Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: 4th Circuit rules OC not RAS to stop

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    4th Circuit rules OC not RAS to stop

    The Fourth Circuit court has ruled on a case in North Carolina. The ruling says that if Open Carry is legal, then carrying openly does not constitute Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for the police to stop you.

    This is what Casad (the unpublished case here in Washington) found, but this is the first time that I know of that a Federal Circuit court has ruled the same. Keep in mind that this doesn't apply outside the Fourth Circuit, but could be used as precedent. If another court rules otherwise, that sets up for a SCOTUS battle.

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/19/...on-open-carry/

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    This is a great case. The judges helped throw a lot of the old "suspicion" is good enough thinking right out the window.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    This is good for all of us.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    This is good for all of us.
    This is what we, OCDO, have been saying all along.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Keep in mind that this doesn't apply outside the Fourth Circuit,
    I think is odd since the US constitution stipulates we are all equal under the law how can we recieve equal treatment if the 4th circuit makes a ruling at the federal level and no other court makes a counter ruling (triggering a SCOTUS appeal) yet it only applies to some citizens and not all?


    To see courts upholding their oath to the constitution and it sets precidence on the matter, so all around good in my book.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    I think is odd since the US constitution stipulates we are all equal under the law how can we recieve equal treatment if the 4th circuit makes a ruling at the federal level and no other court makes a counter ruling (triggering a SCOTUS appeal) yet it only applies to some citizens and not all?


    To see courts upholding their oath to the constitution and it sets precidence on the matter, so all around good in my book.
    You think they take their oath seriously?........

    Although this decision has good points, it still relies and reaffirms destructive decisions like Terry vs. Ohio. Which waters down our so called protections by the 4th amendment. They invented obscure unconstitutional terms like "States interest" etc....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Thompson in the 10th (NM) in 2002? found the same. Now we have two. Black with the 4th is the second one. For some reason I can't find Thompson right now, but it was the same desision as in Black, and the same reasoning,

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lante's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    122
    The quote from the ruling I found most interesting is "Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

    Since the governments argument in this case is the same we hear from police officers many police officers... 'he might be a felon' and 'officer safety'
    "Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms, see generally N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-415.10 to 14-415.23,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. 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. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

    This also seems to argue against the "officer safety" reasoning for seizing a firearm during an encounter.

    Also note that a New Mexico case was cited stating that lawful carry of a firearm was not reasonable suspicion See St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D.N.M. 2009) (finding no reasonable
    suspicion where the plaintiff arrived at a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun, an act which is legal in the State of New Mexico.)

    The full Black case can be seen here http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
    Last edited by Lante; 03-21-2013 at 10:51 PM. Reason: add case citation

  9. #9
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Lante View Post
    The quote from the ruling I found most interesting is "Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

    Since the governments argument in this case is the same we hear from police officers many police officers... 'he might be a felon' and 'officer safety'
    The reverse is likewise true. We can look at a man in uniform with a pistol on his belt, yet we do not KNOW that he is in fact a police officer. He could be a felon who is merely impersonating an officer, and is therefore committing a crime in front of us.

    Either possessing a firearm is probable cause by itself or it is not. If it is probable cause, then it's probable cause for everyone. If it's not probable cause, then it's not probable cause for anyone. You can have it one way or the other way, but not both ways at once. That's the basic principle of the rule of law: the law applies equally to everyone.
    Last edited by Difdi; 03-22-2013 at 03:01 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    I only just saw this, and I think it's fantastic. This should be changing the way police operate... even though it isn't in some places. Still, at least we have some ammunition to fight back with.

  11. #11
    Regular Member divedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    37
    Pooo
    Ll


    Sent from my iPhone using ESP.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Quote Originally Posted by divedog View Post
    Pooo Ll
    Now that is cryptic.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Terry v Ohio, while a watering down of our rights IS the only thing we need......well that and a Supreme Court that doesn't try to rewrite things.

    RAS must be Reasonable, Articulable, and PARTICULARIZED to an individual....... If it's lawful to carry in a given location, then police MUST have something more than the mere presence of a firearm in order to detain an individual. The "officer safety" disarmament of a citizen CANNOT (legally) happen unless the police have RAS and have first detained him.

