Communist Art Acevedo Kills Constitutional Carry In Texas
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 10 months ago
Texas police chiefs are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto legislation repealing certain handgun restrictions in Texas if lawmakers do not remove a controversial provision the chiefs fear would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions.
If the provision stays on the bill, the only responsible thing for Abbott to do would be to veto it, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said at an impromptu news conference organized as the legislation faces what could be a final vote in the House on Wednesday. “You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,” he said.
[ … ]
Flanked by about a dozen law enforcement leaders from around the state, Acevedo said Wednesday that the legislation would “handcuff” police officers, endangering both them and the communities they protect.
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” Art Acevedo is a communist and liar. He knows that other traditional open carry states like North Carolina (where simply openly carrying a gun does not constitute legitimate reason for a stop) don’t have the problems he says will come from constitutional carry in Texas.
But a little background is in order. The House and Senate both managed to tack on a provision that LEOs couldn’t stop open carriers and ask for proof of concealed carry permits. Communist Art Acevedo was successful and this provision was killed.
After a week of hand-wringing over a controversial amendment — and what proved to be empty threats of a Democratic filibuster — the measure sailed through both chambers of the Legislature on Friday afternoon. The vote in the House was 102 to 43; in the Senate, 20 to 11.
[ … ]
Last week, the bill’s passage was temporarily delayed when the Senate unexpectedly revived a provision that would limit the power of police officers to ask those carrying handguns visibly for a permit.
The so-called “cop stop” amendment had support from some Democrats who said it would help prevent racial profiling, as well as conservatives who said it was necessary to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures. But it stirred vocal criticism from the state’s police chiefs, some of whom held an impromptu news conference at the Capitol to urge Abbott to veto the bill if the language stayed in.
And so they listened to the LEOs and the provision was killed. As a side note, LEOs have no business whatsoever engaging in advocating laws or policy. LEOs are tasked with certain things, and making law isn’t one of those things. There should be contractual obligations prohibiting this kind of advocacy.
As for the law makers who listened to communist Art Acevedo, you are communist scumbags along with Art Acevedo. Every politician who allowed or in any way encouraged or advocated such a sellout of liberty is not only a racist, bowing their knee to Jim Crow laws, but a waste of the very space your bodies occupy. You are worthless as men and leaders of men, preferring to relinquish your God-given duties to protect the rights of all men in favor of acceptance by other men. You have exchanged good for evil, and continue to support a totalitarian government in both idea and statute, and God will have His day for you in the final white throne court. You who worship men rather than God – that will be a terrible day.
It would have been better for the law to have failed, and for the good people of Texas to wait for true liberty rather than scramble after the crumbs that fall from the master’s table. Color me unimpressed with any of the politicians in Texas, and I still wait for a leader to emerge who will respect God-given rights. At the moment, I don’t see one.
|
|
On June 2, 2015 at 4:57 am, boogyoogyoogy said:
Don’t feel bad Texas! The rest of us work for the government too!
You will be told what you can and can’t have, do and can’t do, when they decide and let you know. Meanwhile, be sure to pay close attention to their whims and ask before you do anything, without permission.
If this is Texas, how bad has it really gotten elsewhere?
On June 2, 2015 at 10:16 am, unclezip said:
It’s Austin, which only claims to represent Texas.
On June 2, 2015 at 6:14 am, Ed Hamilton said:
“You can’t be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs,”
You shouldn’t be a police chief without abiding by the constitution.
On June 2, 2015 at 7:37 am, TexTopCat said:
True, this person should not be a police chief or of that matter have any trusted position. I think the mayor that hired him should also go.
On June 2, 2015 at 7:35 am, TexTopCat said:
“Art Acevedo is a communist and liar.” – kind of blunt, but unfortunately more true than not. The city of Austin should be ashamed to continue to allow this individual to be employed as police chief. This is certainly not his first campaign against Texas citizen rights and most likely not the last.
On June 2, 2015 at 9:20 am, Herschel Smith said:
Art Acevedo is the one who pushed “no refusal” checks in Texas. If you refuse to blow into a breathalyzer, they can strap you down and shove a needle in your arm to draw blood.
His collectivist antics are well known in Texas.
On June 2, 2015 at 10:17 am, unclezip said:
It’s starting to seem like being called “Communist scum” is a badge of honor.
On June 2, 2015 at 11:16 am, Pericles said:
See what happens when you import a police chief from California.
On June 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm, GomeznSA said:
Yep, and Austin didn’t even get any first round draft choices in the deal ;-(
On June 2, 2015 at 12:36 pm, robertsgunshop said:
I always thought they should put a fence around Austin and just throw guns and ammo over the fence once a week. They shouldn’t even be called Texans.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:15 pm, Billy Mullins said:
Problem is, there are some good and decent folks who live in Austin. I lived there for 5 years and enjoyed it. Yes, it has a shed load of leftist types but it has a lot of other, good things going on. It can be a nice place to live.
