tvc184

This was all orchestrated in the old smoke filled room scenarios from the old days to get Harris into the presidency.

I don’t know but I wish they would. You would think that merely written policy is under freedom of information.

But getting away from the media’s misrepresentation which is normal, they are interesting articles.

Headlines and reporting… The subheadlines in their first article says that the Spanish flu did not originate in Spain. Then you read the article and it says… Well, it may have originated in Spain but we don’t know. If you don’t know, why the headlines? could the headlines have read… Spanish flu is of uncertain origin? Nahhhh..... that might get less clicks..

I am not going against your opinion which is OK but the current license to carry law has no firearms training either. If the premise of this bill being bad is it there is no training, well… there is none before this.

It is an interesting deal but reading it, it would be hard to enforce or will not be enforced in most cases.

But again, the current LTC has no firearms training. While training may not be a bad thing, it is currently not required and a couple of million Texans have the LTC and most have no firearms training. What does this law change other than the tax to carry?

1. They have been charged in a crime and it is therefore public information. The officer in the shooting has not. 2. Epstein died a year and a half ago, not in January. Comparing apples to broccoli.

For the people that you speak of, and they definitely exist, do you think a four hour gun class will actually change anything? The current mandated training doesnot cover the handling or shooting of firearms.

This is just my opinion from talking with police officers face-to-face and on social media. An overwhelming percentage of police officers are for gun rights, period. An overwhelming percentage of police administrators (sheriffs, chiefs, etc.) are against gun rights.

For the last several legislative sessions (once every two years) at least one member of the Texas legislature has submitted a bill commonly called “constitutional carry” or basically carrying a handgun without any kind of license required. It normally does not get much traction however it has pushed Texas from the no handgun allowed to open carry with a license. Going back in history, basically since the Civil War Texas has not allowed the carrying of handguns in public. In the early 1990s the Texas legislature passed a concealed handgun license bill however Ann Richards vetoed it. That was significant. The significance of it was that she was defeated in the next election because of that and it ushered in the era of George W. Bush. That in turn propelled him to the presidency. Thanks Ann!! But back on topic… I believe in 1995 the legislature again passed a concealed handgun license and this time George Bush, as promised, signed the law. Texas for the first time since The Civil War allowed civilians to carry handguns in public. That original law required about a 16 hour class and a $240 license which like a drivers license had to be renewed every few years. The handgun had to be concealed and there were other limitations on locations such as not in hospitals, large amusement parks, racetrack, etc. For the most part however, a person wishing to take the class and pay the fees, could carry a handgun for protection. Over the years they have slowly eased up on the requirements and fees. Then they passed the license to carry which now allowed open carry a handgun as well as concealed. They have eventually reduced the licensing fee to I believe $40 now and reduce the class from two days to only four hours. Basically if you had four hours and a very few dollars, you could openly or concealed carry a handgun in Texas. The Texas legislature is back in session which began in the first week of January and ends in about 10 days. Like normal for the last few sessions, a bill was submitted to carry a handgun without a license or constitutional carry. It is just my opinion but I believe this year was different because of the national Democrats making such a move to get rid of gun rights. I believe that spurred some legislators to move forward where in past sessions they have not. The Constitutional carry bill (HB1927) went through the House of Representatives fairly easily (with no Dem support) and was then sent to the Senate. There it met some opposition even from the Republicans. It wasn’t so much opposition as it was wanting to tweak the bill by adding amendments. The Texas Senate then passed the bill however they added several amendments to it. I’m sure everyone knows the procedure but when the two houses pass similar bills, it cannot become law. Both houses must pass a Word for Word same bill for it to go to the governor. What happens if they are not exactly the same? It then goes to a committee and has conferees from both houses to see if they can work out a compromise that both will support. So the Senate Bill with its amendments went back to the House and they rejected Senate version of the bill. Eight days ago it was sent to the conferees to try to work out a compromise however the session is going to end in a few days. Well, late yesterday afternoon they reached an agreement that they believe they can get through both houses. I have not seen the final version yet because they have not posted it but I am assuming that some of the Senate amendments will remain (and having read them, I think that is a good thing). HB1927 is scheduled to be brought to a vote next week in both houses and I believe there’s about a 98% chance of it passing. The bill can still be killed but I think this is the year it will finally pass. The governor has already said that if the bill passes, he will sign it. Meaning?? Probably on September 1 of this year, people in Texas who are at least 21 years of age and have not been convicted of a felony or domestic violence or are ian illegal alien, can carry a concealed handgun or openly carry one as long as it is in a holster and can do so with no license, permit or school required.

