Texas shootout among rival biker gangs leaves 9 dead

[JDGRUEN]

Witness: ‘It was a setup from start to finish’



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150524-witness-it-was-a-setup-from-start-to-finish.ece

[pegman]

Don't count your chickens. The radical Muslims in blighty will have taken you out of the picture by then.

Not likely, we headed northeast from Vermont to Ontario.

[impulse]

Ran across this in Wikipedia...

" It is a felony to carry a firearm while on the premises of a business that makes more than 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (colloquially "bars", "nightclubs", "taverns", "saloons", etc.). "

It would seem concealed carry is legal in the case of Twin Peaks as I seriously doubt more than 51% of their revenue is from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Rather scary to think that whether I'll be guilty of a felony, (or well within my legal rights), depends on an audit of Twin Peaks' books to see whether they sell more beer than food...

[NeverSure]

I'm guessing many of you have not been stopped lately. If asked to ID, you WILL ID, failure to do so means you go to jail. You can stand on your Constitutional rights all you want, they went out the window years ago, even if you are white, forget black or brown.

It has been that way all my life. Nothing new. If you are asked for ID, you produce it. I keep wondering how someone can not have a photo ID to vote.

If you are driving, yes because driving is a privilege under the law. You have to have a valid license and insurance and show it. But you don't have to talk to the police, although I would.

However, if I'm not driving as in a passenger or just walking down the street I don't have to give the police the time of day. If they have probable cause to believe I've committed a crime they can arrest me but I really have the right to remain silent. If they arrest me they can go down for false arrest if they don't have probable cause which they can articulate to a judge.

I simply don't have to talk to police ever. I have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment to The Constitution within the Bill of Rights.

Now, of course I would talk if the police stopped me because I'm nice and I like police. I'm just saying I wouldn't have to. Ever. Never.

[NeverSure]

I'm guessing many of you have not been stopped lately. If asked to ID, you WILL ID, failure to do so means you go to jail. You can stand on your Constitutional rights all you want, they went out the window years ago, even if you are white, forget black or brown. All that will get you is a trip to the local "Hilton", or shot. OK, you still have rights if white and rich. I got stopped at one of those illegal roadblocks in Texass some years ago when I was still a cop. The DPS officer saw my badge, asked where from, I said New Mexico, he said go on. I said you realize the Supreme Court just ruled against these, he said screw 'em we'll keep doing them. If you think you still have rights under the Constitution you are sadly mistaken. None of us know what happened in Waco and we don't know if it could have been handled better or not. This I will bet on, if it had been a black civil rights gathering or an OWS gathering, they would have been vamped by the cops from the git go.

See above. You're badly mistaken if you think you have to speak to a police officer.

[NeverSure]

There's an old tradition down there to check your guns at the town line before entering town and the saloon and that is not myth about the old West. The laws still allow such a policy...

"The laws still allow such a policy..."

No they don't. That would be illegal search and seizure. A cop can't lay a hand on me or even make me talk to him unless I'm under arrest. I'f it's false arrest meaning he doesn't have probable cause (which he can articulate to a judge) then he's going down for it.

I challenge you to get through even a simple traffic stop without answering the cops' questions, like where are you coming from, where are you headed, do you have any drugs or weapons in the car.

And I have been stopped and questioned at dozens of DUI checkpoints, with absolutely no "reasonable cause" to suspect I was doing anything wrong. Can't get through those without talking either. Because failure to answer gives them reasonable cause.

It would have been fairly easy to have a "random DUI" stop of all cyclists that day, with further scrutiny on those that presented reasonable cause.

Any evidence found in such an operation would probably be thrown out in court (if it made it to court), but the gunfight may not have happened. Or it may have happened anyway.

BTW, I'm not saying any of this is fair, or right. It kind of sucks. But that's the country we live in nowadays.

5th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Right To Remain Silent. The Bill of Rights meaning The Rights of The People over The Government.

[NeverSure]

Outside of maybe the first shooter they were just "standing their ground" weren't they? This is just the inevitable conclusion to the wacko gun laws in parts of that country. "You need to be armed in case something happens". Well something did and this is the result. In any civilized country with sane hand gun laws the cops would have disarmed and arrested them prior to any of them reaching the site.

The only caveat there is that Twin Peaks served alcohol. It's been awhile since I've been back home, but I recall Texas may not allow concealed carry in places that serve alcohol, even with a CCP- concealed carry permit. And I'm not sure whether that would also cover the parking lot, or just inside the building.

Anyone got better info than mine?

Ran across this in Wikipedia...

