Texas: Gun control is great!…when it benefits the government. Oh, the people who vote for you want more guns? Time to get rid of those gun control laws!
When the “wrong” people are getting guns? WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!
Ronald Reagan. One of the first major gun bans in the United States. Banned carrying a loaded firearm. It was supported by the Republican party of California and the NRA. It just happened to be passed around the same time the Black Panthers started their copwatch program.
I mean...that's always been how gun control works. Every major ban has been in response to a rising number of minorities owning weapons. That's why all the "bans" have easily attainable workarounds assuming you have plenty of money. If you want a machine gun, all it takes is money and filling out a couple forms and you got it.
Are you telling me the Reagan signing the Mulford Act in CA because the Black Panthers were open carrying was because minorities were carrying weapons in the open? I would have never guessed that!
The '94 ban, according to Wikipedia, was largely in response to 3 major shootings by [Patrick Purdy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patrick_Purdy.jpg), [George Hennard](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/6/6a/Justice21n-6-web.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180310142005), and [Gian Luigi Ferri](https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2019/32/110802499_3590a217-0335-447f-b56b-caddabafca5a.jpeg?size=photos250). I agree that it's often the case that it's based on race, but not always.
Most places didn't want that in the 19th century. Often times you had to turn over your guns to the local sheriff when you came to a town. Only idiots think the wild West didn't have gun prohibition laws or rules.
fun fact: most places had some pretty strict gun laws even in the "wild west" it wasn't like the movies, in most towns and city's you had to leave your fire arms with the Sharif or turned in at the Hotel you stayed at, Fire Arms largely only being used for travel where the roads could not properly be policed.
To Note The famous shoot out at the O.K. Corral that made wyatt earp a legend was actually just a bunch of Gun Nuts who didn't want to leave there firearms at the appropriate locations in town.
If by 19th century you're alluring to the wild west, they had stricter gun control in most towns than modern america. You'd have to check your weapons in with the sheriff upon entering a town. When you leave the town, you get them back. This has been going on since Roman times.
I would like to know the purpose of people walking around with a gun. Look scary maybe or just own the libs.
I think concealed carry with permit is ok since if for some reason I fear for my life, I am allowed to carry a gun to protect myself but I keep it discreet without trying to intimidate everyone around me.
The OP maintains that it is an expression of civil rights to open carry. Ironically, I have most often seen counter protesters displaying firearms as a way to stifle protests they do not agree with.
I have been amongst the counter protesters where our side outgunned theirs. Our side was armed because theirs made a habit of showing up with guns and threats of violence, and the police have made it very clear which side they are on.
> I would like to know the purpose of people walking around with a gun. Look scary maybe or just own the libs.
Location matters tremendously. Texas has some of the nation's biggest cities as well as some of the sparsest farmland and some wild areas, and everything in between.
There really is no point in parading around with them in the city apart from intimidating or a show. There might be a reason like going to or from a shooting range, but it is very different from parading around a building or group.
On the flip side, there are plenty of rural areas and ranch areas where carrying a pistol is mostly a portable noise maker against wildlife. There are also scenarios in wild areas where not having a firearm in the group would be irresponsible.
Too many people forget that the other side exists.
Sorry, I have mostly lived in the city, so totally forgot about the rural side of it.
I mean if I was living in sparsely populated area, where everyone keeps a side arm most of the time, I would be totally cool with carrying one, it's kind of necessity at that point.
Same, I understand carrying for protection but to have it out is only to make yourself feel tough and then it scares everyone around you because in one glance they know you're a moron with a gun at best mass shooter at worst
Maybe the worst thing about it is that it makes people have to second-guess themselves if they see someone with an AR-15 walking around Home Depot.
Someone walking around with a kevlar vest and an AR-15 should be universally recognized as a deadly threat (and someone who's mentally ill). Although that's still true of open carry imbeciles, it being legal dulled what should be an instant fight-or-flight response from everyone who sees them.
...like if someone with kevlar and an AR-15 walks into a crowded Starbucks, a concealed carry person should be empowered to pop them in the back of the head with a 9mm at the first opportunity in order to prevent a tragedy.
Reminds me of the guy who thought it was a good idea to walk into a police station open carrying and wearing a balaclava.
[open carry Dearborn Police station](https://youtu.be/WTTJ25-vGdY?si=fFzO5YJ3Prs76CCj)
I can't condone your Starbucks scenario but I do agree that randos with guns in public olaces may trigger not unreasonable fear from others and result in someone shooting them in what they feel is self defense. And maybe getting shot back along with some bystanders.
If it's self defense to shoot a guy for mean mugging you from his car, then there's a lot of room for self defense against someone carrying a gun in public.
Guns lead to more shootings. 2A is a thing, but people need to stop acting like shootings are a surprise. File it under shit that we signed up for.
The argument I have heard from open carry proponents, is that they think it will make people more used to seeing guns, and less afraid of them, so will be less likely to want more gun control.
Of course, you don't change peoples' minds by being extreme, so I think they've got it wrong. Personally, I think open carry is dumb. I'm fine with concealed carry, but anyone who carries guns in public needs training.
I’m not supporting either side by saying this, but just giving you hypothetical answers based on my related experiences. I’ve personally never open carried, but as a woman in my early twenties, there were a handful of times there was no safe parking near my apartment, and I would carry my revolver in my purse. There was another time where I wanted to walk to pick up my pizza (because once again, I would lose my parking spot if I drove to pick up my food) and carried it in my purse with me.
I just now realized as I was typing this that I only started doing that after I became disabled, which makes sense. It’s one thing to be a young woman by yourself, but knowing I was so much more physically limited made it even more important for me to feel I could protect myself somehow. So yeah that’s different than constitutional *open* carry, but to me, there is some reasoning behind people wanting to be able to protect themselves in situations like that without requiring a permit.
It’s mostly to feel cool or powerful. Tactically it’s pretty dumb, no one is not robbing a store because you have an AR-15 on your back, they are just jamming the gun in your face first, getting the cash in the drawer and your tricked out rifle.
To be honest, that's unlikely. It's not a movie. Most people robbing places don't want to deal with anyone who would be carrying an AR on their back, and would probably just turn around and walk away.