On June 2, 2015 at 1:50 pm, Jim Jones said:
Even if the provision didn’t make the final bill, it doesn’t eliminate the constitutional rules regarding the 4th amendment i.e. an officer still needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed in order to stop you and request identification (a “Terry Stop”). Simply OC-ing will not provide that reasonable suspicion basis. Yes, I understand that this language would have made it crystal clear, but just because it’s not there doesn’t mean that officers can simply ask you for your permit if you are OC-ing.
On June 2, 2015 at 2:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I’m not so sure you’re right about that. A state doesn’t have to allow open carry to begin with according to federal law or the SCOTUS. Therefore, they can make any laws surrounding OC they want, including and up to identification.
Another way of saying is that if someone wasn’t OC and there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, it isn’t a Terry Stop and they can’t do it. But the act of OC itself, as long as the legislature has tied it to having a permit, is reason enough for LEOs to stop people and ask.
For there to be no justification (under the law) for the stop, Texas would have to have the same system as North Carolina, which is a traditional open carry state. Thus, the Fourth Circuit can say what they did about CMPD’s stop.
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
Anyway, just my two cents. I could be wrong.
On June 2, 2015 at 3:27 pm, Jim Jones said:
Wow is OC-ing different than driving a car? Police officers can’t just stop you and ask you for your permit if you don’t break any traffic laws, just because you’re supposed to always have your driver’s license on you. I would think that the same reasoning would extend to just walking around OC-ing.
On June 2, 2015 at 3:43 pm, Herschel Smith said:
But think New York and Mass. and what judges will conclude based on the very weak SCOTUS precedents. Some states don’t even have shall issue. I agree with you in principle. In practice, I don’t think it’s going to work that way in Texas. State courts will look at the law (as it is about to be signed) and conclude that LEOs have a right to stop you and demand evidence of your permit. That’s why some legislators wanted the provision, and Art Acevedo didn’t.
On June 2, 2015 at 3:51 pm, Jim Jones said:
This is Texas. Some enterprising young man will likely challenge Acevedo right in Austin. It’s a misdemeanor obstruction of justice if it turns out that you refused to provide identification for a valid constitutional Terry Stop. It’s a payday if it turns out that the Police Department is violating your constitutional right to be free from search and seizure. The calculus is pretty good. I understand that firearms can be a disliked by certain judges, but 4th amendment jurisprudence would apply here.
On June 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think you’re underestimating the significance of the law as it will be signed. A doctor needs a permit (license) to practice medicine, and it can be checked at any time. An engineer needs a permit (license) to practice engineering, and it can be checked at any time. No one has to suspect him of a crime in order to check on his license. Like it or not, that’s the way they have crafted the Texas law. It appears that you think this was much ado about nothing. I disagree. We’ll see who’s right.
On June 2, 2015 at 4:45 pm, Jim Jones said:
I think the only way that Texans will have to show their license is if the law is drafted in such a way that makes it mandatory to announce that you are a CCW holder upon any police interaction. I doubt Texas is an announce state. Contrast this with Wisconsin, where I live. I do not have to show an officer my license unless the request is made by a police officer in his official capacity AND the request is made “with lawful authority.” Wis. Stat. Sec. 175.60(2g)(c). The lawful authority language implicitly recognizes all of the 4th amendment jurisprudence that comes with it.
Most Americans don’t always know that they don’t have to answer questions from the police. I had to go to law school to find out (although civil rights litigation is not what I get paid to advise on – it’s just what I really care about). Ever see how some folks turn their noses at the border agents in Arizona by not answering their question of whether or not they are a citizen? This country is almost unique on earth for the fact that police officers can’t just ask you for ID if you are not breaking the law. If you know your rights and the framework they are built on, you can most certainly put an officer in his/her place. Just because Texas requires you to have an license to OC doesn’t mean that police officers can ignore the 4th amendment and just ask for your id if you are going about your normal business. Doctors are required to keep their license at the ready in case they encounter a bureaucrat that wants their papers. Engineers don’t have to carry their papers to go about their business. We are not Germany.
Yes, the law would have been better with that explicit protection, but the protections are still there even without that language.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think you’re still underestimating this thing. In N.C. I have to announce to a LEO if a LEO even comes up to me to talk about something that I an a concealed carrier and have a weapon on me and then hand him my driver’s license and my CHP card. The Fourth Amendment is immaterial. There is no N.C. court or U.S. federal court that will overturn that. Note => this is without it being a Terry Stop or without any evidence that I’ve committed a crime. If a LEO even approaches me I have to immediately reveal all sorts of information.
You are thinking of this the way you want it to be. I am thinking of this the way it is in reality.
