Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Fed Judge Rules: Police cannot detain for OC

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns:

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

    Thugs may get what they deserve. The judge denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity".

    "Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages."

    This sounds exactly like what happened to FatboyCykes in the Peoples Republic of Warren.


  2. #2
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    F-IN-A

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I'd expect a good ruling from New Mexico. It's a pretty good state. Vastly more free than Michigan.

    But I am a little confused by this. Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    wow that i.s huge. What happens in NM doest necesarily impact us in MI though

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Unlike in Spencer and Mitchell, Casad had hunting rifles, not a semi-automatic weapon.
    Most of my hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Would that have made such a difference you think?

    Last, there was no visible clip attached to Casad’s weapons.
    So one cannot openly carry a semi-automatic rifle with a "clip"?

    What does this leave? Bolt action? Breech load? Black powder?


    edited to add that the above quotes are from Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) which was referenced in the article linked in the original post.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    RubberArm wrote:
    So one cannot openly carry a semi-automatic rifle with a "clip"?
    I'm not sure where you got those quotes from, but the only clip fed semi auto rife I can think of that retains the clip is a Garand.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    RubberArm wrote:
    So one cannot openly carry a semi-automatic rifle with a "clip"?
    I'm not sure where you got those quotes from, but the only clip fed semi auto rife I can think of that retains the clip is a Garand.
    What is meant by "clip"? A magazine? Or is there a distinction between a clip and a magazine?

  8. #8
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    They are NOT the same thing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    They are NOT the same thing.
    That's what I thought. A clip would not be visible in any case, right?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post



    Left is a clip, right is a magazine.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Way off topic.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Way off topic.
    I'm sorry. I was quoting the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
    which was mentioned in the article linked in the OP.

    The way I read that opinion, if a "clip" is visible, it may make a difference in warranting a stop.

  13. #13
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Where the f did this clip mag crap come from?

    I read the whole article twice and the complete judge's opinion without seeing a single mention of clips or mags anywhere therein.

    This is way beyond off topic.

    It's a deliberate distraction.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Where the f did this clip mag crap come from?

    I read the whole article twice and the complete judge's opinion without seeing a single mention of clips or mags anywhere therein.

    This is way beyond off topic.

    It's a deliberate distraction.
    Again, I apologize. I tend to read a lot of the referenced cases as well as the article.

  15. #15
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I apologize also. Our posts crossed paths in cyberspace.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    excellentdecision!

    I will be interested to see how muchhe isawarded in damages.

    is it a suit against the police dept or the individual officers? I wasn't real clear on that.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    excellentÂ*decision!

    I will be interested to see how muchÂ*he isÂ*awarded in damages.Â*

    is it a suit against the police dept or the individual officers?Â* I wasn't real clear on that.Â*
    Now that this decision is made, he can sue both the department AND the officers.

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    St. John's suit was against 7 officers individually.

  19. #19
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
    Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
    Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.
    The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.

    However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.

  21. #21
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Yeah I know.... I can wish can't I?

    Aren't you supposed to be PM'ing me?

  22. #22
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
    Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.
    The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.

    However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.
    True... but if another district decides the issue differently, it does set it up for possible Supreme Court scrutiny.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Hillsdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I'd expect a good ruling from New Mexico. It's a pretty good state. Vastly more free than Michigan.

    But I am a little confused by this. Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?

    I do believe your answer is in Article 4 of the US Constitution. It clearly states that full faith and credit shall be given to the judicial proceedings of every other Sate. However, there area lot of unlawful judges.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Hillsdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    wow that i.s huge. What happens in NM doest necesarily impact us in MI though
    The answer lies in Article IV of the US Constitution. It clearly states that full faith and credit shall be given to the judicial proceedings of every other State.





    Yes it does and if I knew how to postproperlyin here I would show you the truth.



  25. #25
    Regular Member Hillsdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Pittsford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    snip...Does this ruling set a nation wide standard, or only for that district?
    Oh please let it mean something here in this gun owning $hithole that is my home state.
    The decision is only binding to that district of the Federal Appeals Court.

    However, it does serve as guidance to other courts, it's just not binding.
    Not so. It is binding on all states and possessions of the Unites States, it just needs to be authenticated. This can be seen in USC title 28 Sec. 1738. You can read it here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...8----000-.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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