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

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

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

#31

Post by Flightmare »

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
Wrong thread :)
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
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

#32

Post by ELB »

I was replying to soccer dad’s comments in this thread, directly above my reply.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
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

#33

Post by SewTexas »

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.
[/quote

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?
~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

#34

Post by WildRose »

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. :evil2:
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.
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

#35

Post by WildRose »

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.
In spite of what you are reading in the very biased press I'm quite sure her apartment and vehicle were both searched.

She had some protection as long as she retained her law enforcement credentials because she shot him with her duty weapon but now that she's been fired she has none.

The Texas Rangers immediately took over jurisdiction and they aren't known for half stepping.
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

#36

Post by WildRose »

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
Good find, another dead horse back under the barn.
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

#37

Post by WildRose »

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.
To be clear, what is definitively untrue is your statement above.
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

#38

Post by WildRose »

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?
I provided a copy of the article earlier and it was confirmed when I spoke to the Detective in charge.
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

#39

Post by ScottDLS »

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. :evil2:
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.
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

#40

Post by Abraham »

ScottDLS,

Thanks for that great summation.

I think the amount of nonsense in this whole scenario reads like an Elmore Leonard novel.
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 8

#41

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

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.
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

#42

Post by ScottDLS »

Abraham wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:47 am ScottDLS,

Thanks for that great summation.

I think the amount of nonsense in this whole scenario reads like an Elmore Leonard novel.
I agree. Now I also really think this guy is stupid and probably unstable, but I don't like to see that being turned into an excuse to get the Feds involved in something that really ought to be a local law enforcement issue.
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!!!!"

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

Re: 8

#43

Post by WildRose »

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.
Which is done immediately on a court order or when you become legally ineligible to possess a firearm doesn't it?
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: 8

#44

Post by WildRose »

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. :evil2:
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.
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.
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:

#45

Post by ScottDLS »

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.
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!!!!"
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”