Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be countered.

Northern-Lights · Jun 18, 2015

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fe...ce-detain-individuals-open-carrying-firearms/

I no longer live in Michigan....but you really need to gather groups of folks to open carry in these cities. They can't possibly do this to everyone and if they want to be stupid.....it will cost them thousands to detain and check everyone!

MontanaResident · Jun 18, 2015

You can open carry or you can wear camo, but you cannot open carry and wear camo.

I expect a judge to knock this one into the ground hard.

Whitney · Jun 18, 2015

It is the equipment not the demeanor.

(Snip from the article)
In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”
............

I'll bet "Janet" would feel different if she were detained for what appeared to be solicitation. After all she does have the equipment.

This is a perfect example of why the judge you vote for is just as important as the legislator you vote for.

~Whitney

FreeInAZ · Jun 18, 2015

^^^^ That

OC Freedom · Jun 18, 2015

DELAWARE V. PROUSE--An officer CANNOT detain someone without reasonable suspicion of crime.

US V. DEBERRY--(7th Circuit) The presence of a firearm where legal to possess, cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Terry V. Ohio--Three criteria must be met in order to disarm an individual;
1)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is armed.<--- open carry is legal, no crime here.
2)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous; and<---- wearing camo and singing are legal acts, being odd is not a crime or dangerous.
3)The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime<---open carry, singing, wearing camo are legal. Odd behavior maybe, reasonable suspicion, NO.

This ruling is worthless and will not hold up.

taxman · Jun 18, 2015

Whitney said:
(Snip from the article)

This is a perfect example of why the judge you vote for is just as important as the legislator you vote for.

~Whitney

We don't get to vote for feral judges. They're president appointed and senate confirmed.

You voted for/against her in 2004 when George Walker PatriotAct ran for reelection.

"Janet T. Neff (born 1945) is a District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. She joined the court in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush."

twoskinsonemanns · Jun 18, 2015

Whitney said:
(Snip from the article)
In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”
............

I'll bet "Janet" would feel different if she were detained for what appeared to be solicitation. After all she does have the equipment.

This is a perfect example of why the judge you vote for is just as important as the legislator you vote for.

~Whitney

Great post

Whitney · Jun 19, 2015

All politics is local

taxman said:
We don't get to vote for feral judges. They're president appointed and senate confirmed.

You voted for/against her in 2004 when George Walker PatriotAct ran for reelection.

"Janet T. Neff (born 1945) is a District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. She joined the court in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush."

You won't get any argument from me regarding appointment of Judges. My point being they all start off somewhere and it is incumbent upon us to make sure we keep the good ones and eject the bad ones.

~Whitney

taxman · Jun 19, 2015

"Last edited by Grapeshot; Today at 07:02 AM. Reason: Edited violation of rule #6 "

Oops, managed to run afoul of moderation in the first 24 hours after I finally registered.
The funny thing is, you didn't delete the Rule 6 personal attack from my post. When I say "George Walker PatriotAct" I mean it with the utmost in personal scorn. I was trying to be nice about it though, so I spelled his middle name with an "L".

I never use more than five letters to spell the word "federal" when referring to our illustrious government. That's not an attack on Judge Neff, it's just my way of pointing out that the animal known as fedgov has slipped its constitutional leash, is no longer under human control, and has gone feral.

press1280 · Jun 20, 2015

OC Freedom said:
DELAWARE V. PROUSE--An officer CANNOT detain someone without reasonable suspicion of crime.

US V. DEBERRY--(7th Circuit) The presence of a firearm where legal to possess, cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Terry V. Ohio--Three criteria must be met in order to disarm an individual;
1)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is armed.<--- open carry is legal, no crime here.
2)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous; and<---- wearing camo and singing are legal acts, being odd is not a crime or dangerous.
3)The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime<---open carry, singing, wearing camo are legal. Odd behavior maybe, reasonable suspicion, NO.

This ruling is worthless and will not hold up.

