Arlington, Targeted By Open-Carry Activists, Bans Guns at City Council Meetings

Categories: Guns

ArlingtonCityCouncilMeetingGunBan.jpg
Open Carry Tarrant County's Kory Watkins
Dozens of open-carry activists turned out at last night's Arlington City Council meeting.
The so-far bloodless battle between open carry advocates and the city of Arlington continued Tuesday evening with a debate over whether guns should be banned at City Council meetings.

Open Carry Tarrant County members, who showed up at Arlington City Hall by the dozens, said no. The Arlington City Council unanimously said yes.

Concealed handguns are already banned from public meetings under state law. The ordinance Arlington passed on a 9-0 vote on Tuesday extended the ban to include all guns (i.e. "any device designed or manufactured to shoot, fire, or otherwise discharge a projectile"), including the rifles, shotguns, or antique pistols that Texans are otherwise allowed to carry in public.

See also: Arlington Cops, Open-Carry Advocates Go Toe-to-Toe Over the Constitution

Even before the vote, those carrying firearms were turned away from the council chambers by police, according to the Star-Telegram.

"We have no intention of allowing anyone with a deadly weapon into the council meeting," Arlington PD spokesman Christopher Cook told the paper.

Activists complied, voluntarily stowing their guns in their cars before entering the meeting, just as they had when they attended the council meeting two weeks ago, according to news reports.

Those who made it inside were armed with copies of the Constitution, which they held up as the council debated. Their primary beef -- one they've been airing for weeks -- is against Arlington's ban on passing out literature to passing motorists.

The council doubled down on that measure on Tuesday, voting 8-1 to pass a modified, slightly expanded version of the ban. Cries of "Tyrant!" followed the vote, but the council was inclined to heed the misgivings of Arlington resident Kim Martinez.

During a recent trip to TGI Fridays, she told the council, "a man approached my car to give me literature with a giant gun in his hand. I don't know if it was real or not, but it freaked me out. I don't oppose people's right to carry but I oppose the fact that they can wave their guns around at public intersections and frighten people."

Open Carry Tarrant County leader Kory Watkins countered by referencing the First Amendment.

"First and foremost, anybody's feelings does not triumph my rights," he told WFAA. "If we start wondering how people feel, we are going to be in a world of trouble trying to legislate morality."

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
103 comments
roadsidecouch
roadsidecouch

Cities work within a subset of laws subservient to state law.  So if state law has any statuette on open carry it would have to grant city councils the right to ban open carry of guns.  Otherwise such a ban is unconstitutional under the Texas constitution.

EdD.
EdD.

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @TheRuddSki  Could somebody please just get Myrna and Ruddski a hotel room for the weekend so they can work out all this tension in private? This is yet another long comment thread where a big chunk of them are obvious foreplay between these two.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

I'm surprised that the council members didn't exempt themselves from the ban.

becoolerifyoudid
becoolerifyoudid

Couldn't the city just hire a couple strippers to dance near these demonstrations and literature passing out thingys?  The gun toters would be distracted, the people in cars wouldn't be bothered, and some psych major would make a few bucks. 

j_angel180
j_angel180

You want carry guns. Join the Arm Serves.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum

Less open carry all around is a good thing. The Wild West is gone, at least in Arlington.

oakclifftownie
oakclifftownie

Hey  Rudd Ski

I Do have questions as to why the City Council has granted itself  more protection from these LAW ABIDING people carrying guns than they want to offer the average citizen on the street .

EdD.
EdD.

I wonder how many of these foiks would be okay with the membership of the local mosque handing out literature at intersections, rifles slung over every shoulder. 

oakclifftownie
oakclifftownie

So whats up with the "When seconds count police are minuets ts away ?" 

Where is this sign  that is out there that will tell us who is the good who is the bad ?

Sorry but the gun carrying bunch can't have it both ways


Being in enough fear  that they need to carry a gun .

And yet not allow my fear to react to them carrying gun?


Whats up with that ?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@roadsidecouch Home Rule Municipalities.  Home rule cities are free to take whatever governmental steps are not prohibited them by the state or federal laws.  They do not need to be explicitly granted the power from the state.  Besides, the Federal Constitution trumps the state's, and the SC has already ruled governments at any level can pass laws or ordinances that establish or preserve public safety and order.

I don't like this ruling any more than you do, most likely.  However, it is just not right to think that the City can't do it.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@EdD

I nominate you. Hotel Corinado. Myrna in June, I'll take early September.

Have you ever considerrd not reading threads that you don't want to read?