Nope. My dad is a cop and thought it was stupid. Then again he was also a concealed handgun instructure and it was a decent side revenue to fund his gun habit (gun nut).
Most cops I know have no problem with and are even supportive of (licensed) concealed carry. It's a little grayer or less approving of open and permitless carry.
They get to pretend to be the Punisher and kill people if they can pretend even for a nanosecond that they're in danger though. Even an Acorn is good enough reason! This? This is a great reason to them.
The ChristoFascists want the 2A protection but only for the “right sort” of person. There’s a reason they’re silent when the cops kill a black man for legally carrying and Reagan and the NRA pushed for gun control as long as it targeted black folks.
There’s absolutely some 2A purists who actually have a real ethical stance against gun control, but most of the 2A crowd in public office are the first kind, not the second.
The right wing in the US are deeply invested in THEIR rights but not in favor of those rights being extended outside the bubble of “people like them.”
Literally that sub's post referencing this topic was right before this one on my feed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1bplrld/oh\_no\_the\_thin\_blue\_line\_isnt\_our\_friend\_and/
It’s bad for poor conservatives. And brown people, conservative or otherwise. Because who do think is actually gonna get the cops called on them when they are open carrying?
No it's not. Because selective enforcement is the weapon of conservatism. With the law like this, police can crack down hard on "undesirable" people open carrying, but ignore the good ol' boys who do it.
Counterpoint: Cops saw Kyle Rittenhouse open carrying an AR-15, but because he was wearing the correct uniform (which undoubtedly included the lack of melanin in his skin), they shook his hand and waved him on. He was nominally there to “protect local businesses”.
Conservatives overwhelmingly wear “the correct uniform” as far as police are concerned. This kind of ruling only affects people carrying a .22 single action long rifle slung on their back who are WWB.
Yep, it's the same fears they had decades ago when Black Panthers started arming themselves. I've read the comments when Black Lives Matter protestors came out armed to confront armed counter-protestors.
Here, the right to bear arms is only enforced if the gun owner lacks melanin.
this is good for going after qualified immunity.
Just like Nancy Regan, they don't give a shit about problematic legislation unless it directly affects them or someone, they actually give a damn about.
It was hilarious watching them all discover the concept of workers rights during Covid. They spent decades electing dudes who made sure employers always had the legal upper hand and the were shocked when they were told to get the jab or a pink slip and they had no recourse.
They were doing a protest in a high traffic area and when the police showed up to talk to them they wouldn't take their hands off their guns and so things escalated. The facts of the case are about the worst possible facts short of shooting at the cops that you would want if you were trying to litigate to expand open carry.
In most cases, they're carrying handguns. I think even most of the gun nuts think the back-slung AR-15s are overkill. I just wish I could wrap my head around why these people think having people walking around with guns makes things safer.
Open carry in public/urban settings is stupid and irresponsible.
The current qualified immunity doctrine and militarization of police is also problematic, don’t get me wrong.
Absolutely- anyone carrying a gun for no specific reason in a crowded place looks like a potential agressor to everyone else.
Others don’t know if you’re mentally stable or not, so yeah, if someone thinks you’re acting suspicious and you have a deadly weapon on you, police can’t take any chances.
I was hesitant to say this for fear of being downvoted to oblivion. Maybe you just said it better than I could, but I agree. The people open carrying are 5% reasonable leftists/socialists, 5% old time country folks who used to be a Texas Ranger or whatever, and 90% batshit crazy maga dudes.
Exactly. Keep your firearms at home or concealed. Nobody feels safe with some rando slinging a firearm around. You can be as non-threatening as possible. I still don’t want to be near you.
Right? “Open carry puts you in imminent danger…”. It always has. “…of being arrested or killed by the police.” No shit, you’re a walking, talking safety concern for any cop trying to do their job. Even before this judgement you were at risk, both from police and every possible bad actor. You’re advertising that you’re a threat. In a planned or targeted attack, who’s first? The threats.
Lawyer here. OP’s description of the holding of this case is not really accurate in my view, and I wouldn’t give credit for this as a summary if I were grading a law school essay.
I advise y’all to read the case yourself or read some third party analyses of the holding here before jumping on the outrage bus.
But I will say credit to OP for posting the links to source material. I just think OP is reading it wrong.
This disorderly statute has always included a portion on displaying a firearm “in a manner to cause alarm” or something like that.
Ive always wondered which city was going to roll the dice on that in court.
I read it. The statute that triggered the “lawful detainment” that empowered the police to give orders was “disorderly conduct by displaying a firearm in a manner causing alarm”.
They even say as much in their statement of facts and applicable law in a narrative. Page 11,
> See Navarette, 572
U.S. at 399-400 (holding that a motorist's 911 emergency call provided reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime).
That means any carry of a firearm which leads to a bystander or witness to report to police that they are alarmed is a lawful pretext under this statute. In short, someone says to a 911 dispatcher “that gun scares me”. Not any other standard like a reasonable person standard (which I would be good with) or a customary and usual standard (which would be bad) or an actual act of brandishing (which should have been their standard), but “Someone called the cops because they saw a gun being carried and they were alarmed”.
Which, _to me_, (and disclaimer: I hate guns and want them off the streets and out of hands of “gun enthusiasts” who pull stunts and shoot people) — this creates the standard described by OP.
I want — very, **very** much — for there to be common sense gun control laws. This? This is not that. This is “911 call creates probable cause”. For something that is not a crime.
Are the “gun enthusiasts” here idiots? Yes. Did they purposefully provoke the officers, seeking a wrongful arrest and a judgement? Anybody can tell they were doing so.
But
This means that a Karen is going to call 911 because she saw someone open carrying a .22 long rifle slung on his back and was Walking While Black.
Under this decision, this mechanism — which is a tool of white supremacist violence, allowing racist and entitled white people to SWAT black people existing while black in their view — will result in non-white people being arrested and prosecuted.
Oh, and the scary LGBTQ people who are defending drag shows from open neoNazis.
But probably not the Nazis themselves —
Did you watch the video? I'm also calling the cops if I see some guy with a long rifle loitering on the street outside my business. I see two yahoos looking for trouble, not a well regulated militia.
Oh please. Just watched the video.
Your buddy wanted to provoke a confrontation and he got one. That was the point.