    So, when they walk up on the street because you are open carry (where it is legal), they cannot just start demanding compliance, snatching your firearms, etc.........LEGALLY. That doesn't mean they won't do it, but such actions are unlawful unless the officer has and can articulate the RAS he had PRIOR to encountering the carrier. He cannot develop his RAS (or PC) after initiating the detainment.

    These other rulings help to spread the word.....but they aren't necessary.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Snipped

    So, when they walk up on the street because you are open carry (where it is legal), they cannot just start demanding compliance, snatching your firearms, etc.........LEGALLY. That doesn't mean they won't do it, but such actions are unlawful unless the officer has and can articulate the RAS he had PRIOR to encountering the carrier. He cannot develop his RAS (or PC) after initiating the detainment.
    Snipped
    There was a guy and his son walking down a road in Texas on a HIKE while OC'ing where he had a different experience. I do believe the local judiciary found him guilty of a charge that he was FINALLY charged with weeks or months AFTER the initial incident that per the video was PURELY due to his OC of a rifle.

    I do hope that on appeal he is fully exonerated and the LEO's involved face the consequences for the Civil Rights Violations they committed.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    There was a guy and his son walking down a road in Texas on a HIKE while OC'ing where he had a different experience. I do believe the local judiciary found him guilty of a charge that he was FINALLY charged with weeks or months AFTER the initial incident that per the video was PURELY due to his OC of a rifle.

    I do hope that on appeal he is fully exonerated and the LEO's involved face the consequences for the Civil Rights Violations they committed.
    That guy in TX is CJ Grisham and his experience (and that of many others) is why is said they can't LEGALLY do it. He was railroaded in the court and will persevere on appeal IF the defense properly preserved their ability to appeal. I've seen the video and some documentation of that case. The officer is clearly perjuring himself as his testimony does not reflect what the video reflects. Which begs the question, what the hell was the judge thinking for not dismissing AND WORSE why are our juries so ignorant (hint on juries, it's by design)?
    Last edited by We-the-People; 04-13-2014 at 12:37 PM.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    That guy in TX is CJ Grisham and his experience (and that of many others) is why is said they can't LEGALLY do it. He was railroaded in the court and will persevere on appeal IF the defense properly preserved their ability to appeal. I've seen the video and some documentation of that case. The officer is clearly perjuring himself as his testimony does not reflect what the video reflects. Which begs the question, what the hell was the judge thinking for not dismissing AND WORSE why are our juries so ignorant (hint on juries, it's by design)?
    Maybe I should have put the words "a guy" in quotes in my original comment to indicate that I knew who he was... LOL
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Maybe I should have put the words "a guy" in quotes in my original comment to indicate that I knew who he was... LOL
    Between CJ and Terry H, Texas is getting a little shaking up. I think CJ was Pro Se at trial so I hope he preserved his appealable issues because from what I read, the whole thing was a fiasco from the gov't side and is ripe to be overturned on appeal.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by sefbzyh4 View Post
    ...
    A very busy spammer. Clogging up perfectly good threads.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    If you see spam, report spam. Then say that it has been reported.

    Use that little triangle with an exclamation point thingy for reporting.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If you see spam, report spam. Then say that it has been reported.

    Use that little triangle with an exclamation point thingy for reporting.

    stay safe.
    ya oughta research my posts this morning. I even complained about the 60 second delay between posting complaints via that little triangle thingy. Again, proves my point, from another thread, regarding old dudes.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ya oughta research my posts this morning. I even complained about the 60 second delay between posting complaints via that little triangle thingy. Again, proves my point, from another thread, regarding old dudes.
    As an "old dude," I can assure you your issue has nothing to do with age.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As an "old dude," I can assure you your issue has nothing to do with age.
    You erroneously presume that I too am not old.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    This is more good news overall.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You erroneously presume that I too am not old.
    I did not assume. I inferred, based on the content of your posts. Inference is not infallible.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    I love Open Carrying. We are truly a rare breed! This is great news for all of us, and further protects our liberty. Reading this story never gets old, even on a necro-post!

    Isn't it funny that a felon, even after pleading guilty, had his sentence vacated and thus won such a big victory? Irony, man. He was probably oblivious!
    Last edited by The Truth; 10-28-2014 at 03:30 AM.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •