Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#16

Post by ELB »

. 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.
There may be another section of the law that covers this. You can’t read an individual paragraph or section of the law in isolation and be sure you have the whole picture. This is why you need lawyers to sort out things And they don’t all agree and need a judge or six to sort it out.

Of course you as the citizens are expected to obey the law completely without error. Ignorance is no excuse! :roll:
Last edited by ELB on Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#17

Post by ScottDLS »

ELB wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:25 am
. 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.
There may be another section of the law that covers this. You can’t read an individual paragraph or section of the law in isolation and be sure you have the whole picture. This is why you need lawyers to sort out things And they don’t all agree I need a judge or six to sort it out.

Of course you as the citizens are expected to obey the law completely without error. Ignorance is no excuse!
True, however I've read through all of 18 USC 92x while researching other issues like NFA etc. and there isn't anything addressing school zones other than the item charged.

The other point is that the Federal government arguably has very limited criminal jurisdiction in this area, in spite of the rewrite of 18 USC 921(a)(25) after Lopez. Now I'm aware that GFSZA as rewritten has nominally been addressed in some appellate cases, but I'm not convinced the Feds are anxious to retry in current SCOTUS.

Of course, just because the statute plainly doesn't apply in this case doesn't mean that the guy won't get convicted. It happens all the time, especially with the Feds. Such is the state of Federal criminal jurisprudence (in my opinion, which is worth what was paid for it... :lol: ).
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8400
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#18

Post by Abraham »

Do I understand this (generally speaking) if someone breaks the law here (so to speak) it can break the law elsewhere...yes, I'm probably clear as mud, but some of you will understand...

As an analogy attempt: I get caught robbing a bank, so I can be charged for that and speeding, though I was on foot....say what?
User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5350
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#19

Post by Jusme »

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
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

Topic author
WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: 8

#20

Post by WildRose »

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.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

Topic author
WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#21

Post by WildRose »

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.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 8

#22

Post by ScottDLS »

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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5272
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#23

Post by srothstein »

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.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Alvin
Contact:

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#24

Post by SewTexas »

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.
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir

Topic author
WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: 8

#25

Post by WildRose »

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.
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.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

Topic author
WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#26

Post by WildRose »

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.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

Topic author
WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 22
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#27

Post by WildRose »

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.
The moment you are arrested for a disqualifying offence they have probably cause to seize all your firearms and ammunition and to search your premises for same.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 8

#28

Post by ScottDLS »

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. :evil2:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#29

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

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.
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest

#30

Post by ELB »

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
USAF 1982-2005
____________
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”