" It is a felony to carry a firearm while on the premises of a business that makes more than 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (colloquially "bars", "nightclubs", "taverns", "saloons", etc.). "

It would seem concealed carry is legal in the case of Twin Peaks as I seriously doubt more than 51% of their revenue is from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

A restaurant isn't a "bar, nightclub, tavern, saloon, etc." It typically doesn't earn more than 51% of its revenue from alcohol.

[impulse]

However, if I'm not driving as in a passenger or just walking down the street I don't have to give the police the time of day. If they have probable cause to believe I've committed a crime they can arrest me but I really have the right to remain silent. If they arrest me they can go down for false arrest if they don't have probable cause which they can articulate to a judge.

I simply don't have to talk to police ever. I have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment to The Constitution within the Bill of Rights.

Yes, and you will eventually get your due process rights. But in the meantime, they can make your life miserable and the experience can cost you big time.

Like the 115 (or so) of the 170 people they have in custody here who have no criminal records. They're losing their jobs. Their vehicles have been towed and are accruing impound fees. The bail bonds will cost some of them their homes. Lawyer fees to even get them bail will cost more of their homes. If they have to go to trial, more lawyer fees and less food on their families' table. And all for simply being present at a bi-monthly meeting that somehow went very wrong this time. (Sure, some of them are criminals, but "better 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent man...")

In the meantime, the smug DA is saying "if they are victims, they sure aren't acting like victims" and "the guys in custody aren't being very cooperative". Sounds to me like they're exercising their right to keep quiet. While their personal savings get flushed down a legal system toilet.

You have the right to remain silent. But exercising that right can be very expensive. I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended.

[NeverSure]

Outside of maybe the first shooter they were just "standing their ground" weren't they? This is just the inevitable conclusion to the wacko gun laws in parts of that country. "You need to be armed in case something happens". Well something did and this is the result. In any civilized country with sane hand gun laws the cops would have disarmed and arrested them prior to any of them reaching the site.

The only caveat there is that Twin Peaks served alcohol. It's been awhile since I've been back home, but I recall Texas may not allow concealed carry in places that serve alcohol, even with a CCP- concealed carry permit. And I'm not sure whether that would also cover the parking lot, or just inside the building.

Anyone got better info than mine?

Yes, serving alcohol is irrelevant unless it primarily serves alcohol and that law is true in Texas but not every state forbids carrying in a bar/tavern/nightclub/saloon, call it what you will.

Any privately owned property can forbid carrying guns but they have to puts signs on all public doors. Not many do or they'd lose too much business. Many business owners like people to carry guns believe it or not. People who are legally licensed to carry a concealed handgun aren't the problem.

[NeverSure]

Outside of maybe the first shooter they were just "standing their ground" weren't they? This is just the inevitable conclusion to the wacko gun laws in parts of that country. "You need to be armed in case something happens". Well something did and this is the result. In any civilized country with sane hand gun laws the cops would have disarmed and arrested them prior to any of them reaching the site.

These guys are purported to be a bunch of criminals. If they had criminal records they weren't allow to possess a gun or even live in a home where someone else had a gun. If they weren't allowed to have a gun they weren't allowed to stand their ground with it.

In any civilized country I should be allowed to defend myself or my friends and family from a criminal who has a gun.

[NeverSure]

However, if I'm not driving as in a passenger or just walking down the street I don't have to give the police the time of day. If they have probable cause to believe I've committed a crime they can arrest me but I really have the right to remain silent. If they arrest me they can go down for false arrest if they don't have probable cause which they can articulate to a judge.

I simply don't have to talk to police ever. I have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment to The Constitution within the Bill of Rights.

Yes, and you will eventually get your due process rights. But in the meantime, they can make your life miserable and the experience can cost you big time.

Like the 115 (or so) of the 170 people they have in custody here who have no criminal records. They're losing their jobs. Their vehicles have been towed and are accruing impound fees. The bail bonds will cost some of them their homes. Lawyer fees to even get them bail will cost more of their homes. If they have to go to trial, more lawyer fees and less food on their families' table. And all for simply being present at a bi-monthly meeting that somehow went very wrong this time. (Sure, some of them are criminals, but "better 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent man...")

In the meantime, the smug DA is saying "if they are victims, they sure aren't acting like victims" and "the guys in custody aren't being very cooperative". Sounds to me like they're exercising their right to keep quiet. While their personal savings get flushed down a legal system toilet.

You have the right to remain silent. But exercising that right can be very expensive. I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended.

