Texas decriminalizes marijuana possession to 4 oz.

D

Damagoman

New Member
Texas decriminalizes marijuana possession to 4 oz.
Anybody got a link to verify this?
Not that I don't trust Moma !!!!

A note from Mom, in Austin...
Body: Let's Hear it For Texas !!!!!!
:)(BOSEG)(tm)

"Mom edited for security reasons" <edited for security reasons> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:56:19 GMT
To: damagoman@edited for security reasons
Subject: Note from Austin
Today they announced on the news that quietly the legislature has passed 132-0 a bill beginning to decriminalize marijuana possession.
Now arrest is not necessary with up to 4 oz. just get a ticket (like parking ticket) with a court date. Becomes effective 9/1/07. Want to come home now?

Told her to start lookin' for a farm for me :)
 
Re: Texas decriminalizes marijuana possession to 4 oz. !!??!!!

Local authorities sticking to old marijuana laws

Web Posted: 08/25/2007 01:32 AM CDT

Selena Hernandez
KENS 5 Eyewitness News

A new Texas law, HB 2391, takes effect September 1, and it gives all agencies the discretion to issue a ticket, as opposed to sending offenders to jail, if found with marijuana.

However, local authorities say your stash won't grant you a free pass. The controversial cannibus law is going up in smoke in Bexar County.

"What sounds good in theory isn't really that good in practice," Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said.

The law allows law enforcement officers to determine whether they will cite or arrest someone found with 4 ounces or less of pot, but don't expect that to be the norm in San Antonio.

"We're sticking with what's in place," Herberg said.

More coverage
KENS video: Watch the broadcast

That's means offenders found with joints will still land in the joint, a stance backed by San Antonio Fighting Back.

"We believe that whether it's 2 ounces, 4 ounces, or thousands of pounds, that it is a drug; it is illegal," said Pastor Keely Petty, with S.A. Fighting Back.

However, some say the legislation makes sense and can ease jail overcrowding.

"They're not initially being pulled over with the knowledge that they have anything illegal in their possession," Lauren Payne said.

"It's not even worth, you know, taking them into jail and, you know, wasting everybody else's money, you know, trying to house them because it's so overpopulated right now," Celina Cain said.

However, the District Attorney's Office isn't rolling out a get-out-of-jail-free card for those busted with pot.

"If you want to empty the jail, you don't have to arrest anybody, but that's not really the way to address the problem, and we have a need to arrest these people for identification purposes," Herberg said.

Deputy Chief Dennis McKnight with the sheriff's office was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as supporting the legislation as a viable option. KENS 5 was unable to reach McKnight for comment.

MySA.com: Metro | State
 
Re: Texas decriminalizes marijuana possession to 4 oz. !!??!!!

8/8/2007
Email this Story Print-ready version leave a comment 1

HB 2391: The stoner's summary

By Dave Maass
Aight, folks. On September1, which just happens to be my kid sister's birthday, a new Texas law will go into effect that says if a cop catches you with your stash – assuming you're not dumb enough to cruise around with more than four ounces on your person – they can issue you a citation instead of hauling your ass downtown.

The law doesn't change the penalties for possession, but it would save you from spending up to 18 hours at the Frank Wing Municipal Court Magistration and Detention Facility, that wretched lock-up on Frio Street – or worse, days or weeks at the Bexar County Jail if you can't make a personal-recognizance bond. Instead, the citation would command you to appear before a magistrate further down the line, giving you time to sort your shit out, shop for a lawyer, take time off work, and all that bad jazz.

The new law, championed by Representative Jerry Madden, would also make these cite-and-summons options available to cops for other misdemeanors as well, including driving without a valid license and graffiti (assuming you're not dumb enough to tag more than $500 worth of damage).

Nice, huh? Nah, it turns out the San Antonio Police Department has no intention of using the new law. "We've consulted with the District Attorney's Office and Sheriff's Office and have made the initial decision NOT to issue citations for the six allowable offenses," SAPD spokesman Gabe Treviño told us via email. "The six offenses were determined to be of such importance to this community that a custodial arrest served the public's interest."

This response confused us, because Bexar County Sheriff jail administrator Dennis McKnight claims he's the daddy of that bill, pitching the idea while guest-blogging at Gritsforbreakfast.com. Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff also spoke with SAPD and the DA, and he's under the impression that they're interested in making it happen. At the very least, we heard Reed was amenable to using HB 2391 for driving-without-a-license.

We'd ask her ourselves, but neither she nor her deputies are returning our calls.

Is there anything you can do about it? Probably not. In order to get a cite-and-summons program going, the DA would need to draft up the citation's language and coordinate it with the court. Without her, there ain't no dock to launch the boat. Even if Reed was on board, crafting a cite-and-summons policy for patrolling officers is at Chief McManus's discretion and no amount of city-council petitioning can force his hand.

In short, rastafari, our advice is to sit tight, stay inconspicuous, remember to vote, and think about relocating to Colorado County, where they aren't letting this legislation go to waste.


8/8/2007
Email this Story Print-ready version leave a comment 1

HB 2391: The stoner's summary

By Dave Maass
Aight, folks. On September1, which just happens to be my kid sister's birthday, a new Texas law will go into effect that says if a cop catches you with your stash – assuming you're not dumb enough to cruise around with more than four ounces on your person – they can issue you a citation instead of hauling your ass downtown.

The law doesn't change the penalties for possession, but it would save you from spending up to 18 hours at the Frank Wing Municipal Court Magistration and Detention Facility, that wretched lock-up on Frio Street – or worse, days or weeks at the Bexar County Jail if you can't make a personal-recognizance bond. Instead, the citation would command you to appear before a magistrate further down the line, giving you time to sort your shit out, shop for a lawyer, take time off work, and all that bad jazz.

