If the person signs the promise to appear no arrest can be made....and you "may" arrest for those violations, but you "shall" issue the ticket.
Texas Transportation Code
Sec. 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES. (a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear if:
(1) the offense charged is speeding or a violation of the open container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and
(2) the person makes a written promise to appear in court as provided by Section 543.005.
(b) If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle licensed in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a) applies only as provided by Chapter 703.
(c) The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is mandatory.
Sec. 543.005. PROMISE TO APPEAR; RELEASE. To secure release, the person arrested must make a written promise to appear in court by signing the written notice prepared by the arresting officer. The signature may be obtained on a duplicate form or on an electronic device capable of creating a copy of the signed notice. The arresting officer shall retain the paper or electronic original of the notice and deliver the copy of the notice to the person arrested. The officer shall then promptly release the person from custody.
The original post speaks of long guns. At least one comment spoke of travelling hunters. I believe that's a different context than defensive carry. A loaded bolt action in an accident would be a likely candidate for discharge.Is that a troll or an actual question??
If actual question it has little to do with anything....
WTF would you have a gun that you are carrying for defense without a round in the chamber?
WTF would you have a gun that you are carrying for defense without a round in the chamber?
If the person refuses to sign a promise to appear, an arrest is allowed under the code.
rollingtrouble Glockster is referring to this, a federal law that applies nationwide. Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
Did anyone even bother to read that article?
"The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution ....
Did anyone even bother to read that article?
"The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States Vs. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)."
United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia