cause that was duly issued by a judge. It doesn't matter where an offense takes place if it involves firearms your property is going to be searched looking for at a minim more firearms and ammunition as well as illegal drugs.

This is decidedly not true. A woman in Dallas recently entered a man's apartment and shot him dead. That offense clearly involved a firearm, and her property was not searched at all as far as I know. So at best your definitive statement needs some qualifiers, my friend. If I'm wrong on those facts, I apologize.

ELB wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:42 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:46 am

... That offense clearly involved a firearm, and her property was not searched at all as far as I know.

She gave consent for police to search her apartment.

A consensual search was conducted on Guyger’s apartment in the hours after the shooting, according to information WFAA obtained from a source close to the investigation that was later confirmed by Merritt.

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/new ... -594497512

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:46 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:36 pm They submitted a warrant on probable cause that was duly issued by a judge. It doesn't matter where an offense takes place if it involves firearms your property is going to be searched looking for at a minim more firearms and ammunition as well as illegal drugs.

This is decidedly not true. A woman in Dallas recently entered a man's apartment and shot him dead. That offense clearly involved a firearm, and her property was not searched at all as far as I know. So at best your definitive statement needs some qualifiers, my friend. If I'm wrong on those facts, I apologize.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:00 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 am
...
They don't have to, as soon as you are indicted on a disqualifying charge they can seize all of your firearms, ammunition, and permits.

Let's see how this case plays out, the Fed's frequently overreach just because they can but the more I look into this case I don't think that they are.

This guy is a walking, talking, living bad example that makes the rest of us look bad by association.

Since I assume you are talking about the Feds, I would like to know which law provides for the seizure of your property and state issued credentials prior to trial?

Of course, a magistrate judge could make it a term of your bail that you surrender your firearms, or they could be seized as evidence if the charge related to firearms (as it did in this case), but there is no law prohibiting you from possessing firearms until you are convicted or adjudicated. And a federal court has no jurisdiction to invalidate a state permit, though Texas provides for suspending it until the charges are tried.

The point being that when the guy was carrying in a school zone, he had a valid license. Whether he was a prohibited possessor remains to be determined.

AND.....he is still some kind of stupid.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:06 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:36 pm

Jusme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:24 pm I'm curious about a couple of things., Why did the Feds, obtain a search warrant for Winkles home? He was arrested at the church, and on a warrant stemming from an earlier incident at the church.
Also how can they say he was a user of a controlled substance, at the time of his arrest? Did he submit to a drug test? And since they didn't even find it until after the arrest, how can they use it as a basis,for filing charges?

I'm not defending this nimrod, but it seems like he had powerful enemies, who are hitting him with everything they can. JMHO

They submitted a warrant on probable cause that was duly issued by a judge. It doesn't matter where an offense takes place if it involves firearms your property is going to be searched looking for at a minim more firearms and ammunition as well as illegal drugs.

The offender does not have to submit to a toxicology screening, all they need is a warrant and will always be granted one as long as they do the paperwork right.

I am not sure I agree on the last line about it always being granted if they do the paperwork right, unless you are including in "right" that they have actual probable cause.

And that looks very flimsy to me, unless there is way more to the story than made public already (which is very probable). If a man is arrested while physically at a school for carrying a pistol in a school zone, and he has the pistol with him when arrested, how can there possibly be any probable cause or justification for a search of his home? As in, what evidence of this crime are they trying to find that they believe is present at the home. The elements of the crime are his physical location was inside a building that is a school and that he had a firearm in his possession. The evidence would be the firearm they took from him when we was arrested and the witness testimony, including the officer, that he was at the school.

To me, this looks more like the feds are jumping in at the request of the local PD because the threat of federal time is more likely to get a plea bargain done. I bet Winkles pleads guilty to one set of charges (either federal or state) and the other get dropped.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:58 pm No, they called the Feds in so Texas can keep looking all lovey dovey to gun owners and say "oh, he messed up and carried in a school so it was out of our hands", and this way Texas can try to get out of touching the church school problem.
Yes, this guy may or may not be an idiot, but he's a Texan. He deserves to the right to be dealt with by Texas....This feels like a cop out.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:53 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:31 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:25 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:11 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.

I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?

From your later post.

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

There is no mention of the exemption not applying due to some other law being broken, so if the guy has a Texas LTC, then I think the US is going to lose that part of the case.

I did some checking just a few minutes ago with one of my more reliable sources in Amarillo.

Apparently they are using his drug use and possession to invalidate his exemption and his LTC completely thus making him completely in violation.

I don't really see how that works since the "LTC" exemption to the school prohibition has no language relating to drugs anywhere in it.

My guess is the Feds are in on this to deflect criticism from the Texas church shooting where they dropped the ball on the NICS check. I'm not sure they'd want to retry Lopez on this fact pattern, but doubt this case is going anywhere near SCOTUS.

This guy is some kind of idiot though.

Your LTC becomes invalid the second you can no longer legally possess a firearm.

Users of illicit drugs cannot legally possess a firearm. From what i learned yesterday, he also had enough dope in the house to warrant a felony conviction as well.

We'll see how it all plays out as the case goes forward.

Yeah, sorry I don't buy that. Because there has been no adjudication that he IS prohibited yet. That's the second part of the charge, and it hasn't been proven yet, so at the time he carried, his LTC was valid. And actually, until Texas revokes it, it continues to be valid, though I'm sure the state suspended it given the pending charges.

So the state found some pot and THC at his house during a search and therefore the Feds are claiming that he is (and was at the time) a prohibited possessor by virtue of being a "user of illegal drugs". Yet they have not established this at a trial yet, and secondly it has nothing to do with whether he had a valid LTC. Apparently he did.

Jusme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:24 pm I'm curious about a couple of things., Why did the Feds, obtain a search warrant for Winkles home? He was arrested at the church, and on a warrant stemming from an earlier incident at the church.
Also how can they say he was a user of a controlled substance, at the time of his arrest? Did he submit to a drug test? And since they didn't even find it until after the arrest, how can they use it as a basis,for filing charges?

I'm not defending this nimrod, but it seems like he had powerful enemies, who are hitting him with everything they can. JMHO

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:25 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:11 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.

I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?

From your later post.

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

There is no mention of the exemption not applying due to some other law being broken, so if the guy has a Texas LTC, then I think the US is going to lose that part of the case.

I did some checking just a few minutes ago with one of my more reliable sources in Amarillo.

Apparently they are using his drug use and possession to invalidate his exemption and his LTC completely thus making him completely in violation.

I don't really see how that works since the "LTC" exemption to the school prohibition has no language relating to drugs anywhere in it.

My guess is the Feds are in on this to deflect criticism from the Texas church shooting where they dropped the ball on the NICS check. I'm not sure they'd want to retry Lopez on this fact pattern, but doubt this case is going anywhere near SCOTUS.

This guy is some kind of idiot though.

ELB wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:21 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:52 pm
I actually thought this law had been thoroughly gutted vial the Lopez decision but apparently parts of it are still very much in force.

It was, but congress added words about interstate commerce and passed it again.