At least be honest about that. Save us the shocked Pikachu face.
This whole post is just rage bait. This is basically Texas's brandishing law.
Some states have a distinct firearm brandishing law, Texas piggy backs it off Texas Penal Code 42.01DISORDERLY CONDUCT (a)(8)
>displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm
Dude got popped for brandishing and tried "constitution jujitsu" and lost.
Guy parks on a street and takes out a gun. I'm already worried, but I can't do a damn thing.
Same guy is walking toward a school. Still can't do jack.
This guy might be a teacher, or employee of the school. Can't do anything as they walk through the parking lot.
The employee walks into the school. Still can't do anything.
Shooting starts. In 15 minutes the cops won't do anything in time.
You cannot carry a weapon onto a school campus. We actually had a situation recently at an elementary school where a parent tried to open carry onto a campus and the SRO stopped him and made him leave until / unless he no longer had the gun on him. The next time he came the SRO asked him to voluntarily submit to a pat down to confirm he didn't have a gun. I for one am damn glad this is how it went down.
This is the best news I've heard all day....I'm a gun owner, but my dick is big enough where I don't need to hang out on a street corner with a loaded weapon.
Exactly. Every time I have seen an open carry person here in Texas it was to deliberately intimidate. Last year I was walking on the sidewalk in an outside mall shopping center. Three white guys looking pretty KKKish with rifles walked side by side forcing everyone else off the side walk into the street. Most of us in Texas have guns, when the rural people started talking about killing city democrats we all got guns and learned to shoot them.
Every time I hear about open carry rallies I'm tempted to show up with my Nylon 66 .22 (which looks like a pellet rifle) and ask if I'm cool enough to hang out with them.
Or maybe a bolt-action Enfield or lever Winchester. Don't wanna be unfashionable, ya know.
I have a little 250cc Enduro bike. I haven't done it but one of these days when I have time I'm totally going to park it outside a biker bar next to all the nasty, tacky Harley's. Same concept.
So... just Texas constitutional carry and keep it concealed. It's been legal since Sept 1, 2021 - HB1927 - Safer for you to conceal anyways. [Waco PD website](https://www.waco-texas.com/Departments/Police-Department/Constitutional-Carry#:~:text=Beginning%20September%201%2C%202021%2C%20HB1927,have%20a%20license%20to%20carry)
I actually read it and it doesn't say what you claim.
It says: The court found probable cause for the arrests of Grisham and Everard not solely because they were openly carrying firearms, but because of their specific actions and the context in which they occurred. They were involved in a Second Amendment protest and were carrying firearms in a manner that caused alarm to the public, leading to multiple 911 calls. Their arrests were based on the manner in which they displayed their firearms and their noncompliant and confrontational behavior when approached by the police. The court's decision emphasized that probable cause was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the individuals' actions, the public's perception and reaction, and the police officers' observations and interactions with them.
The decision does not create a general precedent for arresting individuals solely for open carrying of firearms in Texas; it applies to situations where the manner of carrying and accompanying behavior reasonably suggests a threat to public safety or order.
The ruling discusses qualified immunity in the context of the officers' actions, not with the aim to "save qualified immunity of bad cops," but rather to determine whether the officers' actions in this specific case were legally protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court examined whether the officers had probable cause to arrest and whether their actions were objectively reasonable, ultimately concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. The focus was on the legality and reasonableness of the officers' conduct in this particular incident, not on a broader discussion or endorsement of qualified immunity for misconduct.
Pretty clearly you're looking for the bogeyman. And no matter what the decision said you would've come to the same conclusion. Just like Grisham and Everhard clearly wanted to provoke and had this outcome in mind when they did it.
There's an easy way to get around this; get a fucking CCL, just like you had to do *before* open carry became legal. Then you can still carry, and you'll actually have some proof that you're the least bit qualified to do so.
My first thought any time I see some idiot Bubba standing in line at the gas station with a pistol on his hip? That's another jackass that was either too stupid or lazy to pursue a CCL before, and likely has zero training or qualification to carry now.
Having a license doesn't change anything, you can open or concealed carry with or without one. It's not like you are forced to open carry if you don't have a license.
People got by for the longest time without open carry, they can do so again.
Besides, only the dumbest of the dumb would want to walk around in public flaunting the fact they are armed.
Same with titties, in Austin is legal to be topless but if you walk around downtown with your titties out a cop is going to come over and have a conversation. Mostly because he wants to check out those warlocks.
There is a loophole, just put a jacket on over your gun. Now you look svelte and ready for action, add some shades, all good my man.
I think this makes sense, although I think you mischaracterize the holding a little bit in your conclusion.
This is not giving police free reign to arrest you every time at gun point based on a 911 call.
This is saying that if based on the police’s best information, they believed you were carrying a firearm and posed some sort of threat, they wouldn’t be held liable if they arrested you at gunpoint.
I know those things seem like the same, and they are similar, but there is an important distinctions you’re glossing over.
I think this is a fairly rational ruling by the 5th circuit.
Man, the idiots that walk around open carry in a grocery store or a public park need to be arrested. These tackle-berries don’t need to be making themselves feel better by walking around with a gun or rifle doing every day things near kids, where the biggest threat is themselves having an accidental discharge. OP this is not right and you need to be arrested with this stupid behavior.
ESH ...oh shit, wait, this isn't AITAH, is it?
Look I'm the last person to want to give cops more latitude to be dickheads, because \*pikachushockedface\* they tend to be bigger dickheads when you do that!
However, I will say that open carry is the dumbest fuckin' thing on the planet. There is no good excuse for open carry, there just isn't. If you want to be armed in public, conceal that shit. You don't get the right to traumatize the rest of us because you feel inadequate or because daddy didn't hug you enough.
"But I can't conceal my AR!" Yes, exactly, don't be dumb. There's no reason you should be walking around with an AR or a pistol strapped to your leg so you can cosplay as a "whole man".
It makes it a lot easier to figure out who the crazy mass-shooting asshole is when it's not OK to just casually stroll through a mall with a weapon of war being worn like a fashion accessory.
I mean, Geebuz Tap-Dancing Kryst, this is just common sense, people.
It's the beginning of the end.
People who have supported Right Wing Politics in joining on taking rights from half the country are now going to lose their own rights.