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  Ive been very surprised by Arlington City council.  They listen to their citizens and businesses during council meetings and out on the streets.  I was witness to one such incident in which the council was going to ban smoking in all of Arlington public places, and the owner and manager of the pool hall/bar I go to lobbied them to exempt pool halls that were 21 and up based on the fact that the adults that go there have the choice not to, and that no children were allowed there ever.  The city listened and exempted pool halls.  This was same ban that others asked that the Ballpark enact stricter smoking regulations, which they did, but even modified those to the liking of the fans and Rangers themselves.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@becoolerifyoudid  no, the city does not look highly upon strippers, it ran off all the strip clubs and the last one that was left, the owner tried to off the mayor.  

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@j_angel180  ???? what about the Leg Service. although I could go for some Head Service

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@oakclifftownie  You mean what they think is more protection.  Now, if an active shooter comes in, he knows that no one but any uniformed cops are armed, and he's got a target rich environment.


The real question is why they think they need to disarm their constituents.  If you are an elected official and you are doing something that makes your otherwise law-abiding constituents willing to come to your meeting and kill you, it's the elected official that has the problem

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@oakclifftownîe

I don't see where their very public declaration of weapons prohibition can be seen as granting them more protection at all. Criminals and nutters with murderous intent tend to take the paths of least resistance. Look at the example of what's happening in Chicago since Illinois finally recognized the Constitutional rights of citizens.

Even citizens who would never consider even touching a weapon can benefit from carry laws.

But the point you raise is common - why is Congress exempt from some of the laws they write? Why can Harry Reid if commit treason, actionable slander against Mitt Romney or the Koch brothers protected by his Senate position? Why can the IRS hand out bonuses to employees who owe back taxes when they can withhold tax returns for unpaid student loans?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@EdD

Judging solely by my acquaintances who are strident about Constitutional rights, they would likely join them, having that common American bond.

We know how Muslims of Dearborn feel about Christians exercising their American Constitutional rights in Dearborn - very much against.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@oakclifftownie

No- one is denying you the right to be fearful of anyone, it's your actions in response to your fears that can lead to actionable consequences, and that's what courts of law are for.

nd68
nd68

@TheRuddSki  I agree with EdD and JohnSmallBerries. Your back and forth is tiresome. Yeah, we have "considerrd" not reading your bullsh, but it dominates the board. In other words, it's impossible to avoid. Just do it and get it over with.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin

Yeah, when I lived there, Arlington seemed pretty logical and accommodating on the smoking issue. More so than the other burbs it seemed.

And when TABC was pulling their PI campaign terrorizing the bars, It seemed Arlington told them to back off (so did Irving as I recall).

This gun ban is not unusual, I think most cities prefer that. It's all theatre anyway.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin

See, thee ban on mayor-offing worked.

lecterman
lecterman

@everlastingphelps @oakclifftownie 

"If you are an elected official and you are doing something that makes your otherwise law-abiding constituents willing to come to your meeting and kill you, it's the elected official that has the problem."

That is assuming all constituents are rational and logically thinking people.  They may be law abiding until they decide to break the law as a result of what they perceive to be as someone else breaking the law.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@Myrna

You are really quite prejudicial of others in your assumptions. Could you quote any of this "running on about themselves" that would support your declarations of shortcomings, failings and the like? Or are we to just take your word for it?  ---Ruddski, two hours ago.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  "You are really quite prejudicial of others in your assumptions."


Could you quote any of this "We know how Muslims of Dearborn feel about Christians exercising their American Constitutional rights in Dearborn - very much against."


"Or are we to just take your word for it?"


TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@nd68

Just to clarify your position. If someone states an opinion, and another replies contradicting the opinion and/or offering critique of said opinion, and the thread then becomes a back-and-forth between one or more participants exceeding some arbitrary limit determined by, presumably, you, you feel the need to not only object to the exchange, you also offer critique of content - in this case "bullsh" (sic).

Then, following an odd though somewhat common line of thought, people exceeding your arbitrary exchange limit and/or offering content not to your standards or liking are actually not debating, they are engaging in sexual foreplay.

Ok, I've obviously considered your position and given a reasonable summation of your position, and I've come to the conclusion that your comment is neither insightful, original, interesting, and offers no redeeming contribution whatsoever, being focused on your needs and wants, which, if I may be blunt, I don't give two flying fucks about.

Now, seeing as you use "we", and assuming it is in the non-royal sense, can I assume that you, John of the small Berries and Ed of the upper and lower-case D are engaging in some sort of sexual congress?

Of course, nothing wrong with that, amigo, but please, get a room!

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin

No need to, plenty of people already do.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  hell they even tweet their speed enforcement zones.  But I do wonder, will they tweet out there DL and insurance checkpoints?

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@becoolerifyoudid @ScottsMerkin  Its not just that you tried, its that you even cared to try that counts.  Most dont

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@lecterman @everlastingphelps@oakclifftownieI think the precedent is that elected officials (ok just one that i can think of) have been known to bring a firearm to a very public gathering and blow their own head off.