Any decent attorney would tell them to remain silent. You can't hurt yourself by remaining silent but you sure can by talking. They can't even try to twist your words if you're silent. Be silent, talk to an attorney and let him talk. Seriously.

[impulse]

Be silent, talk to an attorney and let him talk. Seriously.

Yup. For $450 an hour plus $10,000 retainer.

[sirineou]

Outside of maybe the first shooter they were just "standing their ground" weren't they? This is just the inevitable conclusion to the wacko gun laws in parts of that country. "You need to be armed in case something happens". Well something did and this is the result. In any civilized country with sane hand gun laws the cops would have disarmed and arrested them prior to any of them reaching the site.

These guys are purported to be a bunch of criminals. If they had criminal records they weren't allow to possess a gun or even live in a home where someone else had a gun. If they weren't allowed to have a gun they weren't allowed to stand their ground with it.

In any civilized country I should be allowed to defend myself or my friends and family from a criminal who has a gun.

if universal fully funded background checks were the norm, this would be true, but unfortunately, there are many loop holes allowing these criminals to get guns and people like you, do not want to close these loopholes

[JDGRUEN]

[NeverSure]

Outside of maybe the first shooter they were just "standing their ground" weren't they? This is just the inevitable conclusion to the wacko gun laws in parts of that country. "You need to be armed in case something happens". Well something did and this is the result. In any civilized country with sane hand gun laws the cops would have disarmed and arrested them prior to any of them reaching the site.

These guys are purported to be a bunch of criminals. If they had criminal records they weren't allow to possess a gun or even live in a home where someone else had a gun. If they weren't allowed to have a gun they weren't allowed to stand their ground with it.

In any civilized country I should be allowed to defend myself or my friends and family from a criminal who has a gun.

if universal fully funded background checks were the norm, this would be true, but unfortunately, there are many loop holes allowing these criminals to get guns and people like you, do not want to close these loopholes

LOL. Only law abiding people obey laws. These guys, if criminals, are breaking the law owning a gun under any circumstances. Do you really think they would comply with a background check law?

[chuckd]

Ran across this in Wikipedia...

" It is a felony to carry a firearm while on the premises of a business that makes more than 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (colloquially "bars", "nightclubs", "taverns", "saloons", etc.). "

It would seem concealed carry is legal in the case of Twin Peaks as I seriously doubt more than 51% of their revenue is from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

Rather scary to think that whether I'll be guilty of a felony, (or well within my legal rights), depends on an audit of Twin Peaks' books to see whether they sell more beer than food...

You can relax. No Haskins and Sells audit is required...but a sign put up by the restaurant is.

It's all explained in the link I provided but permit me to post the entire paragraph so you and Publicus will understand it without having to actually read the link.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Businesses posting a compliant "51% sign" - It is a felony to carry a firearm while on the premises of a business that makes more than 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (colloquially "bars", "nightclubs", "taverns", "saloons", etc.). A person with a CHL that is in violation has a defense that the establishment did not post the proper signage, as required by the Government Code section 411.204. The proper signage contains similar language as is required of all liquor license holders, but with the addition of a couple of words to prohibit licensed as well as unlicensed carry, and a background containing a red "51%" to make it obvious at a glance that the sign applies to CHL holders.

PS: CHL stands for "Concealed Handgun License".

Cheers.

[Scott]

Posts concerning the NRA have been removed. Not all, but some. The topic is not about the NRA and unless the NRA makes a comment about the situation, which is relevant to this thread, we can drop that point in the discussion.

[impulse]

It's all explained in the link I provided but permit me to post the entire paragraph so you and Publicus will understand it without having to actually read the link.

Yes, I take all my legal advice from Wikipedia.

[chuckd]

It's all explained in the link I provided but permit me to post the entire paragraph so you and Publicus will understand it without having to actually read the link.

Yes, I take all my legal advice from Wikipedia.

In my effort to help those afflicted with laziness, permit me to assist:

This took about three minutes to research.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 411.204 : Texas Statutes - Section 411.204: NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES

Search TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 411.204 : Texas Statutes - Section 411.204: NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES

• Search by Keyword or Citation

4 154

(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection ©.

( b A hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the hospital or nursing home, as appropriate, a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection © other than the requirement that the sign include on its face the number "51".

( c The sign required under Subsections (a) and ( b must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) A business that has a permit or license issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code and that is not required to display a sign under this section may be required to display a sign under Section 11.041 or 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code.

(e) This section does not apply to a business that has a food and beverage certificate issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code.

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.204#sthash.updWvSS9.dpuf

Edited May 25, 2015 by chuckd