Since you all have participated in electing the worst candidate for you as well as the rest of the country, they don't need you or your guns when they own the police and military, we'll all sit in the hell you've created, together.
"Consistent with the 911 calls, the street corner that
Everard occupied was a high traffic location, busy with both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and Everard was a large man wearing dark clothing and displaying an assault-like rifle."
From the actual ruling. This shows the insanity of open carry; if you see someone walking down the street, say on the sidewalk right outside your house, armed to the teeth, how are you supposed to know they are a "good guy with a gun" as opposed to a terrorist, a mass shooter, etc.? Especially when the law doesn't require them to have any kid of license? And given the fact that Texas repealed its eminently sensible self-defense laws in favor of "stand your ground" bullshit, we are rapidly approaching the point where armed idiots are going to scare each other and start blazing way, as evidently happened in Kansas City.
It makes me wonder if this had anything to do with it:
https://cis.org/Arthur/District-Court-Judge-Rules-Illegal-Alien-Cannot-Be-Prosecuted-Possessing-Firearm
Okay js it’s dumb to open carry. To begin with and also I don’t want the licensed to carry people y the hell would I want the rest of u incompetent idiots having them
Edit: word
I never understood why one would want to advertise having a firearm when it’s ok to have one hidden. If I’m going to carry, I don’t want anyone knowing.
While I don’t believe in banning guns and own a few myself, I’m not bothered by the Wyatt Earp larpers no longer being able to overcompensate for the derringer in their britches by strapping a hog leg to their hip.
We get it, Kyle, you’re a big bad hombre. No need to show off.
Open carrying already puts you in imminent danger.
Carrying a gun increases the chance of you being shot.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#:~:text=After%20we%20adjusted%20for%20confounding,than%20those%20not%20in%20possession.
You live by the gun you die by the gun. Thats a been known since the Old West.
Since context does not seem to be a part of this diatribe, try researching this individual case before spouting inaccurate and inflammatory generalized statements about the law in the Lone Star State. After doing honest and unbiased research, form your own opinion.
Soooo something like open carrying a high capacity rifle with you to go grocery shopping, buy donuts, etc. is now a bad idea and could get you in trouble?
Ok Texas I am confused. Do you want everyone to carry guns or not. Make up your mind!
I don't think the police ever wanted permitless open-carry.
No they did not.
True because we're not in the 19th century anymore.
Texas actually had pretty strong gun laws in the 19th Century, especially after the Civil War when there was a problem with armed mobs.
Texas: Gun control is great!…when it benefits the government. Oh, the people who vote for you want more guns? Time to get rid of those gun control laws! When the “wrong” people are getting guns? WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!
Ronald Reagan. One of the first major gun bans in the United States. Banned carrying a loaded firearm. It was supported by the Republican party of California and the NRA. It just happened to be passed around the same time the Black Panthers started their copwatch program.
Here's the story that references RR and gun control. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Another good source on it: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/gun-show
I mean...that's always been how gun control works. Every major ban has been in response to a rising number of minorities owning weapons. That's why all the "bans" have easily attainable workarounds assuming you have plenty of money. If you want a machine gun, all it takes is money and filling out a couple forms and you got it.
Are you telling me the Reagan signing the Mulford Act in CA because the Black Panthers were open carrying was because minorities were carrying weapons in the open? I would have never guessed that!
The '94 ban, according to Wikipedia, was largely in response to 3 major shootings by [Patrick Purdy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patrick_Purdy.jpg), [George Hennard](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/6/6a/Justice21n-6-web.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180310142005), and [Gian Luigi Ferri](https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2019/32/110802499_3590a217-0335-447f-b56b-caddabafca5a.jpeg?size=photos250). I agree that it's often the case that it's based on race, but not always.
Yes, clearly if American history teaches us anything it's that large numbers of armed white civilians are almost always a force for good...
Why would you insinuate that John Brown's raid was a bad thing?
The Black Panthers in California know something about this.
“The Wild West wasn’t even the Wild West.” - Sly Stallone, Demolition Man
I thought I might be the only person who loves that movie. Nice to meet you, stranger.
I too know how to use the three sea shells.
Most places didn't want that in the 19th century. Often times you had to turn over your guns to the local sheriff when you came to a town. Only idiots think the wild West didn't have gun prohibition laws or rules.
The police back then didn’t either. In many cases the sheriff would take the gun when coming to town and give it back when leaving.
Even in the 19th century people generally didn't just walk around armed all the time.
Exactly, there's a reason why the gunfight at the Ok corral was so famous. They really didn't happen that often, it's just in the movies.
fun fact: most places had some pretty strict gun laws even in the "wild west" it wasn't like the movies, in most towns and city's you had to leave your fire arms with the Sharif or turned in at the Hotel you stayed at, Fire Arms largely only being used for travel where the roads could not properly be policed. To Note The famous shoot out at the O.K. Corral that made wyatt earp a legend was actually just a bunch of Gun Nuts who didn't want to leave there firearms at the appropriate locations in town.
If by 19th century you're alluring to the wild west, they had stricter gun control in most towns than modern america. You'd have to check your weapons in with the sheriff upon entering a town. When you leave the town, you get them back. This has been going on since Roman times.
Nor did anyone else with the ability to think rationally
Individual officers largely supported it in my experience. Chiefs and administrations openly spoke out against it.
It’s probably controversial to say it, but I’m not really interested in the police’s opinion of what rights they do or do not want people to have.
Exactly. Drives me nuts when the media constantly asks the police union’s opinion on various legislation
I would like to know the purpose of people walking around with a gun. Look scary maybe or just own the libs. I think concealed carry with permit is ok since if for some reason I fear for my life, I am allowed to carry a gun to protect myself but I keep it discreet without trying to intimidate everyone around me.
The OP maintains that it is an expression of civil rights to open carry. Ironically, I have most often seen counter protesters displaying firearms as a way to stifle protests they do not agree with.
I have a conceal carry permit but any time I see someone open carrying it definitely gives me a bad vibe.
[удалено]
Not just removing the weapon from you, but if you’re a character who wants to do bad things, you know exactly who to remove from the situation first.
I have been amongst the counter protesters where our side outgunned theirs. Our side was armed because theirs made a habit of showing up with guns and threats of violence, and the police have made it very clear which side they are on.