In another sense you're correct, it only takes one irrational nut to turn a council meeting into a bloodbath.  The giffords shooting proved that.  Although I support concealed carry and open carry laws, I recognize the government's duty toward public safety, and acknowledge their authority to restrict carry.  Like restrictions on free speech, however, 2nd amendment restrictions should be extremely rare and highly specific.

lecterman
lecterman

@everlastingphelps @lecterman@oakclifftownie  

"Why in the hell should anyone vote for any of them after this?  They think that you are all irrational and stupid."

I cannot speak for any particular politician, but it could be that they do not consider all constituents to be irrational and stupid.  Rather they realize that it only takes one irrational and stupid constituent to turn a city council meeting into a bloodbath.  


I understand that there may not necessary be a precedent for that.  But that does not mean there is not a kook out there that would like to create one.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@lecterman @everlastingphelps @oakclifftownie  Again, this says more about what the elected officials think rather than anything factual about the crowd.  What is says is that the elected officials think that their own constituents are not rational or logical thinking people.


Why in the hell should anyone vote for any of them after this?  They think that you are all irrational and stupid.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@A.Failin.Palin

Are you sure Myrna really appreciates your support? I know I do.

A.Failin.Palin
A.Failin.Palin

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz ...M..he doesn't even have enough class to DISH.   He is like a lazy fisherman who runs a trot line.  He just puts out a lot of cheap bait in hopes catching ..something, anything, just an ounce of attention.   Just acknowledge that you are aware of his annoying presence.   

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

Two points, then I'll let you go.

I've clearly demonstrated, with clear inarguable support, those issues I've noted about your contradictions and hypocrisy - this thread is but one of several. You OTOH, throw out these accusations, but never have actually offered support.

Recently, you declared suspicion that blog administrators were censoring you and didn't like you. I scoffed at the time, but now, surprise, I think you may have been on to something.

After all, when others have complained about disappearing posts, a moderator has responded with assurances that they weren't censoring, and possible explanations of spam trap, etc.

Note that when you were making your recent assumptions and accusations, no moderator responded.

Odd, that, no?

Have a great evening, your second shift should be here soon, you can go now. Ta-ta!

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  No one else but you could possibly claim to use more personal insults, derogatory rants, illogical statements, contradictions, assumptions, and disrespect than you, bumblewumps.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

You really should review your debate style when sober. Anyone who can contradict her own arguments and violate her own standards of decorum re accusations/personal insult, etc so much in so little space is rare find indeed.

Own it

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

No, as i pointed out, simply seeing someone with a weapon is not grounds to shoot them, and as you stated "she would be within her rights".

While zimmerman would not be, even though he was physically attacked. Theres your contradiction, not to mention ignorance of the law you don't support, but feel that, in this case, would be justified - which is yet another contradiction.

First law of holes, hon. If you find yourself in one, break out the vodka.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  My, my... you can dish it out, but you can't take it.  You just haven't progressed from your middle school bullying days.  

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

"stupid"

My my, that looks suspiciously like a "personal attack". Someone is growing frustrated and angry and oddly contradictory, again.

Time to call in for support.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  Simpleton.  Your reading comprehension is that of a third-grader.  As the law stands Ms. Martinez would be within her rights under Stand Your Ground.  Where does it say I agree with Stand Your Ground.  Of course, waving around a gun in public is simply stupid.  But since you're simply stupid you don't get that point either.  Dope.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

I read properly, you asserted the woman would be justified in shooting the perceived threat. Now, you're starting to imitate Jay Carney, and not doing a very good job of it.

And, my dear, pointing out your glaringly contradictory positions when they occur is not a "personal attack", while accusing someone of hypocrisy and contradictions with no supporting evidence is indeed a "personal attack".

Need any more logic lessons?

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TheRuddSki   If you could read properly you would understand that I was commenting on a "what if" situation.  My position against Stand Your Ground laws and open carry are the same.  No contradiction at all.  You haven't attained a level of mental perspicacity in your lifetime that would enable you to discern the intention of a written commentary, so you assume, then make personal attacks.  Pity.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

Still having trouble reconciling the glaring contradictions of your stated positions concerning perceived threat and self-defense, I see.

A rather embarrassing slip-up for someone who makes unsupported and unsupportable accusations of "hypocrisy" and "contradiction", don't you think?

Maybe you should quit while you're behind, and Mini-Myrna LOOK will arrive later to deflect from your amusing stumbles.

Oh, and it's "crushing bore", not "crashing bore". Crashes are seldom boring, least of all the ones where your opinions collide with each other LOL.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Myrna

Could you quote any of this "We know how Muslims of Dearborn feel about Christians exercising their American Constitutional rights in Dearborn - very much against."

"Or are we to take your word for it

No, you can click on the link I provided some days ago, concerning the arrest of Christians at a Muslim festival in Dearborn at the behest of bigoted Muslims - the arrests that were overturned in court.

I can provide the link again, if you'd like.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...