Man Tased for Rifle OC in San Antonio

[cb1000rider]

That ordinance is not valid as you cannot preempt state firearms laws.

Apparently the ordinance bans firearms from being carried on the "street" - not sidewalk...
How does Chicago get away with it? Arent they preempting Illinois state laws?

[RetNavy]

[quote="puma guy"

I'm unclear - does SA have an ordinance against OC of long guns? ?

Sec. 21-16. Carrying loaded rifle or shotgun.permanent link to this piece of content

It shall be unlawful for any person, other than duly authorized peace officers, to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun on any public street within the city or in a motor vehicle while the same is being operated on any public street within the city.
copied from their muni code

That ordinance is not valid as you cannot preempt state firearms laws.

I understand that but as long as that ordinance is still listed in their muni code and not been superseded or taken off, then that is something can be used against a person. wouldn't surprise me if they try using it against a CHL even though is states rifle or shotgun. Gun owners in San Antonio are going have to start looking at the codes and see which ones they can get change or against state laws.

[Keith B]

That ordinance is not valid as you cannot preempt state firearms laws.

Apparently the ordinance bans firearms from being carried on the "street" - not sidewalk...
How does Chicago get away with it? Arent they preempting Illinois state laws?

Illinois didn't have a firearms preemption statute previously, but that has changed a little with the inception of their concealed carry law http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0063.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is Texas. It is pretty inclusive

Texas Statutes - Section 229.001: FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES
TEX LG. CODE ANN. § 229.001 : Texas Statutes - Section 229.001: FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES
(a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not subject to regulation; or
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Renumbered from Sec. 215.001 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 12.002(10), eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. <a target="new" href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... HTM">18</a>, Sec. 5, eff. April 27, 2007.

[Scott in Houston]

This incident seemed to be going fine until the "supervisor" showed up. The initial officers on scene were being polite and mostly level-headed with the guy.
It was the 'superior' who started to intervene and overreact. This stuff makes my blood boil.

[Keith B]

I understand that but as long as that ordinance is still listed in their muni code and not been superseded or taken off, then that is something can be used against a person. wouldn't surprise me if they try using it against a CHL even though is states rifle or shotgun. Gun owners in San Antonio are going have to start looking at the codes and see which ones they can get change or against state laws.

They can try, but state law clearly does not allow them to enforce the ordinance, even if it existed before the government code was put in place. Hence why they didn't charge him with anything.

[cb1000rider]

Thanks, Keith.. that's explicit and clear. I thought it was an overreach (more restrictive) not a case of explicitly ignoring a state law, which it obviously is...

A a nod to the officers, they're going to enforce the law in SA as they know it. It doesn't matter if that law is constitutional or legal... The fact that SA has a law on the books that conflicts with state law is not the fault of the officers. How they chose to enforce that law is their responsibility. And as I read it, the city doesn't prohibit transportation on a sidewalk.

They can try, but state law clearly does not allow them to enforce the ordinance, even if it existed before the government code was put in place. Hence why they didn't charge him with anything.

It's going to be interesting to me to see what the outcome of this situation is. They tasered someone, but didn't charge him with a crime? That's really unusual..

[puma guy]

There will be myriad trumped up charges after the fact on this young man that he will have to fight. When the lawsuit is brought (in which he will surely prevail) I hope he doesn't settle out of court. The attorney general needs to get involved in this as well and challenge the SA attempts to overide state laws.

They knew they were being recorded, trumped up charges are unlikely in those circumstances.. At least charges that last much longer than 24 hours.

That doesn't have any effect for some of the videoed cases I've seen where the person is charged after an initial improper arrest (even shooting) is made to try to justify it. We very well may be hearing "failure to comply", "disorderly conduct" we'll just have to wait and see. I would love see the Mayor all the way down to the Police Chief charged with official oppression for using their authority to make illegal arrests. I know the officers are carrying out the duties handed down from the politicians and bureaucrats.

[cb1000rider]

Right.. my thoughts exactly. I don't think I can recall a case where PD force was used and they just let someone walk... My guess is the availability of video is saving his butt.

[WildBill]

That ordinance is not valid as you cannot preempt state firearms laws.

Apparently the ordinance bans firearms from being carried on the "street" - not sidewalk...
How does Chicago get away with it? Arent they preempting Illinois state laws?

Interesting point how the law was worded.

I wonder if it was aimed at armed protesters, demonstrators or parades while walking down the street.

If the law were valid I wonder if it would apply on a sidewalk or in a parking lot? [Premises, buildings, driveways, parking lots, etc.]

Probably not, but you never know.

[Beiruty]

Last time a huge armed demo happened at Alamo. No one was arrested. Why now?

[Pawpaw]

Last time a huge armed demo happened at Alamo. No one was arrested. Why now?

Probably because the press was watching. I would be willing to bet the police were ordered not to interfere.

[C-dub]

And the problem with there being trumped up charges so far, is that there haven't been any charges yet. So far, it seems like he was just assaulted under the color of the law and denied his civil rights.

[nightmare]

That ordinance is not valid as you cannot preempt state firearms laws.

Peace Officers know that. Thugs with badges don't care.

[puma guy]

I read Open Carry Texas will hold a protest outside SA Police Headquarters tomorrow April 6. That's should be interesting.
The police also said the Taser did not shut off as it's supposed to after 5 seconds. It had to be manually shut off. So the unarrested "free to go" guy gets additional Ows!

[puma guy]

And the problem with there being trumped up charges so far, is that there haven't been any charges yet. So far, it seems like he was just assaulted under the color of the law and denied his civil rights.

Here it is. The SA Chief Of Police William McManus made this statement. ""If they're questioned by the police in an investigation to determine whether the weapon was loaded or not, they need to comply. As a lawful command or not, they need to comply," said McManus. He obviously doesn't even know the facts of the case and he's off to the races with the "failure to comply" spin.