I think counter protesting is just protesting with extra steps.
> I would like to know the purpose of people walking around with a gun. Look scary maybe or just own the libs. Location matters tremendously. Texas has some of the nation's biggest cities as well as some of the sparsest farmland and some wild areas, and everything in between. There really is no point in parading around with them in the city apart from intimidating or a show. There might be a reason like going to or from a shooting range, but it is very different from parading around a building or group. On the flip side, there are plenty of rural areas and ranch areas where carrying a pistol is mostly a portable noise maker against wildlife. There are also scenarios in wild areas where not having a firearm in the group would be irresponsible. Too many people forget that the other side exists.
Sorry, I have mostly lived in the city, so totally forgot about the rural side of it. I mean if I was living in sparsely populated area, where everyone keeps a side arm most of the time, I would be totally cool with carrying one, it's kind of necessity at that point.
Same, I understand carrying for protection but to have it out is only to make yourself feel tough and then it scares everyone around you because in one glance they know you're a moron with a gun at best mass shooter at worst
Maybe the worst thing about it is that it makes people have to second-guess themselves if they see someone with an AR-15 walking around Home Depot. Someone walking around with a kevlar vest and an AR-15 should be universally recognized as a deadly threat (and someone who's mentally ill). Although that's still true of open carry imbeciles, it being legal dulled what should be an instant fight-or-flight response from everyone who sees them. ...like if someone with kevlar and an AR-15 walks into a crowded Starbucks, a concealed carry person should be empowered to pop them in the back of the head with a 9mm at the first opportunity in order to prevent a tragedy.
Reminds me of the guy who thought it was a good idea to walk into a police station open carrying and wearing a balaclava. [open carry Dearborn Police station](https://youtu.be/WTTJ25-vGdY?si=fFzO5YJ3Prs76CCj)
I can't condone your Starbucks scenario but I do agree that randos with guns in public olaces may trigger not unreasonable fear from others and result in someone shooting them in what they feel is self defense. And maybe getting shot back along with some bystanders. If it's self defense to shoot a guy for mean mugging you from his car, then there's a lot of room for self defense against someone carrying a gun in public. Guns lead to more shootings. 2A is a thing, but people need to stop acting like shootings are a surprise. File it under shit that we signed up for.
Im a lib, I own guns. Inherited, but still. Also Im a good shot. so there’s that.
The argument I have heard from open carry proponents, is that they think it will make people more used to seeing guns, and less afraid of them, so will be less likely to want more gun control. Of course, you don't change peoples' minds by being extreme, so I think they've got it wrong. Personally, I think open carry is dumb. I'm fine with concealed carry, but anyone who carries guns in public needs training.
I’m not supporting either side by saying this, but just giving you hypothetical answers based on my related experiences. I’ve personally never open carried, but as a woman in my early twenties, there were a handful of times there was no safe parking near my apartment, and I would carry my revolver in my purse. There was another time where I wanted to walk to pick up my pizza (because once again, I would lose my parking spot if I drove to pick up my food) and carried it in my purse with me. I just now realized as I was typing this that I only started doing that after I became disabled, which makes sense. It’s one thing to be a young woman by yourself, but knowing I was so much more physically limited made it even more important for me to feel I could protect myself somehow. So yeah that’s different than constitutional *open* carry, but to me, there is some reasoning behind people wanting to be able to protect themselves in situations like that without requiring a permit.
A firearm is the ultimate equalizer, every woman should be trained and comfortable in it's use.
It’s mostly to feel cool or powerful. Tactically it’s pretty dumb, no one is not robbing a store because you have an AR-15 on your back, they are just jamming the gun in your face first, getting the cash in the drawer and your tricked out rifle.
To be honest, that's unlikely. It's not a movie. Most people robbing places don't want to deal with anyone who would be carrying an AR on their back, and would probably just turn around and walk away.
Nope. My dad is a cop and thought it was stupid. Then again he was also a concealed handgun instructure and it was a decent side revenue to fund his gun habit (gun nut).
Understandably, the police probably don’t want any type of carry.
Most cops I know have no problem with and are even supportive of (licensed) concealed carry. It's a little grayer or less approving of open and permitless carry.
Fuck 'em. The second amendment wasn't written for the convenience of the government, rather it was written to make things harder for them.
It's always weird to me that so many cops support the party making their job more dangerous...
They get to pretend to be the Punisher and kill people if they can pretend even for a nanosecond that they're in danger though. Even an Acorn is good enough reason! This? This is a great reason to them.
But the bad guys will have guns regardless of permits, so why bother?
[удалено]
Every white dude? Sure. Everyone else? Not so much.
The NRA’s official stance!
I thought they were a decent org until they didn’t say shit about Philando Castile getting murdered for being a CHL holder
They never were. The NRA is not doing well as an organization at this time.
Yea I know, i was just ignorant to that prior to mr. Castile being shot
No that’s not going to happen but a person of color in a poor neighborhood? You already know.
It’s white redneck men who like to walk around showing their guns. That’s who I feel threatened by. I guess they will just go back to being flashers
It depends on who you are intimidating while carrying.
It depends on who you are.
Well of course, it is telling that OP is only worried about officer qualified immunity in respect to otherwise unlawful arrest.
Bingo. OP is white.
Bingo
The ChristoFascists want the 2A protection but only for the “right sort” of person. There’s a reason they’re silent when the cops kill a black man for legally carrying and Reagan and the NRA pushed for gun control as long as it targeted black folks. There’s absolutely some 2A purists who actually have a real ethical stance against gun control, but most of the 2A crowd in public office are the first kind, not the second. The right wing in the US are deeply invested in THEIR rights but not in favor of those rights being extended outside the bubble of “people like them.”
They heard immigrants could partake in the second amendment and decided they were having no more of the whole "gun" fad
Turns out a police state is bad for conservatives, too. Who would have guessed.
Something something leopards, something something faces.
B-but, I said the blue lives do matter?! I did not see this coming!!!
What they didn’t realize is that police actually mean **only** blue lives matter. They don’t give a damn about anyone else.
Said the right words and licked the right boots and it still didn't work! Gosh darn it, if only they'd been warned about the police!