We’ll leave it at that. We’ll see who is right on this, but there is a reason some legislators wanted this provision in place, and Art Acevedo didn’t. If LEOs suspect a person of a crime, it’s a Terry Stop anyway and whether the person is openly carrying or not is irrelevant. He can stop and detain the person and demand to know all sorts of information. On the other hand, in N.C. I can openly carry without LEOs being able to stop me because the state has no stop and identify statute (which the SCOTUS has unfortunately upheld) and HAS NOT made it a requirement to be permitted in order to openly carry. Texas has. That’s the difference.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm, Jim Jones said:
This is exactly what I was explaining above; i.e. that the only way they can get away with this is making Texas an announce state. Is Texas an announce state? If it is not, then Texans won’t necessarily have to show their IDs.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm, Jim Jones said:
Wisconsin is not an announce state. I do not have to inform an officer of my CCW status unless he asks me. Even if he does, our statute implicitly incorporated the 4th amendment protections provided by the constitution by requiring to show my CCW license only upon a request based on “lawful authority.” Even if the statute didn’t say that, the 4th amendment case law would still be there.
That’s my whole point about the Texas thing. If Texas is NOT an announce state, then the 4th amendment will still apply. The judiciary branch is always reluctant to mess with the legislative branch. That’s why once a permitting scheme is put in, such as NC’s announce CCW rules, they are very reluctant to mess with it. If Texas is silent on this issue, then Texans are not in as bad of shape as they think they are.
On June 2, 2015 at 4:55 pm, Billy Mullins said:
Herschel, I think we would’ve been stopped anyhow whether the language was in the law or not. Cops are given special instruction in writing up their reports so as to justify just about anything and everything. Technically, a “Terry Stop” doesn’t require “Probable Cause” (i.e. a set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that an offense has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed) but only “Reasonable Suspicion” (i.e. an objective and articulable suspicion). Most non-rookie cops are reasonably proficient at hokeying up something that could pass for reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop. When you factor in the presumption in the minds of the courts and most people that cops don’t lie, it would be hard to ding a cop for such a stop.
I figure I’m gonna need to move my ID and CHL to a spot where I can get to it easily (around my neck like dog tags?) any time I openly carry. Which I damned well WILL be doing come 1 Jan 2016! I definitely don’t want to keep it in my wallet in my hip pocket on the same side that I carry on. That sounds like a recipe for getting SHOT. Have to look into that.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:05 pm, Herschel Smith said:
But Billy this isn’t irrelevant and I think you think you need that additional level of ID immediately available because of the way the law has been crafted. The legislature failed in not providing protections for open carriers.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:10 pm, Jim Jones said:
Yes, and that is why you should always make the officer articulate the reasonable suspicion for the crime that he/she stopped you for. Preferably, you should do this while videotaping. Photography Is Not a Crime is a great place to see some solid videos about your ability to refuse unlawful detainment and requests for ID, and so are the DHS “are you a citizen” checkpoints.
Listen, I get it; most folks are not going to rock the boat, and they just want to go about their business. It’s a hassle to exercise your rights. Police officers are legally allowed to lie to you. You are not afforded that right. However, you do have the right to refuse to answer questions or show ID if the police officer can’t provide the basis for his reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If you have it on tape, well then his doctored report will just increase the payday.
On June 2, 2015 at 5:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
That’s just dead wrong, and that’s what we’re discussing above. In my home state of N.C. I have to produce a permit if a LEO even approaches me and I’m carrying a weapon. It doesn’t have to be a Terry Stop. See page 44. No court is going to find that unconstitutional. I might believe that it is in fact unconstitutional, just like I think permitting in general is, but the courts and I disagree.
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx
On June 3, 2015 at 11:35 am, Pat Hines said:
I’m working on the wording of a bill proposal, for South Carolina in my case, that would prohibit any state, municipal, or local agency from lobbying or otherwise making statements for or against any bill or resolution in the state legislature.
We’ve had too many instances of counter statements by law enforcement or university presidents about firearm and other legislation to count. This needs to end.
I will propose their dismissal as the least severe punishment, with criminal charges for crimes against rights if necessary.
We must shut these people up.
On June 3, 2015 at 2:30 pm, Mack said:
I would suggest the real problem is with the powerful Cop Lobby known as C.L.E.A.T. — they have many friends in the legislature and they work behind the scenes to get what they want, and kill what they oppose:
* CLEAT applauds decision to send open-carry bill to conference committee
http://www.cleat.org/2015/05/cleat-launches-last-minute-effort-to-clean-up-the-open-carry-bill/
CLEAT thanks the two House members who are ***former law enforcement officers*** for their common-sense arguments that sent the open-carry legislation to a conference committee.
Reps. Phil King and Allen Fletcher, ***both longtime CLEAT friends***, argued persuasively on Wednesday that a provision of the Senate-passed version of the bill that would prevent police officers from questioning anyone displaying a handgun in public would put law enforcement officers at risk.
“This is going to make it very difficult (for officers) to do their jobs,” King told the House.
King has an A+ rating from the NRA
http://www.philking.com/2010/01/15/king-receives-a-rating-from-nra/
On June 7, 2015 at 5:11 am, sdharms said:
and dan Patrick, Lt Gov of Texas, who shephards bills thru Legislature and has enormous power CAVED. He is a liar and a skunk. Lies long enough to get elected. All hat, no cattle.