The new law, championed by Representative Jerry Madden, would also make these cite-and-summons options available to cops for other misdemeanors as well, including driving without a valid license and graffiti (assuming you're not dumb enough to tag more than $500 worth of damage).

Nice, huh? Nah, it turns out the San Antonio Police Department has no intention of using the new law. "We've consulted with the District Attorney's Office and Sheriff's Office and have made the initial decision NOT to issue citations for the six allowable offenses," SAPD spokesman Gabe Treviño told us via email. "The six offenses were determined to be of such importance to this community that a custodial arrest served the public's interest."

This response confused us, because Bexar County Sheriff jail administrator Dennis McKnight claims he's the daddy of that bill, pitching the idea while guest-blogging at Gritsforbreakfast.com. Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff also spoke with SAPD and the DA, and he's under the impression that they're interested in making it happen. At the very least, we heard Reed was amenable to using HB 2391 for driving-without-a-license.

We'd ask her ourselves, but neither she nor her deputies are returning our calls.

Is there anything you can do about it? Probably not. In order to get a cite-and-summons program going, the DA would need to draft up the citation's language and coordinate it with the court. Without her, there ain't no dock to launch the boat. Even if Reed was on board, crafting a cite-and-summons policy for patrolling officers is at Chief McManus's discretion and no amount of city-council petitioning can force his hand.

In short, rastafari, our advice is to sit tight, stay inconspicuous, remember to vote, and think about relocating to Colorado County, where they aren't letting this legislation go to waste.
 
Re: Texas decriminalizes marijuana possession to 4 oz. !!??!!!

Once again, law enforcement thinks they are a higher authority than those that make the law.
 
Everyone who can, needs to keep sending those letters - contacting your congressmen and stay in touch with & support your local Marijuana chapters. BE involved!! Don't sit on the sidelines - be supportive - be active, and eventually we will be heard.

We have to decide what to do with the time given to us. The time to be the bystander is over. Stand up for what you believe in and don't let the non-believers rule our destiny. Be Informed and inform the uninformed!

:smokin:
 
Keep the Pressure On 'em !!!

At least the Texas communities can decide for themselfs, Now.
Pretty sure they elect their Sheriffs :cheesygrinsmiley:

Stand Up, Speak Out and Vote :bong:

Got this from a friend this mornin':
Around here , We vote the Sheriff in.
RE: County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro
Freeagle
Date: Sep 13, 2007 3:16 AM
Friday, 16 February 2007
The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." [Amen].

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens."

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those "states’ rights" debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

Winston Churchill observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Dave Robinson, Brunswick, Maine maine-patriot.com
-----------end---------
 
And of course We The People,
also have this tool to use:
the most important bulletin you might ever read

please Stop convicting cannabis consumers Jury Nullification

If you are on a jury you DO NOT have to convict someone if you disagree with the law!

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what is the law or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict than officials who may be unduly influenced. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.


Jury nullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not normally disclosed to jurors by the system when they are instructed as to rights and duties. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition on retrying criminal defendants after an acquittal i.e. 'double jeopardy'


In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate.


During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time! This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.
 
DaMagoMan said:
The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried – not in Wyoming, not yet.
Click to expand...

Couldn't that president be used to sort out the mess in california where the city says that dispensaries are fine but the feds keep raiding them?
 
I would think it would be!

Not real familiar with Cali. law.
The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.
Click to expand...
May not be backed by the Cali. state constitution.
Still seems to me the 10th Amendment would be enough.
 
It takes cahoonas on the sheriff's part, then a community that will stand up with him/her.
 
Round up the posse and lets run these feds out of town!
 
Just have to do recon' when ya' buy property to farm :cheesygrinsmiley:
Get to know the county sheriff, for sure.

I almost forgot, this goes with the jury Nullification, audio and visual stimuli :cheesygrinsmiley: Thanks to Jack H:
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="never" allowNetworking="internal" height="350" width="425" data="
">
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never" />
<param name="allowNetworking" value="internal" />
<param name="movie" value="
" />
</object>

YouTube - 1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
 
Alaska Lady said:
Everyone who can, needs to keep sending those letters - contacting your congressmen and stay in touch with & support your local Marijuana chapters. BE involved!! Don't sit on the sidelines - be supportive - be active, and eventually we will be heard.

We have to decide what to do with the time given to us. The time to be the bystander is over. Stand up for what you believe in and don't let the non-believers rule our destiny. Be Informed and inform the uninformed!

:smokin:
Click to expand...


This woman is a true testiment to what we stand for. I would like everyone to read this post a second time and realize that it is people like this that help get the ball rolling on legislation for decriminalization and eventually legalization.
Alaska Lady - you have the Kwat's respect.
 

Similar threads

Katelyn Baker
Decriminalizing Marijuana Could Be Good For Texas Business
Replies
0
Views
1K
Katelyn Baker
Katelyn Baker
Ron Strider
Time Runs Out On Texas Bill To Decriminalize Marijuana
Replies
0
Views
807
Ron Strider
Ron Strider
S
Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Reduce Penalties For Marijuana Possession
Replies
0
Views
1K
Shandar
S
Katelyn Baker
Texas Lawmakers Consider Reforming Marijuana Laws
Replies
0
Views
686
Katelyn Baker
Katelyn Baker
Katelyn Baker
Texas Legislators File Bills Aimed At Decriminalizing Marijuana
Replies
1
Views
874
Beavis
Beavis
Back
Top Bottom