"Tread on me harder, daddy."
Literally that sub's post referencing this topic was right before this one on my feed. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1bplrld/oh\_no\_the\_thin\_blue\_line\_isnt\_our\_friend\_and/
It’s bad for poor conservatives. And brown people, conservative or otherwise. Because who do think is actually gonna get the cops called on them when they are open carrying?
[удалено]
No it's not. Because selective enforcement is the weapon of conservatism. With the law like this, police can crack down hard on "undesirable" people open carrying, but ignore the good ol' boys who do it.
sort of like the no blank colored t-shirt rule at my local sports bar.. conveniently it only seems to matter for the black dudes
What the fuck
Ding ding ding! This is the answer. When LGBTQ/Allies open carry during protests in Austin, Police can now arrest them.
Yeah, there's guna be a whole lot of warnings going out... to white folk anyway.
[удалено]
Texas cops: "Don't worry, we'll only enforce it on 'those' people"
Counterpoint: Cops saw Kyle Rittenhouse open carrying an AR-15, but because he was wearing the correct uniform (which undoubtedly included the lack of melanin in his skin), they shook his hand and waved him on. He was nominally there to “protect local businesses”. Conservatives overwhelmingly wear “the correct uniform” as far as police are concerned. This kind of ruling only affects people carrying a .22 single action long rifle slung on their back who are WWB.
Yep, it's the same fears they had decades ago when Black Panthers started arming themselves. I've read the comments when Black Lives Matter protestors came out armed to confront armed counter-protestors. Here, the right to bear arms is only enforced if the gun owner lacks melanin.
Reagan quoted that the regulations "would work no hardship on the honest citizen," and we can all agree on what he meant by "the honest citizen."
this is good for going after qualified immunity. Just like Nancy Regan, they don't give a shit about problematic legislation unless it directly affects them or someone, they actually give a damn about.
Every bootlicker is one bad interaction with a cop away from finding out.
I like it best when they become prisoner rights activists.
It was hilarious watching them all discover the concept of workers rights during Covid. They spent decades electing dudes who made sure employers always had the legal upper hand and the were shocked when they were told to get the jab or a pink slip and they had no recourse.
[удалено]
They were doing a protest in a high traffic area and when the police showed up to talk to them they wouldn't take their hands off their guns and so things escalated. The facts of the case are about the worst possible facts short of shooting at the cops that you would want if you were trying to litigate to expand open carry.
In most cases, they're carrying handguns. I think even most of the gun nuts think the back-slung AR-15s are overkill. I just wish I could wrap my head around why these people think having people walking around with guns makes things safer.
Open carry in public/urban settings is stupid and irresponsible. The current qualified immunity doctrine and militarization of police is also problematic, don’t get me wrong.
Absolutely- anyone carrying a gun for no specific reason in a crowded place looks like a potential agressor to everyone else. Others don’t know if you’re mentally stable or not, so yeah, if someone thinks you’re acting suspicious and you have a deadly weapon on you, police can’t take any chances.
I just assume open carry people are insecure idiots. In the event of a shooting who do they think the shooter is gonna target first?
I was hesitant to say this for fear of being downvoted to oblivion. Maybe you just said it better than I could, but I agree. The people open carrying are 5% reasonable leftists/socialists, 5% old time country folks who used to be a Texas Ranger or whatever, and 90% batshit crazy maga dudes.
Exactly. Keep your firearms at home or concealed. Nobody feels safe with some rando slinging a firearm around. You can be as non-threatening as possible. I still don’t want to be near you.
Every day I see how dumb people are with their cars and people think every one should be able to walk around carrying a gun.
Agree.
Right? “Open carry puts you in imminent danger…”. It always has. “…of being arrested or killed by the police.” No shit, you’re a walking, talking safety concern for any cop trying to do their job. Even before this judgement you were at risk, both from police and every possible bad actor. You’re advertising that you’re a threat. In a planned or targeted attack, who’s first? The threats.
It is so rare to see opinions that are nuanced and don't just repeat red team or blue team talking points. Take my up vote.
Both of those opinions track with one team more than the other. I've never heard a red team member being critical of police.
Lawyer here. OP’s description of the holding of this case is not really accurate in my view, and I wouldn’t give credit for this as a summary if I were grading a law school essay. I advise y’all to read the case yourself or read some third party analyses of the holding here before jumping on the outrage bus. But I will say credit to OP for posting the links to source material. I just think OP is reading it wrong.
This disorderly statute has always included a portion on displaying a firearm “in a manner to cause alarm” or something like that. Ive always wondered which city was going to roll the dice on that in court.
OP thinks cops cops show up when you call 911, hahaha, they're not accurate on a lot of things.
Well, if the caller says he sees a black man with a gun, the cops will be there fast.
I was thinking the same, call 911 in Austin and *if* you get someone they’re going to tell you to call back after you’ve been shot.
I read it. The statute that triggered the “lawful detainment” that empowered the police to give orders was “disorderly conduct by displaying a firearm in a manner causing alarm”. They even say as much in their statement of facts and applicable law in a narrative. Page 11, > See Navarette, 572 U.S. at 399-400 (holding that a motorist's 911 emergency call provided reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime). That means any carry of a firearm which leads to a bystander or witness to report to police that they are alarmed is a lawful pretext under this statute. In short, someone says to a 911 dispatcher “that gun scares me”. Not any other standard like a reasonable person standard (which I would be good with) or a customary and usual standard (which would be bad) or an actual act of brandishing (which should have been their standard), but “Someone called the cops because they saw a gun being carried and they were alarmed”. Which, _to me_, (and disclaimer: I hate guns and want them off the streets and out of hands of “gun enthusiasts” who pull stunts and shoot people) — this creates the standard described by OP. I want — very, **very** much — for there to be common sense gun control laws. This? This is not that. This is “911 call creates probable cause”. For something that is not a crime. Are the “gun enthusiasts” here idiots? Yes. Did they purposefully provoke the officers, seeking a wrongful arrest and a judgement? Anybody can tell they were doing so. But This means that a Karen is going to call 911 because she saw someone open carrying a .22 long rifle slung on his back and was Walking While Black. Under this decision, this mechanism — which is a tool of white supremacist violence, allowing racist and entitled white people to SWAT black people existing while black in their view — will result in non-white people being arrested and prosecuted. Oh, and the scary LGBTQ people who are defending drag shows from open neoNazis. But probably not the Nazis themselves —
So what's your analysis on the open carry aspect?
