Armed protesters rattle Texas moms' gun-control meeting [Updated - Police Were Called]

[TomCADem]

Source: USA Today

The sudden appearance of about 40 armed men outside a Dallas-area restaurant this weekend was the latest confrontation between an open-carry gun-rights group and a mothers group advocating gun control that was meeting inside.

Police monitored the incident at the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas, but took no action because it is legal to carry long guns openly in Texas.

"We are aware that a group did gather in a shopping area in Arlington Saturday," Tiara Ellis Richard of the Arlington Police office of communication said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "Officers were notified and arrived at the location. There were no issues that we are aware of, and no arrests occurred."

One of four women who were meeting Saturday tried to file a police complaint on Monday but failed because she was told that no law had been violated, a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense said Monday.


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

---

This was reported earlier, but there were no reports in the initial stories about police. Several folks posted on an earlier thread that this was either a false flag operation or that the story was bogus because no police were called or arrived at the scene.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024011323

This updated story shows that police were called, but did nothing because open carry laws are legal in Texas, and that the manager did call 911 shortly after the armed group arrived. Thus, even the manager thought that the group looked threatening. Of course, the gun group insisted that there were peacefully assembling albeit with their guns drawn.

I guess next thing we will have the KKK say that they were just peacefully burning a cross and waving confederate flags in front of the home of an African American, but they secured the proper permits for an open fire, so it was okay.

[last1standing]

1. If forty armed black men had suddenly appeared...

There would have been forty dead black men long before anyone checked to see whether the guns were legal or not.

[jsr]

9. +1.

[2naSalit]

39. There are just no two ways about that!

Would have been a melee for sure.

[marble falls]

45. You mean like this? Ain't saying it's bad/its good, just saying it is what it is ........

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4519517979085531&w=228&h=169&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

[thucythucy]

48. I seem to recognize that photo,

and not just because it's been a staple of right wing responses to this story.

My recollection (and I could be wrong) is that it is a photo of a Black Panther rally at the California state house in the late '60s.

This would be the same Black Panther Party that was targeted by the FBI/COINTELRO and various local police agencies for surveillance, infiltration, harassment, and in some cases shooting by the authorities.

And this would be the same rally, and rallies like it, that prompted the California legislature to pass tougher gun regulation, legislation that was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan.

If that is indeed the photo, it would seem to undermine the point you're trying to make.

Just sayin'

[marble falls]

49. My point is no point, Someone speculated on what would happen if a minority showed up armed....

I found the photo because I was involved with SDS at the time and Fred Hubbard had just been shot to pieces by cops in Chicago. The Panthers had also been shot up in California and this demonstration took place at the legislature building in Sacramento. They were there during a vote on some gun control law and the Panthers felt that gun ownership was a necessary piece of their self preservation from cops and assorted racists. I was in Cleveland agitating at an antiwar demontration at about the same time.

If anything, this photo says some of us are talking out of two sides of our mouths, that the issue isn't arms but who is in possession of them.

Those guys needed to be arrested in Dallas not because they were carrying, but because they were menacing and trying to intimidate others out of their free speech.

You don't have a clue about my intentions, just a knee jerk reaction. Next time don't look for subtext, just ask the question.

[Paladin]

53. +1. (nt)

[Lasher]

61. The OCT photo angle was deceitfully chosen to make it look menacing.

Here is the familiar OCT photo that's being widely publicized:



Now here is a different angle of the same pose taken at the same time:



This angle makes it look quite a bit less like they are glaring at the restaurant in a SWAT position preparing to attack, don't you think? And now the same Panthers photo that you shared upthread (larger size to more closely match that of the above):



Assuming the second picture is genuine, would you still believe the OCT group should have been arrested for menacing and trying to intimidate others?

[Paladin]

63. So instead of menacing, the open carry group looks brain dead.

Not much of an improvement.

