• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

4th Circuit Federal Court decision on RAS and Open carry

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
A part of a 4th Circuit Federal Court decision on RAS and Open carry. United States v. Black
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

“Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status.

More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”

A good analysis of the case. http://www.fedagent.com/columns/cas...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
 

fjpro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
280
Location
North Carolina
Win one, lose three

This is an exceptional ruling!!! In fact, it gives me reason to hope. Why am I such a pessimist, though? Because for every new victory we eek out, it seems as if three other new rulings go against us. Maybe it's because I am getting up there in age.
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
AND????????. I wasn't aware Venator implied that Michigan was part of the fourth circuit. Why this truncated response?

I don't believe that a ruling on NC law has any precedent to Michigan laws. Though the ruling is something we've known all along I dont believe it has any impact on Michigan but looking at it again this is federal court and because our laws here are similar somewhat it could be. Overall it's a nice read to see the courts get it right.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Been discussed at length in other threads.

I challenge you to use OCDO's search function to find the relevant threads.....when you give up, in frustration, let me know and I'll post the links to those threads. ;)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I don't believe that a ruling on NC law has any precedent to Michigan laws. Though the ruling is something we've known all along I dont believe it has any impact on Michigan but looking at it again this is federal court and because our laws here are similar somewhat it could be. Overall it's a nice read to see the courts get it right.

While it might not be precedential, it is persuasive. In other words, showing that a number of other circuits hold a particular view can persuade a circuit facing it's own first impression, or even revisiting the issue after some passage of time since it last faced the issue, can influence the court. Which is why court-wwatchers keep scorecards of who and how many go each way.

Further, if the 6th Circuit has not already weighed in on the matter, there is always the question of do they want to be the case sent to SCOTUS to resolve the difference of opinions among the Circuits? Yes, going along to get along - it's the new social justice!:uhoh:

stay safe.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
AND????????. I wasn't aware Venator implied that Michigan was part of the fourth circuit. Why this truncated response?

This was posted in the Michigan Forum. Given Michigan isn't in the fourth circuit, this decision is of limited value in Michigan :(
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
While it might not be precedential, it is persuasive. In other words, showing that a number of other circuits hold a particular view can persuade a circuit facing it's own first impression, or even revisiting the issue after some passage of time since it last faced the issue, can influence the court. Which is why court-wwatchers keep scorecards of who and how many go each way.

Further, if the 6th Circuit has not already weighed in on the matter, there is always the question of do they want to be the case sent to SCOTUS to resolve the difference of opinions among the Circuits? Yes, going along to get along - it's the new social justice!:uhoh:

stay safe.

Persuasive precedence isn't something I'd encourage the average OCer to bank on.

This thread/case (From Michigan's POV) makes interesting legal scholastic discussion, but that's about it.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
I don't believe that a ruling on NC law has any precedent to Michigan laws. Though the ruling is something we've known all along I dont believe it has any impact on Michigan but looking at it again this is federal court and because our laws here are similar somewhat it could be. Overall it's a nice read to see the courts get it right.

Mike and I agree for once, without slamming each other! Mark your calendars, folk!
 

bigt8261

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Grand Rapids
What about this excerpt:
Additionally, the Government avers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "go about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst to possess a firearm." We are not persuaded.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Good read. Too bad it involved a scumbag felon actually breaking the law. But I digress, good to see even those facts did not away the appeals court from making a very just ruling.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
As far as I am concerned, this is not any sort of landmark.This is simply what the constitution, and rulings such as Terry v Ohio lay out for us.

Conducting a stop, without any other suspicion, solely for lawful OCing, is a federal color of law violation on the part of any cops who conduct such a stop, and very likely a violation of state law, depending on the state in question. It is very simple, no RAS and no warrant means no stop. The idiotic words most of us old timers have heard "We don't know if you're a felon" has the key words "we don't know", a dead giveaway that they have no RAS and by federal law cannot stop you without your consent.

In my opinion, the entire matter could hardly be simpler.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
While it might not be precedential, it is persuasive. In other words, showing that a number of other circuits hold a particular view can persuade a circuit facing it's own first impression, or even revisiting the issue after some passage of time since it last faced the issue, can influence the court. Which is why court-wwatchers keep scorecards of who and how many go each way.

Further, if the 6th Circuit has not already weighed in on the matter, there is always the question of do they want to be the case sent to SCOTUS to resolve the difference of opinions among the Circuits? Yes, going along to get along - it's the new social justice!:uhoh:

stay safe.

And, more importantly, that ruling cites St. John v. McColley from New Mexico. St. John was not precedential, but it was persuasive on the 4th Circuit. The idea that the unadorned act of exercising a fundamental and protected right cannot possibly provide reasonable suspicion is gaining steam--nationwide.

As well it should. Without that underlying idea, the exercise of any right can easily be infringed! The idea is even more simply stated (and even more obviously true): The exercise of a right may not even be questioned, else it is no longer a right!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

kleanthisa

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
1
Location
Divided State of America
Courts don't like to have conflicting opinions on controversial issues unless precedent has been well established or the opinion is supported by convincing evidence. So while this does not apply directly to Michigan or anyone else outside of the particular circuit making the ruling, it still carries weight and can be attached as ancillary information/supplemental/notice of record/etc. BUT why would you need it in Michigan? The MSP (Michigan State Police) has done an excellent job of putting out a three page brief on Open-Carry and it spells it out in black and white as to what and how law enforcement in Michigan should act. If you encounter a law enforcement officer who has not read it, carry a copy for him/her (I do).

MSP Legal Update #86
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

Legislative Law
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

Food for thought...
 
Top