Yes it is. Almost 4 decades of almost unimaginable sights that the public can only guess at and a frequency most most people did not know exists. In a department that averages 8-9 officers per shift, I have been to over 1,000 death scenes from all causes (several children), in the hospital maybe 6 times in the line of duty, 5 shooting incidents where I shot at someone, was shot at up close enough to actually see the gun pointing at me or my partner killing a guy about 10 feet from me, talked to people as they were dying, a few high speed chases including drive by shooting suspects, undercover operations, probably over 50, 000 contacts with the public, participated in more than 10,000 arrests, 10 years on swat, 30 years of teaching at the police academy............. I could go on but yes it becomes ingrained. A couple of weeks before I retired I ran into this post on Facebook. It was completely accidental but almost appropriate. Another officer in a police only forum was asking what it was like to retire because he had a couple of days to go or something like that. I was only a few days behind him and there were plenty of usual responses such as congratulations, you will love it, it will take a while but you will “eventually” wonder why you didn’t do it earlier, welcome to the club and so on. One said this however and I saved it..... >>>>>Author unknown; When Cops Retire When a good cop leaves the 'job' and retires to a better life, many are jealous, some are pleased and yet others, who may have already retired, wonder. We wonder if he knows what he is leaving behind, because we already know. We know, for example, that after a lifetime of camaraderie that few experience, it will remain as a longing for those past times. We know in the law enforcement life there is a fellowship which lasts long after the uniforms are hung up in the back of the closet . We know even if he throws them away, they will be on him with every step and breath that remains in his life. We also know how the very bearing of the man speaks of what he was and in his heart still is. These are the burdens of the job. You will still look at people suspiciously, still see what others do not see or choose to ignore and always will look at the rest of the law enforcement world with a respect for what they do; only grown in a lifetime of knowing. Never think for one moment you are escaping from that life. You are only escaping the 'job' and merely being allowed to leave 'active' duty. So what I wish for you is that whenever you ease into retirement, in your heart you never forget for one moment that 'Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called children of God,' and you are still a member of the greatest fraternity the world has ever known. There are those that think they understand. And then . . . There are cops.<<<<<

Thanks. It is tough to walk away from.

I appreciate it.

Thank you. I just ended my run two weeks ago, 37 years and (almost) 4 months. The things we see.....

The toughest part was waiting so long to shoot. I think legally the officer could have simply opened fire while the guy was holding her at knife point. There is no legal requirement to wait until he starts the motion forward with the blade, a requirement to negotiate or anything else. The threat was made, the weapon was displayed and he was standing in position to carry out the threat. The officer used good tactics in trying to de-escalate the situation but is my opinion it put the woman in more danger by allowing the man to possibly carry out the threat under the mantra of political correctness . Now officers have to risk their own lives and of victims by trying to talk a guy down who is in position to carry out a deadly threat. Here is a question I would like to ask for people that think the police such as this situation, handled it wrong. At what point should the police hold back from using force at the risk of an innocent person being killed? it is a sad position that some groups and some politicians have put the police in the position to not protect innocent victims. Overall it was an awesome job by the police officers on scene and particularly the one leading in front. They followed all of the current wishful thinking protocol to try to talk to person into surrendering, which is great, but in my opinion should not be done when it risks an innocent person‘s life. Is one thing for the officer to be in danger but their job is to protect the innocent first. This woman was obviously the victim. Way to go, Thin Blue Line.

This guy started off making bogus claims. Then he went on to make statements that did not exist in the ruling and completely misrepresent authorities of the police. Again, this is political spin. It absolutely was not a 2A case and had nothing to do with gun rights. In fact, the police could have legally seized the guns in a different manner but chose what they incorrectly saw as an easier solution. Basically you had a couple of officers that lied to the woman to gain entry into the house. According to the SCOTUS ruling, the police told the woman that her husband said they could go in to retrieve the guns. She said okay thinking that her husband had given consent. In fact it was the opposite and he told them NOT to take his guns. The officers’ lie tripped up their easy plan. They were stupid. A unanimous Court said so. There is nothing landmark about this decision except to uphold several previous decisions which have said there must be an emergency. In this case there was no emergency. They guy was in the hospital and his wife was home alone asking for no assistance. Where was any emergency? There wasn’t and that was all this ruling. This is a quote in the opening paragraph (not buried later in the decision) from the actual decision by Justice Thomas: “The question today is whether Cady’s (prior SCOTUS decision) acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrant- less searches and seizures in the home. It does not.”. Notice that it does not mention firearms. Why? As the quote states, it is about warrantless searches and seizures.... not firearms. ANYTHING seized by the officers in this case would have been thrown out as the entry was unlawful. The police could have seized a Twinkie stolen from a local convenience store and it would have been unlawful. It wouldn’t then be a Twinkie case. The headlines in the spin media wouldn’t proclaim, “Supreme Court rules that Twinkies cannot be seized as the Court upholds pastry rights”. Because... it wouldn’t be about Twinkies but unlawful entry. The guy in this video (like the original article in the OP) started off by talking red flag laws Yet again, this decision doesn’t mention or decide any red flag law. Unfortunately this guy on the same side of the aisle as me is either suffering from very little legal knowledge or he is so eaten up with his own rhetoric that he is intentionally making false statements. Either way......