[Lasher]

64. You might be right, but should they have been arrested for looking brain dead?

And do you think the Panthers look brain dead too?

[Paladin]

65. I'm against deliberate intimidation via force of arms in peaceful public areas.

Open carry demonstrations such as this are valuable gifts to the gun control movement, and are greatly appreciated.

[Lasher]

66. You just said they look brain dead instead of menacing.

Are they intimidating but not menacing? Do the Panthers look intimidating too?

[marble falls]

71. There is no comparison between the Panthers and the Teabillies once you get past legally armed.

[marble falls]

69. Toataly reasonable and accurate opinion.

[marble falls]

68. Not just yes, but HELL yes. The Panthers were making a political statement and the POS buttheads...

were in the parking lot of a private business just to intimidate four unarmed women who weren't looking for a political statement. Don't get me wrong. I believe in gun ownership. I believe in open carry. I also believe in permits and background checks. And I believe anyone who uses their weapons to intimidate others into silence needs to be jailed and disarmed.

[Lasher]

77. You made a good point upthread, even if you didn't mean to do it.

It's true, the Panthers were making a political statement. The OCT group was also making a political statement. The circumstances were similar. If people are to be jailed for behavior you described, it should be according to the law, equally interpreted and applied to all.

[marble falls]

78. Intent is what this issue swings on. The Panthers were making a political expression in the .....

in the correct venue, their government. The Teabillies were trying to intimidate four unarmed women in a restaurant. There is a very big difference. The Panthers were freely expressing their grievances to the government in a public place and your Teabilly "freedom fighters" were intimidating four women on private property. If this is just too nuanced for you, lets just leave it right here. Have a nice life.

[24601]

83. Gun Control vs. Gun Rights is inherently political. MDA has a political agenda and OCT has a

political agenda.

Don't we turn to standards set in law, as opposed to personal opinion, to determine if behavior is threatening? And when people are charged with violations, juries determine the propriety of the accused actions, usually based on the judgment of the composite "reasonable person".

In this case, what specifically was the behavior that was threatening? Per the NYT, "The woman at the Arlington restaurant — a mother and a member of the local chapter — expressed dismay that the gathering outside the restaurant was permitted by Texas law. “They’re walking around with killing machines strapped to their backs in a suburban area,” she said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/us/a-face-off-outside-dallas-in-the-escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html?_r=0

So, walking around with a firearm strapped to their backs. No pointing a weapon, no chambering a round, no provocative gestures, no pictures of MDA members painted up as targets? Just walking around with a firearm to [in my words - not the NYT's words] make a political statement.

The NYT article also noted the following:

"The armed group of men, women and children was made up of members of a gun rights organization called Open Carry Texas, and they stayed in the parking lot about 10 or 15 minutes to protest the Moms Demand Action meeting and then left."

"At a gun rights rally at the Alamo in San Antonio last month, Moms Demand Action held a counterrally nearby and, gun advocates said, sent their supporters into the crowd to take pictures. “They crashed our Alamo event,” Mr. Grisham said. “Let’s crash their event.”

[marble falls]

84. Oh well in that case ..... The difference being the idiots were armed and the moms weren't.

[24601]

86. Both groups exercised their right to choose to be armed lawfully, or not. The difference is that

there's no credible information that OCT would violate MDA's right to decline to carry arms. Conversely, there's more than sufficient information to infer that MDA would, if not constrained by the law, compel OCT to disarm.

[Ash_F]

72. Thanks for sharing, but they are still idiots. /nt

[marble falls]

74. No doubt. They were and presumably still are idiots.

[Lasher]

75. That is a fair observation.

And probably an accurate one.

[thucythucy]

79. Your "point is no point"?

Then what's the point of posting at all?

And how precisely does a photo taken almost a half century ago say that "some of us are talking out of both sides of our mouths"?

Who precisely are you talking about? The OP? The poster to whom you responded? Other nameless members of DU? Yourself?