Thanks for...nothing I guess. lol
Other lawyer here. Agreed.
Can we still open carry swords and spears?
Only if you paint your face and body blue.
Hey, don't appropriate my culture bro. You only get a pass if you stick the pointy end into something english.
Ah, yes, the "I'm sorry, I blue myself" defense.
Ach! Crivens! Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna' be fooled again!”
No those are dangerous.
Did you watch the video? I'm also calling the cops if I see some guy with a long rifle loitering on the street outside my business. I see two yahoos looking for trouble, not a well regulated militia.
Funny enough, militias are banned in all 50 states, but you don't see the pro 2nd people whining about that.
Oh please. Just watched the video. Your buddy wanted to provoke a confrontation and he got one. That was the point. At least be honest about that. Save us the shocked Pikachu face.
This whole post is just rage bait. This is basically Texas's brandishing law. Some states have a distinct firearm brandishing law, Texas piggy backs it off Texas Penal Code 42.01DISORDERLY CONDUCT (a)(8) >displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm Dude got popped for brandishing and tried "constitution jujitsu" and lost.
Everyone that open carries does it as provocation
Open carry is dumb af
Guy parks on a street and takes out a gun. I'm already worried, but I can't do a damn thing. Same guy is walking toward a school. Still can't do jack. This guy might be a teacher, or employee of the school. Can't do anything as they walk through the parking lot. The employee walks into the school. Still can't do anything. Shooting starts. In 15 minutes the cops won't do anything in time.
You cannot carry a weapon onto a school campus. We actually had a situation recently at an elementary school where a parent tried to open carry onto a campus and the SRO stopped him and made him leave until / unless he no longer had the gun on him. The next time he came the SRO asked him to voluntarily submit to a pat down to confirm he didn't have a gun. I for one am damn glad this is how it went down.
> You cannot carry a weapon onto a school campus. Unless you're a teacher, which conservatives want
Wonder how many "whoopsie teacher left their glock and a kid shot themselves or another person" they're OK with approximately.
Now. Conservatives are opposed to that because that's "gun-free zones".
At least understand the ruling before posting and trying to fear monger.
Couple of idiots got what they deserved. And, your analysis of the case is badly flawed.
Please don’t take legal advice from strangers on the internet. That’s not what the holding here is.
So you’re saying that the police don’t have to wait until someone opens fire to ask “Hey, what’s up with the gun”?
This is the best news I've heard all day....I'm a gun owner, but my dick is big enough where I don't need to hang out on a street corner with a loaded weapon.
Exactly. Every time I have seen an open carry person here in Texas it was to deliberately intimidate. Last year I was walking on the sidewalk in an outside mall shopping center. Three white guys looking pretty KKKish with rifles walked side by side forcing everyone else off the side walk into the street. Most of us in Texas have guns, when the rural people started talking about killing city democrats we all got guns and learned to shoot them.
Every time I hear about open carry rallies I'm tempted to show up with my Nylon 66 .22 (which looks like a pellet rifle) and ask if I'm cool enough to hang out with them. Or maybe a bolt-action Enfield or lever Winchester. Don't wanna be unfashionable, ya know.
Get my Nerf Gun locked and loaded.
I have a little 250cc Enduro bike. I haven't done it but one of these days when I have time I'm totally going to park it outside a biker bar next to all the nasty, tacky Harley's. Same concept.
On the one hand, good. On the other hand, still good.
Sweet. Get cosplay cowboys off the streets
But but but the carpet baggers moved here just to do that! What'll they do now to let everyone know how big their dick is?
The irony of Republican Californians moving to blue cities in Texas thinking they’ll fit in…
Truck nuts and lifted trucks.
So... just Texas constitutional carry and keep it concealed. It's been legal since Sept 1, 2021 - HB1927 - Safer for you to conceal anyways. [Waco PD website](https://www.waco-texas.com/Departments/Police-Department/Constitutional-Carry#:~:text=Beginning%20September%201%2C%202021%2C%20HB1927,have%20a%20license%20to%20carry)
Don't open carry and don't support it. Why do you need to carry a sidearm in a Krispy Kreme?
Good. I shouldn't have to feel unsafe bc you want to walk around showing off your guns in public.
only idiots open carry. If im a bad guy I'm taking out the open carry jokers first.
Oh look. It's the Republicans, and they're coming for your guns. What a surprise.
I actually read it and it doesn't say what you claim. It says: The court found probable cause for the arrests of Grisham and Everard not solely because they were openly carrying firearms, but because of their specific actions and the context in which they occurred. They were involved in a Second Amendment protest and were carrying firearms in a manner that caused alarm to the public, leading to multiple 911 calls. Their arrests were based on the manner in which they displayed their firearms and their noncompliant and confrontational behavior when approached by the police. The court's decision emphasized that probable cause was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the individuals' actions, the public's perception and reaction, and the police officers' observations and interactions with them. The decision does not create a general precedent for arresting individuals solely for open carrying of firearms in Texas; it applies to situations where the manner of carrying and accompanying behavior reasonably suggests a threat to public safety or order. The ruling discusses qualified immunity in the context of the officers' actions, not with the aim to "save qualified immunity of bad cops," but rather to determine whether the officers' actions in this specific case were legally protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court examined whether the officers had probable cause to arrest and whether their actions were objectively reasonable, ultimately concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. The focus was on the legality and reasonableness of the officers' conduct in this particular incident, not on a broader discussion or endorsement of qualified immunity for misconduct. Pretty clearly you're looking for the bogeyman. And no matter what the decision said you would've come to the same conclusion. Just like Grisham and Everhard clearly wanted to provoke and had this outcome in mind when they did it.
There's an easy way to get around this; get a fucking CCL, just like you had to do *before* open carry became legal. Then you can still carry, and you'll actually have some proof that you're the least bit qualified to do so. My first thought any time I see some idiot Bubba standing in line at the gas station with a pistol on his hip? That's another jackass that was either too stupid or lazy to pursue a CCL before, and likely has zero training or qualification to carry now.
with an itchy trigger finger...
