Texas: Another Bogus Open Carry "Disorderly Conduct" Arrest

Gun Watch ^ | 27 January, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Michael Keoughan was exercising his right to bear arms in Texas last Wednesday (22 January).  He is part of a Texas group of second amendment supporters that demonstrate that the second amendment means something by legally carrying rifles slung across their back.   They openly state that they are educating people about their rights under the Texas and Federal Constitutions.

Before the Civil War (or War Between the States), Texas had a strong right to keep and bear arms clause in its constitution.  After the Confederacy lost the war, the reconstruction government created a new Texas constitution.  The new Texas constitution had a "soviet style" right to keep and bear arms.  That is, they listed the right, but made it irrelevant by saying that the legislature could ignore it when they thought they needed to stop crime.   The reconstruction legislature immediately made the bearing of arms illegal.

When the reconstruction government was kicked out, a new constitution was written and passed.  It reinstated the right to keep and bear arms, but failed to completely remove the legislature's ability to modify it.   They left in a phrase saying that the legislature could regulate the "wearing" of arms.  The legislature never removed the reconstruction ban on wearing pistols or large knives.

That is why the right of Texans to openly carry rifles and shotguns is protected by the constitution, but open carry of pistols and large knives is not.

Come and Take It, the second amendment group that Mr. Keoughan belongs to, aims to restore the right to openly carry pistols and other weapons to Texans.  It has held numerous open carry demonstrations around Texas, and is in the process of planning another for Andrews.    Mr. Keoughan was checking out the rout of their rally when he was arrested for openly carrying his rifle strapped to his back.   This is the second time that an Come And Take It member was arrested in Andrews for open carry.  The Police chief, Jones, was notified that the rally would be taking place, and still says that he will support it.

The ruse that the police used to arrest Mr. Keoughan was "disorderly conduct".  There is a provision in Texas law that defines disorderly conduct with a weapon as: 

“DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly…(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

The problem for the police is that Mr. Keoughan and Come and Take It adamatly state that their actions are not "calculated to alarm" but are meant to educate.    It is difficult to argue their point when the vast majority of people that they meet on the street are not alarmed.  From newswest9.com:

"I had great interactions throughout the entire day until the police showed up," Keoughan said.

  Police Chief Jones disagrees:

"We didn't know who he was, had no clue but we started getting a mass number of phone calls," Chief Jones said. "By displaying the weapon, he caused undue alarm."

Some people were alarmed.  We do not know how many, or how alarmed, because from past experience with these events, the calls are often an inquiry asking if the open carry is legal, which is exactly the sort of education Come And Take It is attempting to achieve.

The Chief is wrong to presume that causing alarm is the same as "calculated to alarm".   If merely "causing alarm" were sufficient to arrest, then the entire constitutional guarantee of bearing arms in Texas could be voided by anyone claiming that they were "alarmed" by seeing someone bearing arms.

The quote in newswest9.com may be taken out of context, but he seems to imply that checking someone out is the same as arresting them:

"This is the issue that they don't want to address that we have to address," Chief Jones said. "When we get a call about a person with a gun, do we ignore it? Walking down the street? They're alluding to the fact that we don't have any right to make contact to them because they're not doing anything wrong. I beg to differ with them."

 No one is saying that the police cannot drive by someone that a citizen finds suspicious, or talk to them.   Police know that criminals almost never openly carry guns, and that those who are working to restore second amendment rights often do.   We can contrast what happened in Andrews with what recently happened in Fond du Lac Wisconsin:

“It was basically just a unique display of (the gun owners’) right to bear arms under the state’s open carry law and the U.S. Constitution,” Meyer said. “In a similar incident in Appleton, police engaged the individuals and caused additional turmoil. Our police observed them, making sure that they weren’t a threat to public safety.”

 It is difficult to square Chief Jones assurance that he supports the First, second,fourth and fifth amendments, with Mr. Keoughan's arrest:

 "I can't emphasize enough that we support their right," he said.

The police, after determining that Mr. Keoughan was exercising his rights, did not have to arrest him.   In fact, it appears that they arrested him without legal cause to do so.

The leading candidate for Governor,  Greg Abbot, has said that he supports legalizing open carry of handguns in Texas.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[Dead Corpse]

Someone running around with a backslung rifle is exactly ZERO threat to you.

You DO know how firearms work right?

[ConstantSkeptic]

So... he’s making a fashion statement?

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "All the aforementioned are sane rules."

According to you, then, the "right" referred to in the Second Amendment is subject to "sane rules" passed by the government. Is that what you think the Founders meant?

Or were the Founders intentionally trying to deprive the government of the ability to disarm the people, as they did in occupied Boston and attempted to do in Lexington and Concord?

If you and I don't agree on one of your "sane rules", what then? Let the government decide?

[Dead Corpse]

He’s exercising his Rights in a manner that is no threat to anyone.

It’s embarrassing to have to continue pointing this out to you.