I think the poster you responded to had a point. He may have used some hyperbole, in that I doubt the entire group would have been mowed down, but I strongly suspect there would have been a different police response had this been a group of black rather than white men "menacing and trying to intimidate others..." in the parking lot of this shopping mall.

You disagree?

[marble falls]

80. 1. Who's on first? .....

2. No he's on second.

[thucythucy]

81. That's it?

Okay then. Enjoy your evening.

[marble falls]

85. That's it thucy, go enjoy your evening.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

51. A-fuckin'-men!

Or, in Texas's case, 40 Latino men.

I would SOOOOOO love to see just such a gathering and the response.

[Xipe Totec]

58. Gregorio Cortez

On June 12, 1901, while investigating a horse theft, Karnes County sheriff W.T. "Brack" Morris went to the Thulemeyer ranch outside of Kenedy, where Gregorio and Romaldo Cortez were tenant maize farmers, after learning that Gregorio had acquired a mare from a Mexican Kenedy resident by way of trade. After misunderstandings between Morris and the Cortez brothers resulting from poor translation by a deputy—in which Cortez was supposedly asked if he had recently acquired a caballo, or a stallion, and Cortez answered he had acquired a yegua, or a mare, a word which the deputy did not understand—Morris shot and wounded Romaldo, prompting Gregorio to shoot and kill Morris. On his escape, Cortez stopped at the ranch of Martín and Refugia Robledo on the property of Mr. Schnabel. At the Robledo home Gonzales county sheriff Glover and his posse found Cortez. Shots were exchanged, and Glover and Schnabel were killed. Cortez escaped again and walked nearly 100 miles to the home of Ceferino Flores, a friend, who provided him a horse and saddle. He then headed toward Laredo, Texas.

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

[yurbud]

88. every time white guys talk about the right to open carry show them this:

But of course they really just mean open carry and maximum gun rights for white guys like themselves not the people they want to shoot.

[Hoyt]

2. Those yahoos were doing more than just open carrying. Intimidation is more like it.

[Marie Marie]

8. Exactly Hoyt. Open Carry is very different from having guns drawn when there is

no reason or threat to do so. Everyday we hear stories of a "responsible gun owner" whose gun goes off for some reason, hurting or killing someone. If I were in that restaurant, I would have been very concerned. Pure intimidation.

[cui bono]

33. And showing up as an organized group.

If it were protesters against the war they would have broken up an "unlawful assembly".

[Ranchemp.]

18. Probably,

but not in the eyes of the law, which is the only thing that counts as far as the police are concerned.

[Hoyt]

20. Maybe the law didn't look hard enough. Clearly intimidation, but it's Texas so a bunch

of gun humpers intimidating 4 unarmed women is cool. Even our gun lovers here, seem to think it is OK.

[Ranchemp.]

25. Well, I've read every post on this issue several times already

and I'll be go to hell if I can find one post approving or defending this foolishness, so, if I missed it, please point it out to me please.

[kestrel91316]

76. So says the apologist for this latest bunch of gun nutters.........

[elehhhhna]

54. They specifically STALKED those women. Also brandishing is not legal.

[Zambero]

3. I guess they call themselves "patriots"?

Bullying cowards would be the correct description.

[The Wizard]

47. short peckered punks (NT)

[dembotoz]

4. never understood why we have to wait until they kill the first victim before they are criminal

[libdem4life]

5. Such "he-men" those brave Texas gun-toters. Rounded up the posse to git 'em those uppity

little ladies. Sure as shootin', they did.

[dougg]

6. It took forty cowards to intimidate four unarmed women.

These brave men should volunteer to patrol in the 'hood' where there is real potential for shooting.

[Keefer]

7. Check out post #460 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024011323

[mwrguy]

11. Bullshit right-wing propaganda. n/t

[Keefer]

12. I just posted

what I got from a RW friend. I didn't say I believed it. LOL

[mwrguy]

10. Gun owners are the largest terrorist group in America

Their goal is to intimidate are terrorize. They are terrorists.