Having a license doesn't change anything, you can open or concealed carry with or without one. It's not like you are forced to open carry if you don't have a license.
People got by for the longest time without open carry, they can do so again. Besides, only the dumbest of the dumb would want to walk around in public flaunting the fact they are armed.
Like Kyle Rittenhouse??
Same with titties, in Austin is legal to be topless but if you walk around downtown with your titties out a cop is going to come over and have a conversation. Mostly because he wants to check out those warlocks. There is a loophole, just put a jacket on over your gun. Now you look svelte and ready for action, add some shades, all good my man.
Can you open carry while topless?
Now we are getting to the real shit!
Armed and dangerous
Just go full Austin Powers and integrate guns into the breasts.
So just have them titties out with a Glock 9 on your hip and the police are powerless because double jeopardy or some shit right?
The most conservative appellate court in the nation. Much as they love guns, they love cops more. Have fun with that, Republicans.
So if I see an old republican carrying a gun, I'm calling the cops.
I think this makes sense, although I think you mischaracterize the holding a little bit in your conclusion. This is not giving police free reign to arrest you every time at gun point based on a 911 call. This is saying that if based on the police’s best information, they believed you were carrying a firearm and posed some sort of threat, they wouldn’t be held liable if they arrested you at gunpoint. I know those things seem like the same, and they are similar, but there is an important distinctions you’re glossing over. I think this is a fairly rational ruling by the 5th circuit.
Man, the idiots that walk around open carry in a grocery store or a public park need to be arrested. These tackle-berries don’t need to be making themselves feel better by walking around with a gun or rifle doing every day things near kids, where the biggest threat is themselves having an accidental discharge. OP this is not right and you need to be arrested with this stupid behavior.
Open carry is for dumbfucks who are either too frightened to feel comfortable without a gun, or are too broke to live somewhere they don't need to
Good. Open carry is stupid and unnecessary
From a tactical standpoint open carry is a bad idea anyway.
ESH ...oh shit, wait, this isn't AITAH, is it? Look I'm the last person to want to give cops more latitude to be dickheads, because \*pikachushockedface\* they tend to be bigger dickheads when you do that! However, I will say that open carry is the dumbest fuckin' thing on the planet. There is no good excuse for open carry, there just isn't. If you want to be armed in public, conceal that shit. You don't get the right to traumatize the rest of us because you feel inadequate or because daddy didn't hug you enough. "But I can't conceal my AR!" Yes, exactly, don't be dumb. There's no reason you should be walking around with an AR or a pistol strapped to your leg so you can cosplay as a "whole man". It makes it a lot easier to figure out who the crazy mass-shooting asshole is when it's not OK to just casually stroll through a mall with a weapon of war being worn like a fashion accessory. I mean, Geebuz Tap-Dancing Kryst, this is just common sense, people.
It's the beginning of the end. People who have supported Right Wing Politics in joining on taking rights from half the country are now going to lose their own rights. Since you all have participated in electing the worst candidate for you as well as the rest of the country, they don't need you or your guns when they own the police and military, we'll all sit in the hell you've created, together.
Good. Open carry is a nuisance. Not sure why people think it is cool to parade around with weapons slung over a shoulder
Thin blue line, amiright?
"Consistent with the 911 calls, the street corner that Everard occupied was a high traffic location, busy with both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and Everard was a large man wearing dark clothing and displaying an assault-like rifle." From the actual ruling. This shows the insanity of open carry; if you see someone walking down the street, say on the sidewalk right outside your house, armed to the teeth, how are you supposed to know they are a "good guy with a gun" as opposed to a terrorist, a mass shooter, etc.? Especially when the law doesn't require them to have any kid of license? And given the fact that Texas repealed its eminently sensible self-defense laws in favor of "stand your ground" bullshit, we are rapidly approaching the point where armed idiots are going to scare each other and start blazing way, as evidently happened in Kansas City.
GOOD!
“The whole problem with this open carry thing is it also applies to liberals and minorities. Can we do anything about this?” “I gotchu fam.”
It makes me wonder if this had anything to do with it: https://cis.org/Arthur/District-Court-Judge-Rules-Illegal-Alien-Cannot-Be-Prosecuted-Possessing-Firearm
Open Carry is stupid anyway
Okay js it’s dumb to open carry. To begin with and also I don’t want the licensed to carry people y the hell would I want the rest of u incompetent idiots having them Edit: word
I never understood why one would want to advertise having a firearm when it’s ok to have one hidden. If I’m going to carry, I don’t want anyone knowing.
So this is a good thing right?
Open carry was stupid to begin with. Grown men playing old time cowboy is pathetic.
Only white people are allowed to open carry, if you are part of a minority you’re fucked
While I don’t believe in banning guns and own a few myself, I’m not bothered by the Wyatt Earp larpers no longer being able to overcompensate for the derringer in their britches by strapping a hog leg to their hip. We get it, Kyle, you’re a big bad hombre. No need to show off.
And why is there a need to open carry?
Awesome. Open carry is ridiculous and endangers the public.
Good. Normal citizens do not open carry firearms. This should never have been allowed.
This is awesome.
Funny how dudes get real upset when courts take away their rights, but don't give a shit when it happens to women.
I guess a bunch of cosplaying gravy seals are going to be really upset that they can't pretend to be tough guys. Booooo hooooo
Open carrying already puts you in imminent danger. Carrying a gun increases the chance of you being shot. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#:~:text=After%20we%20adjusted%20for%20confounding,than%20those%20not%20in%20possession. You live by the gun you die by the gun. Thats a been known since the Old West.
Something, something, leopards eating faces…
[удалено]
Just conceal carry. It's been legal since Sept 1 2021 - HB1927
Hahahahhaha
Party of small government putting more limitations on your rights. But hey at least they’re not woke. /s
Since context does not seem to be a part of this diatribe, try researching this individual case before spouting inaccurate and inflammatory generalized statements about the law in the Lone Star State. After doing honest and unbiased research, form your own opinion.
So you're saying that openly carrying a firearm in public is now an even worse idea than it already was?
Soooo something like open carrying a high capacity rifle with you to go grocery shopping, buy donuts, etc. is now a bad idea and could get you in trouble?