If it does hold up we may have a nice vehicle to SCOTUS, see also US v. Black 4th circuit

taxman · Jun 20, 2015

press1280 said:
If it does hold up we may have a nice vehicle to SCOTUS, see also US v. Black 4th circuit

Not every vehicle takes you where you expect to go. See also Jackson v SanFrancisco:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/06/08/high-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-storage-law/

xd shooter · Jun 21, 2015

I suspect this won't be the last say on this matter...

notalawyer · Jun 22, 2015

Folks, the headline is completely incorrect.

This ruling is for this one specific case, period.

They ruled that the defendant singing Disney Kids Movie tunes, suggest to the LEO that he was some kind of a nut case carrying a firearm, and wearing camo and doing so in the vicinity of a church.

Grapeshot · Jun 22, 2015

taxman said:
We don't get to vote for feral judges. They're president appointed and senate confirmed.

You voted for/against her in 2004 when George Walker PatriotAct ran for reelection.

"Janet T. Neff (born 1945) is a District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. She joined the court in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush."

taxman said:
"Last edited by Grapeshot; Today at 07:02 AM. Reason: Edited violation of rule #6 "
Oops, managed to run afoul of moderation in the first 24 hours after I finally registered.
The funny thing is, you didn't delete the Rule 6 personal attack from my post. When I say "George Walker PatriotAct" I mean it with the utmost in personal scorn. I was trying to be nice about it though, so I spelled his middle name with an "L".

I never use more than five letters to spell the word "federal" when referring to our illustrious government. That's not an attack on Judge Neff, it's just my way of pointing out that the animal known as fedgov has slipped its constitutional leash, is no longer under human control, and has gone feral.

Late explanation.
You're perfectly free to have an opinion on one of the Georges and identify him by his actions.

My initial concern was that you were broad brushing all federal judges. Your explanation that it is the federal government that has become wild and uncontrolled; hence "feral." I like that so much that I may use it.

Xpiatio · Jul 1, 2015

Most of the time SCOTUS will not hear a case if there isn't more than one circuit with differing rulings. Just because they don't take a case doesn't always mean they necessarily uphold the ruling. Sometimes it's a waiting game.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

FreeInAZ · Jul 4, 2015

Sadly, it appears the OCer could not raise the funds needed to appeal this & has walked away from this case.

griffin · Jul 4, 2015

If Johann doesn't appeal, do I get my GoFundMe money back? Where did you see that he isn't pursuing it? I haven't seen him post that to the MOC forum or the MOC fb pages.

FreeInAZ · Jul 5, 2015

Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be cou...

griffin said:
If Johann doesn't appeal, do I get my GoFundMe money back? Where did you see that he isn't pursuing it? I haven't seen him post that to the MOC forum or the MOC fb pages.

Listening to last weeks atodds show, I heard Mr. Dulan (his lawyer) say Johann had decided not to go forward with the appeal.

I think I heard that correctly? - Check for yourselves guys : while you're at it, show some love for Brian & Nate the hosts of atodds, two talented dudes IMHO.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116722

Citizen · Jul 5, 2015

Xpiatio said:
Most of the time SCOTUS will not hear a case if there isn't more than one circuit with differing rulings. Just because they don't take a case doesn't always mean they necessarily uphold the ruling. Sometimes it's a waiting game.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I think they even have a term for this, the issue is not ripened. The term exists; I'm just not 100% sure it applies to waiting for circuit split. Maybe a legal wiz can chip in.

rightwinglibertarian · Jul 6, 2015

OC Freedom said:
DELAWARE V. PROUSE--An officer CANNOT detain someone without reasonable suspicion of crime.

US V. DEBERRY--(7th Circuit) The presence of a firearm where legal to possess, cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Terry V. Ohio--Three criteria must be met in order to disarm an individual;
1)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is armed.<--- open carry is legal, no crime here.
2)The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous; and<---- wearing camo and singing are legal acts, being odd is not a crime or dangerous.
3)The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime<---open carry, singing, wearing camo are legal. Odd behavior maybe, reasonable suspicion, NO.

This ruling is worthless and will not hold up.

You don't even need that. You just need the fourth amendment. And of course this so-called ruling is exactly why there is the 2A. And ANY ruling against the Constitution is only as valid as the fool who enslaves himself to it

Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be countered.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member