• 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.

Examiner.com: Federal judge tells police: leave open gun carriers alone!

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Folks - let's spread this story far and wide and get the word out - open carriers get fourth Amendment protection too!

Please sign up for a DIGG.com account and DIGG this news column - REDDIT the story too if you have time.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns

SNIP

examiner.com — On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge’s straight shootin’ message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have “reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot.” . . .
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
imported post

Good article---even better federal court ruling!!

I'm always amazed in states where open carry is legal, normalized, and generally enjoys widespread acceptance that such things still happen.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

AZkopper wrote:
Good article---even better federal court ruling!!

I'm always amazed in states where open carry is legal, normalized, and generally enjoys widespread acceptance that such things still happen.


That's when having officials enforcing laws based on their own interpretation shows just how big an ugly head it has. From the officers to the prosecutors, the law allows too much of a broad application. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that if laws were written in common terms, it would be harder to twist them into different meanings. Just like a gun, the more moving parts, the more potential problems.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Wow! Wow! Wow!

Great news.

The legal research into the court cases cited within the opinion is very valuable.

Fellas, hunt up those court cases for the federal circuitin which you live, and add them to your favorites folder. You'll be able to use them in a formal complaint later, or re-post them for someone else who has been illegally detained.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

If you live in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, or South Carolina, you are in the Fourth Circuit of the federal courts. Memorize this line:


[align=left]
For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized an individual for lawfully carrying weapon. Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff'sconcealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area."[/align]
[align=left]http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf[/align]
 
S

scubabeme

Guest
imported post

Citizen : +1000
It's about time someone properly interpreted 2A/4A in the same breath at the Fed level.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Woohoo!!

A federal judge agrees with something I've been saying for a long time: that armed and presently dangerous are two different things.

[align=left]
Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at 1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive, controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so. (emphasis in the original)[/align]
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

scubabeme wrote:
Citizen : +1000
It's about time someone properly interpreted 2A/4A in the same breath at the Fed level.
Oh, yes. Thank you. That was something I wanted to point out, but forgot while feeling smug about my last post.

This opinion confirmsthat detentions of OCers, weapon seizures, pat-downs, are not just 2A issues. They area 4A issue.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Woo hoo hoo!!!

Reading the cases cited within the above opinion is paying off, fellas!

If you live in the 4th Circuit, save this one for apologists who say police can't know all the laws:


[align=left]McGuigan [thecop]suggests that a reasonable police officer would not necessarily know specific Maryland cases on penknives. However, a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law.
See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("[A] reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct."). (red emphasis added)[/align]
[align=left]http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf[/align]
 

Bustelo5%

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
474
Location
kent, Ohio, USA
imported post

Was this gentle man USAF by chance I say that because I have been to Alamagordo and the only thing there is the base.
Another question is what did is NCOS Base Commander/Mps do when this happend and is there any protocol for when a soldier is detained by a local governing authority?
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
If you live in the 4th Circuit, save this one for apologists who say police can't know all the laws:

That's something that's always pissed me off. Knowing the laws is part of their job! I was a Fireman for over30 yearsandI was expected to know my job! And the Fire Service is every bit as demanding and complicated as Law Enforcement, andI knew my job. I would'nt have been in the Fire Service aslongas I wasif I had'nt.

"Police cant know all the laws" is nothing but a weak excuse, especially when they expect we,the general public, to know the laws.

I aint LEO bashing, I justexpect them to know their job as I was expected to know mine and to do theirs in a professional manner as I did.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

What about this footnote from the decision? What an absurd argument.


Defendants contend that Mr. St. John was about to commit a crime because, had he refused to
comply with their request that he leave the premises, he would have been trespassing. If
accepted, this argument would significantly erode Fourth Amendment protections. Because
the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants' novel contention, no further
discussion of it is necessary.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Interesting notes:
1. The court made it quite clear, cops are NOT agents of various corporations/private property owners and therefore cannot speak/act on their behalf.
2. Punitive damages? Absolutely !! Make it hurt.
3. Ahhh, no special treatment under the doctrine of immunity. Guess "law enforcement officers" must obey the law, too !!
4. No, such treatment of OC'ers is NOT "rare."
 

6L6GC

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
492
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

the more of these rulings that we get the better. There needs to be real consequences for violating citizen's rights under the color of law. Such needs to be the case for bureaucrats as well as for police officers.



There might be actual cases during a heated encounter between various parties where a policeman might have a gray area until he finds out what is going on and sorts out the situation. However, this is rarely if ever the case with bureaucrats.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Bustelo5% wrote:
Was this gentle man USAF by chance I say that because I have been to Alamagordo and the only thing there is the base.
Another question is what did is NCOS Base Commander/Mps do when this happend and is there any protocol for when a soldier is detained by a local governing authority?
He was not charged with anything, his rights were violated, so he sued. If he was active duty military, the NCOs/Commanders have no authority to prevent an "Airman" from doing something that is entirely legal within the state. Especially since the NCOs and Commanders are acting under the authority of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the 2nd Amendment definitely applies to the Federal Government.



Decoligny, Technical Sergeant, USAF (Retired)
 

Lthrnck

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
656
Location
Englewood, Ohio, USA
imported post

Well I just contacted my lawyer about this ruling, he is very pleased. He had not seen it yet.

NOW.. don't say he should have seen it already... the poor guy in trying to answer a 40 page , what ever it's called, from the City of Englewood in my case. If you click on the Ohio link about open cases at the bottom of the story you'll get part of it.

This should help some.. we filed under the 2nd, and 4th.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

6L6GC wrote:
the more of these rulings that we get the better. There needs to be real consequences for violating citizen's rights under the color of law. Such needs to be the case for bureaucrats as well as for police officers.



There might be actual cases during a heated encounter between various parties where a policeman might have a gray area until he finds out what is going on and sorts out the situation. However, this is rarely if ever the case with bureaucrats.


Alas, were this the case.

My guess is that in many jurisdictions there is still no controlling precedent on open carry, or most situations where open carry confrontations with LEOs occur. Absentsuch precedentsthe LEOs will argue that there is no "clearly established" law, and that qualified immunity applies. They will still win those arguments most of the time . . .although the tide seems to be turning in our favor.

If I read Mike's article correctly -- one excellent aspect of the New Mexico decision is that it relies on US Supreme Court precedent in part to establish that OC in itself does not create probable cause to search and seize.

Hopefully the Courts in Wisconsin and elsewhere follow this example.


Edit: OK found the link to the decision. Here is my favorite language:

[align=left][/align]
[align=left]The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited[/align]
[align=left]Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.[/align]
[align=left]Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure[/align]
[align=left]were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,[/align]

[align=left]see, e.g., Harlow
, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.[/align]
[align=left]Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth[/align]
[align=left]Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment[/align]
is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.



It is significant that the Court found "clearly established law" from the lack of any statute prohibiting OC.
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
imported post

Does anyone know what sort of awards successful plaintiffs have been receiving? Have any of these cases gone to trial, or have they all settled?

It seems to me that these cases are all about punitive damages, because the plaintiff's actual financial loss is probably pretty minimal in most cases.
 
Top