[Lasher]

67. For the life of me, I never realized 39% of Americans were terrorists.

Including 35% of Democrats. And including me.

[Ranchemp.]

70. Man, I carry a firearm for my job,

I guess I'm a terrorist also.

[neoconsaredicks]

13. Wimps masquerading as bad asses

If these gun- totin' morons think they're such bad asses...why do they need guns ?????

[gopiscrap]

40. welcome to DU

[PatrynXX]

14. Totally legal to hold people hostage for 2 hours

right and someone said it wasn't legal to open carry yet. not in texas. so I'm confused on that part.

[Ranchemp.]

19. In TX. it's legal to open carry long guns,

but not handguns.

[TomCADem]

29. But it is clearly illegal to...

...display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

Now, showing up at a meeting of gun control advocates with a bunch of folks brandishing weapons such that the manager calls 911 and the women at the meeting felt fear and were intimidated shows that they did in fact cause alarm. Is this really debatable?

[Ranchemp.]

30. As I said, take it up with the police,

because they disagree.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, the police are the ones who were on scene and made the determination that no laws were broken.

[TomCADem]

22. Intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury...

...is generally illegal in most jurisdictions, and showing up en masse at a meeting place of gun control advocates brandishing weapons would place most people in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Heck, even in Texas, you can't open carry near a school.

[yurbud]

15. it's a good thing no one in the restaurant decided they needed to "stand their ground"

[tblue]

57. Good point. The moms did feel threatened.

As did others in the restaurant.

Hideous way for the gunners to make a point. By saying firearms will be used to terrorize unarmed mothers, it actually undermines their cause. I'm never going to Texas. Backward ass legal system, protecting the wrong rights for the wrong.

[yurbud]

60. I saw a PBS Frontline episode on wrongly convicted guys cleared with DNA and the response of judges

in Texas was enough to scare me away from ever going to the state--and I'm white.

[Ranchemp.]

16. Where are they seeing 40 people?

I can only see 14-15 people.

[Hoyt]

21. Yeah right, that makes it OK.

[Ranchemp.]

23. Count them yourself,

and then tell me where you see 40 people.

[Hoyt]

24. One ignorant gun humper intimidating those unarmed women is too many. Apparently OK with you.

[Ranchemp.]

26. Do you see 40 armed people in that photo?

Simple question, even for you.

And not apparently ok with me, you sure do like to lie about people you disagree with don't you?

[Hoyt]

27. 40, 15, or just 1 ignorant gun intimidator is way too many in this case.

[TomCADem]

28. Is It Relevant Whether Or Not The Photo Has Everyone?

The photo does not capture the women in the restaurant, so should we assume that they weren't there? Also, I can't really see the sign for Mesa Grill, so I guess you could argue that the photo is just a false flag operation depicting a fictional event. Heck, there are some folks who insist that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

[Ranchemp.]

31. I just asked a question dude.

One which no one has answered yet.

[Hoyt]

32. We've answered you, you just don't get it.

[Ranchemp.]

34. That's funny,

I mean coming out of your mouth and all.

Do you see 40 armed people in that photo? If not, is the article heading false?

These morons shouldn't be doing this, but the reporter should get it right also, just like they got this part of the story wrong.

The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee shops.

If they got this wrong, then it's conceivable that they got the count wrong.

[Hoyt]

42. They got it close enough. The bigots in the open carry group have been ticked since

Starbucks embarrassed the worthless losers. They might not have been banned from SB outright, but it's clear SB would rather not be known for catering to gun toting losers.

Like I said, whether it is 40, 19, 13, or just 1, it's too many. There's your answer.

[Kingofalldems]

55. Perhaps the photo didn't capture all the participants.

Strawman anyway.

[Ranchemp.]

56. That's a distinct possibility.

No strawman intended.