The players who are probably making more than the head coach?

Like the saying goes, this isn’t a math contest.....

The lawsuit has been out there for a while and is utter nonsense. Basically they are saying, we don’t like your opinion so it is a fraud. Uhhhh .... it’s an opinion Hopefully it will get squashed in the federal courts if not the state court.

Many (or most) of my responses aren’t directed at the person that I quoted but I use their post to go into a topic. In this case I was trying to explain the reason that SCOTUS arrived at this decision which really wasn’t answering your post.

Go back and read my post that you quoted. I did not mention you. I only talked about the article you posted. I said “the article” seemed to imply that red flag laws were in play. It is political spin from the article. The ruling had nothing to do with red flag laws so why did they bring up something that was not a part of this ruling? Again, political spin. Grudge about what? I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Anyway, I was addressing the article you posted as disingenuous trying to make it about gun rights. It isn’t.

You could view it that way. The real issue in this case was not guns though. The issue that was addressed was the warrantless entry into the home. The most sacred part of the Fourth Amendment is being secure in your home. These cases start out under the premise that all entries into a home are unlawful without a warrant unless with consent. Then there are exceptions all based on an emergency. This case in my opinion doesn’t deal with firearms but the entry. Let’s say that they unlawfully entered looking for the handguns but didn’t find them. Once inside they seized illegal drugs that they viewed. In my opinion it is the exact same case. Nothing changes except what was seized. Had the police seized a pound of cocaine, it would have probably have the exact same outcome. It would not change from a gun case to a drug case. It was a warrantless entry case under the claim of an emergency. SCOTUS said this was not an emergency. About 3 hours before this thread was started, a detective texted me a link to the case and his opinion was, why such a case took so long to get to the Court as it seemed like a clear cut bad entry. My guess is that they might have been waiting on the right case or the trial courts and lower appeals courts were handling it. I have read and teach a few cases where the lower court makes a ruling and then a unanimous or 8-1 SCOTUS slaps them down. Those are kind of like, how stupid can you be? One such case was mentioned in this ruling, Brigham City v. Stuart. In that case the Utah SC ruled against the police. What did the police witness? A guy getting beat up pretty bad to the point of serious injury or maybe even death. The police entered to save the guy’s life as they were watching the assault through a glass door. Utah said, hey you didn’t have a warrant so your warrantless entry into the home was illegal. SCOTUS then slapped the Utah SC in a unanimous decision saying, what is the heck were you thinking? What were the police going to do, say sorry ma’am but we didn’t have a warrant so we let several guys beat your son to death in front of us. No, that is a very good example of an exigent circumstance. Just like this case was unanimous for no entry without a warrant, Brigham City was a unanimous case that entry without a warrant was absolutely legal. Time and emergency are the issues. So sometimes SCOTUS will take almost a no brainer case just to remind the courts that all searches are not prohibited, only unreasonable ones.

This is one of the no-brainer cases. It really does not set much of a precedent and just reaffirms previous court cases. They do that from time to time to remind the government/police what the rules are. In this case they changed nothing. They mention in the opinion that the police could still go into a home without a warrant but for many years there has been the requirement of an exigent or emergency circumstance. In prior court cases they use the explanation that an emergency is way you do not have to have to get a warrant. The police cannot go around the warrant requirement simply by saying it is an emergency. There has to be some kind of backing (usually described as “articulable facts”). In this case the guy voluntarily submitted himself for an evaluation, the police lied to his wife about what he said and then there was no immediate threat since he was gone. This again just re-affirmed previous cases. There needs to be an emergency and there must be no time for a warrant. Neither of those things existed in this case. like I said, every once in a while the supreme court will basically rule almost identical to a prior case it seems to me more like a reminder. The reminder might be sent to the lower courts because like in this case the lower federal court sided with the police. Sometimes the SCOTUS rulingS say… duhhhh.... circuit court, did you judges read our prior decisions? This would not have even made the news had a firearm not been the means by which the police claimed the ability to go into a house without a warrant. SCOTUS Mike issue about 120 decisions per session at most simply do not make the news. This is more like Clickbait. it is interesting but still,.....

I read every word of the case from SCOTUS and the article. I also read you limited comments. What did I miss?