Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Federal appeals courts holds that open carry does not provide "reasonable suspicion"

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Federal appeals courts holds that open carry does not provide "reasonable suspicion"

    http://www.nebraska.tv/story/3282472...ve-stopped-man

    SNIP

    OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court says Lincoln police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain [an open carrier}.

    The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion Tuesday reverses the ruling of a federal judge, who last year dismissed Leroy Duffie's lawsuit against the city of Lincoln and several police officers.

    the appeals court says given Nebraska's law allowing the open-carry of guns, [open carry] could not be construed as a crime . . .

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    The dissent seems to think that the combination of shyness and being armed is a threat. Even though the blowing imaginary smoke event happened without any evidence that the armed man even saw the person he "threatened".

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    http://www.nebraska.tv/story/3282472...ve-stopped-man

    SNIP

    OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court says Lincoln police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain [an open carrier}.

    The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion Tuesday reverses the ruling of a federal judge, who last year dismissed Leroy Duffie's lawsuit against the city of Lincoln and several police officers.

    the appeals court says given Nebraska's law allowing the open-carry of guns, [open carry] could not be construed as a crime . . .
    This is precisely the same finding as Judge Black in St. John v. Alamogordo.

    It's nice to see the appeals court upheld the LAW. The Federal judge just disqualified himself. He needs to resign. His line of "reasoning" is identical to that of stopping a person and detaining them for wearing a t-shirt that says, "I may have committed a crime; then again, I may not have." Do cops stop drivers because they have the potential to plow through a crowd of people? Do raid people while they're cooking breakfast because their kitchen knives might have be or have been used in a crime? Heck no. Yet that's precisely the gross lack of logic demonstrated by the Federal judge. Thank God for appeals courts.
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    The dissent seems to think that the combination of shyness and being armed is a threat. Even though the blowing imaginary smoke event happened without any evidence that the armed man even saw the person he "threatened".
    Just goes to show you why I do not look to .govs to stop violating my rights...cannot be trusted. If another judge would have seen it the same as the dissenting judge did then the dissent would be the ruling and not the dissent.

    These people are evil.....ruling on rights? Pure evil.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Thanks for the citation link.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Interesting, will those judges be patrolling the streets of Omaha to be sure that a cop follows the "law?"
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Oh my, read the decision. What a tragedy, what a tragicomedy of errors. The victim is a double-amputee.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    The dissenting Bobby E. Shepherd was appointed by George W. Bush. This judge needs to be removed from the bench.
    Regardless, the possible terroristic threat did produce some result in the clerk because the clerk called the Lincoln Police Department to report the incident.
    Now everything is a terroristic threat.

    Slippery slope......
    Last edited by color of law; 08-24-2016 at 09:04 AM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Good news for MO since we are in the 8th district.

    I've not had any issues with OC in MO. I've only had 1 person ever even say anything negative and that was years ago. I knew the off limit places before and in 2014 the MO law changed to exempt CCW holders from local anti-OC ordinances. No one has asked to see my CCW even when OC in very anti-OC areas since the change. YMMV. Still nice to have this clarifying ruling to continue my uninterrupted exercise of my right.

    Now if we can just get full OC preemption so no CCW required regardless.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Good news for MO since we are in the 8th district.

    I've not had any issues with OC in MO. I've only had 1 person ever even say anything negative and that was years ago. I knew the off limit places before and in 2014 the MO law changed to exempt CCW holders from local anti-OC ordinances. No one has asked to see my CCW even when OC in very anti-OC areas since the change. YMMV. Still nice to have this clarifying ruling to continue my uninterrupted exercise of my right.
    Good news indeed!

    Now if we can just get full OC preemption so no CCW required regardless.
    Exactly. It's not merely a federal law, it's the supreme Law of the Land, and just as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congressional mandate of our First Amendment applies to all states, counties, and cities, how much more the limitless bounds of the Second Amendment should apply to each and every man, woman, and child throughout these United States.

    "...The right of the people to keep (own/possess) firearms and bear (carry, either on one's personal in any given format or even in spite of it) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Yet there they go, they're at it today. Total, damned nincompoops.
    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.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The dissenting Bobby E. Shepherd was appointed by George W. Bush. This judge needs to be removed from the bench.
    Now everything is a terroristic threat.

    Slippery slope......
    Domestic enemies do not include those who are attempting to subvert the U.S.S. Enterprises' efforts.

    After such fate and an appropriate response has been formulated Q.

    However, the timelines for both patients were swift. Sad to say.
    Last edited by since9; 01-01-2017 at 12:41 AM.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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