[TomCADem]

35. I Will Give You The Benefit Of The Doubt...

...I will stipulate that the picture does not show 40 people just for the sake of argument. Does that make it okay?

[Ranchemp.]

36. What these foolish idiots did is not ok,

and neither is inflating the number of these idiots, or this little gem,

The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee shops.

which is patently false.
I know it's too much to ask, but newsies should do a little research before writing an article.

[blkmusclmachine]

17. Stand Your Ground for the gun nuts.

[Sunlei]

37. so the Mesa Grill restaurant must have allowed them or were they on the public space?

[Ranchemp.]

38. Hard to tell from the photo,

but I'm assuming these idiots were on public property because the manager of the Mesa Grill was the one that called the police and if they were on the property, it would stand to reason that he would've had them removed from the property.

[Turbineguy]

41. So it took 40 armed men

to intimidate 4 unarmed women?

There's some irony in there somewhere.

[rdking647]

43. they should have been charged with distorderly conduct

under texas penal code section 42.01 section 8

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

and if you are convicted of a class b misdemeanor you lose your concealed carry permit too.

[Ranchemp.]

50. The police seem to disagree,

and they were there on scene, unlike anyone else here.
That said, while legal, it's a moronic thing to do.

[Eleanors38]

44. LBN? Seems like yet another repeat. nt

[LanternWaste]

46. Story's been updated. Hence the new thread.

Story's been updated with additional and relevant information. Hence the new thread.

[Lasher]

87. If there is an important new development in a story, a new LBN thread is justified.

If it is not seen by LBN Hosts as a significant new development, is locked as a duplicate. Nobody alerted on this thread, so we LBN Hosts didn't discuss it. It's a little late for this one to be locked now.

If you think a LBN thread should be locked, it would be helpful if you would alert on it. That is done by clicking the Alert abuse hotlink in the bottom left hand corner of the OP. As the reason for your alert, select the first choice (This discussion thread is off-topic, or violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum). Provide a brief explanation and then send the alert.

[rdharma]

52. Arlington PD SUCKS! Afraid to enforce the LAW!

Texas Statute

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:........

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

[BeHereNow]

59. BLUE MESA!!! We had a DU Meet-up there!!! in 2005! Fro the Archives/ WITH PCS of DUERS who attended

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x10684

A thread from the the DU Archives, 2005, complete with photos of some of those who attended!

We had a GREAT time that night! Check in if you were there!!!

Skittles made a surpisrise appearance and KICKED SOME ASS!

ENJOY,

BHN!

[Gothmog]

62. Juanita Jean thinks that these idiots are the wee winkie parade

http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/11/10/oh-look-yall-its-a-wee-winkie-parade/

No, Honey, not like Deliverance. The guys in Deliverance could play the banjo. The only thing these guys can play is stoopid.

Now let me see if I have this right. They are the ones with guns. They are also the ones hiding behind cars. I’m having trouble with computation here. If they have the guns and this is simply a protest, why are the hiding like they are fixing to ambush somedamnthing? Are they buying into David Dewhurst’s idea that tampons are dangerous weapons liable to come at you suddenly?

Good Lord, it’s a bunch of women having a meeting. If that scares you, let me tell you about what happens at a Tupperware Party.

[booley]

73. to me it always seems to be about this complete lack of self awareness

What I learned is you don't take out your gun unless you plan on using it.

So why did this group follow 4 moms having a meeting about gun control in a restaurant and take out their guns?

Now I don't think this group were going to storm the restaurant and do mass murder. I don't think they were there to shoot anyone.

But they definitely made anyone inside that restaurant very aware of how easy it would be if someone in that group id decide to shoot anyone.

And if one is actually that oblivious, can we be sure they are really responsible enough to have a fire arm?

[tabasco]

82. Bunch of cowardly assholes

I bet there ain't a day of military service in the whole fucking collection of slime mold.