[ConstantSkeptic]

I know you keep saying that. But the reality you studiously avoid is that rifles have the capability of killing. Or people armed with rifles have the capability of killing. I don’t care how you word it. The reality is that an armed person is a real threat in a way in which an unarmed person isn’t.

How about this? Imagine that it was not a middle-aged white stranger toting that rifle. Imagine instead that it was an 18-year old black stranger carrying a rifle through your local neighborhood with your daughters playing jump rope in your front yard. Would you be so cavalier about that stranger exercising his rights? At least I would call both of the rifle toters idiots.

[marktwain]

So, if he put the gun in a case, where he could get at it just as quickly, and it would be just as deadly, but people would not know it was there, that would make it better?

Please explain how.

[ConstantSkeptic]

Every day you encounter strangers. Part of basic human survival is that you evaluate strangers based on first impressions. Most strangers pose no threat. But still you look at their actions - are they angry looking, furtive? Do they look like they belong in this neighborhood? Are they scoping out the houses, possibly looking to come back later to rob a home?

If I see someone toting a gun, I’m going to evaluate their threat level different from someone carrying a case with unknown contents. That’s just human nature. If someone’s carrying a gun, they will stick out like a sore thumb in my neighborhood. So I’d wonder what their problem was. Since my neighborhood is very safe, are they looking for trouble? Are they delusionally paranoid?

You’re right. The person with a concealed gun can be just as dangerous as the fool who feels he has to display a gun. The difference is that he’s at least intelligent enough to not unnecessarily alarm folks.

[Dead Corpse]

I have the capabilit to kill. Right now. Right here. With my bare hands.

Or with a fork, or a wooden stick, or a wood axe, or shoe laces, or...

The reality is that a law abiding person doing nothing wrong will contiue to do nothing wrong regardless of your bullsh*t arguments and hoplophobia...

Our Rights don’t end where your unreasonable fear begins.

Get help.

[Dead Corpse]

If I see someone toting a gun...

Better run off in fear now....

[piroque]

What gun?

[Blue Collar Christian]

I don’t know if “Ole Hoss” in the bar drunk as hell brandishing his two .44 magnums is the only drunk in your post.

And you’ve been on FR for what, 14 years?

Grow up.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Do you need to be held at knife point while your wife is raped in front of your kids to understand the benefit of being free enough to be allowed to protect said family with a firearm?

You got issues dude.

[zeugma]

The leading candidate for Governor, Greg Abbot, has said that he supports legalizing open carry of handguns in Texas.

To my knowledge, Abbot has done nothing to further our second amendment rights in Texas. The republican party in Texas is infested with democrats who lie about their stances on any number of issues because they know they can't get elected as democrats. gov. goodhair is one of these.

[zeugma]

For the record, I prefer concealed carry for a number of reasons. The main reason is that I do not want other people to know that I am carrying. I feel that this would give me the “tactical advantage” should I ever be put in the unfortunate situation where I would need to defend my life or the life of someone else

Personally, I prefer concealed carry myself, but we need to get the laws against open carry off the books, because they are often used to nail otherwise honest citizens who might inadvertently flash a view of it. I also strongly disapprove of the entire process of "permits" to carry, but if you have one, it should cover the firearm beong open or concealed. The only laws concerning the bearing of weapons should revolved around actual safety issues, like brandishing in a threatening manner. Violating rule #1 is about the only thing I think of as an actual "crime"

[ConstantSkeptic]

I’m not trying to trample on your rights.

I’m just pointing out that you’re not all that different from the ghetto thugs trying their hardest to look tough with their pants dragging on the ground while their butt cracks show. You all look like idiots. “Look at me, I’m the toughest, bad guy around. Don’t mess with me.” Ironically, your response was to point out all the different ways you could kill me. Like I said... just the white guy version of the ghetto thug.

[Political Junkie Too]

As my mom taught me: Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you SHOULD do something.

Did your mom teach you that if you don't exercise your rights, you will lose them?

-PJ

[ConstantSkeptic]

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything against owning guns. We own several. I just pointed out that, if you’re in a strange town, it’s not very bright to run around openly carrying a rifle. Moreover, why would you advertise that you own guns? That’s something thieves target.

[Blue Collar Christian]

No. I read your comments again. No reading comprehension problem.

[3Fingas]

You and I are in complete agreement.

The Constitution is our “carry permit”. However, we have to deal
with the world as it is and not how it should be.

We are moving in the right direction on gun rights. It is just going take some time for it to change.

By contrast, we are losing on most other issues. But that is a topic for a different thread.

[Dead Corpse]

Weird, I look at you and see a sheep unable to defend themselves and unwilling to let others carry tools most effective at keeping themselves safe...

Considering your stance is antithetical to the Constitution and our Republic, it does beg the question of why you bother posting here. After all, a majority of us are pro-RKBA. You know, us “ghetto thugs” as you described us...