• 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.

Fed Judge Rules: Police cannot detain for OC

G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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?
 
R

RubberArm

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
51
Location
Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
imported post

Unlike in Spencer and Mitchell, Casad had hunting rifles, not a semi-automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

RubberArm wrote:
So one cannot openly carry a semi-automatic rifle with a "clip"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
R

RubberArm

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
51
Location
Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
RubberArm wrote:
So one cannot openly carry a semi-automatic rifle with a "clip"?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What is meant by "clip"? A magazine? Or is there a distinction between a clip and a magazine?
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

clip-magazine0491.jpg


Left is a clip, right is a magazine.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
R

RubberArm

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
51
Location
Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Again, I apologize. I tend to read a lot of the referenced cases as well as the article.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

I apologize also. Our posts crossed paths in cyberspace.
 
Z

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

lapeer20m wrote:
excellent decision!

I will be interested to see how much he is awarded in damages. 

is it a suit against the police dept or the individual officers?  I wasn't real clear on that. 
Click to expand...

Now that this decision is made, he can sue both the department AND the officers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

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

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top