Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

    Click on the link, read it, and weep for your precious rights.

    While at first glance it would appear that under this federal decision announced today carrying openly would be the best option, please do not miss the attorney's comment that the judge's ruling also applies to many places even when the weapon is carried openly. That is, carrying in a restaurant, state park, mass transit, and other places is also probable cause to believe that the person is committing a crime, so that you are subject to harassment.

    This case involved a half hour detention, disarmament,and transport into a non-public area.




    EDIT TO ADD: The actual Order issued by the judge is linked at the bottom of the article.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Near as I can tell, that judge is a tyrant who should himself be sued under 42 USC 1983 color of law. His ruling seems so blatantly in defiance to the Bill of Rights that it's almost hard to believe.
    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.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I linked this article in the Wisconsin sub-forum.

    God damn the Obamination.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    I linked this article in the Wisconsin sub-forum.

    God damn the Obamination.
    What is with you andgod damning the Obamination? Especially in this case? Is that like your signature or something?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    The Judge in this caseis a Clinton appointee, not an Obama appointee.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    SO I guess seeing someone get into a car and drive is RAS to stop them and ask for a DL? WTF is wrong with these people, haven't they at least studies the principles of law.

    The driving example has already been upheld as unlawful by the US Supreme Court as has stating that RAS OR PC in not meet for the mere presence of a firearm. This judge should really do a bit of research before he trample peoples rights.

    My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS[/u][/b] or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)

    U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

    [/b]Syllabus

    A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

    AND

    Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."3

    See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
    2 Id.
    3 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
    4 Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
    5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
    6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
    7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).


    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    The Judge in this caseis a Clinton appointee, not an Obama appointee.
    Indeed andthe judge was also confirmed by a Republican majority senate. Theblame, if any is even necessary, spreads far and wide.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hence "Obamination."

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    The driving example has already been upheld as unlawful by the US Supreme Court . . .
    U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
    Argued in the briefs, but not even mentioned by the Judge.

  10. #10
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Time to just accept we are all going to be criminals because we choose to live within our rights as sentient beings protected under a document which established this as what is the greatest country in the world. We just need to fight to keep it such.
    I aim to misbehave

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence "Obamination."

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination
    So, Obamination = Huffmination? God damn nothing.



    opusd2 wrote:
    Time to just accept we are all going to be criminals because we choose to live within our rights as sentient beings protected under a document which established this as what is the greatest country in the world. We just need to fight to keep it such.
    Yes, certainly. It has been a push and pull on our rights for 233 years and it seems as though it shifts around. States rights, alcohol prohibition, taxation, firearms. It is a never ending story in the country.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I find the whole story surprising. I didn't think this would be happening just yet. You have just seen a "lawful" terry stop. Disgusting.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence "Obamination."

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination
    So, Obamination = Huffmination? God damn nothing.
    "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Not wanting to chase a rabbit down a hole of nonsense...

    So I would think there is a strong case for an appeal. How can a Federal judge justify that decision against the precedence that has already been set? I guess judges do this type of thing often.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    The story stated that the guy was observed concealing his firearm and then attempting to board the marta. It is a crime to have a concealed weapon on the marta sans permit. The justification for the stop is there folks, bad guys traditionally hide their guns that's just the way it is. The lesson being we should all open carry and then we won't be confused with bad guys.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    It's pretty blatant disregard for several standing SCOTUS rulings. Rail will win on appeal, but it's going to be long and expensive.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:

    Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.
    OH, but they can. They do it everyday. Ever heard of sobriety check points? No RAS or PC but it doesn't seem to matter. Pull everybody over and demand their papers.

    Just violate people's rights enmass and the SCOTUS sez its fine. No problem. The sheeple don't seem to have a problem with it. I do, but that's another post for another time.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Just Asking. How far reaching outside of the federal district courtwhere the decision was madedoes this case carry? Was this decision handed down by a Federal Court of Appeals? If not, one has to question the weight of this one man's decision relactive to national precedent. This may not be black letter law throughout the land. As a another forum member pointed out, this is only round one and will be appealed at one point in time or another.

    What is done is done relative to who did or did not appoint this judicial activist. Both parties at one time or another have appointed polictical hacks with their own agenda as federal judges. Qualification or ability is irrelevant and the idea of Federal Judgesprotecting the Constitution has become a foreign concept. Instead, we have Federal Judges who want to change the constitution from the bench without going through the procedure for change which is spelled out in the Constitution itself.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    c45man wrote:
    Just Asking.* How far reaching outside of the federal district court*where the decision was made*does this case carry?* Was this decision handed down by a Federal Court of Appeals?* If not, one has to question the weight of this one man's decision relactive to national precedent.* This may not be black letter law throughout the land.* As a another forum member pointed out, this is only round one and will be appealed at one point in time or another.*

    What is done is done relative to who did or did not appoint this judicial activist.* Both parties at one time or another have appointed polictical hacks with their own agenda as federal judges.* Qualification or ability is irrelevant and the idea of Federal Judges*protecting the Constitution has become a foreign concept.* Instead, we have Federal Judges who want to change the constitution from the bench without going through the procedure for change which is spelled out in the Constitution itself.
    This was a district court in Federal system, not an appellate court. I can't quote exactly how federal courts work, but there are specific limitations placed on how these courts may operate and how their opinions/decisions may be applied in their district as well as around the U.S.

    Any law experts want to comment on this?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    So, if a citizen does his 'homework' and understands a bit more than is taught in HS then he becomes an expert and an elite?

    You, Shogun (hah), can start here http://www.uscourts.gov/courtsofappeals.html You may not.
    United States Courts of Appeals

    The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

    In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    So, if a citizen does his 'homework' and understands a bit more than is taught in HS then he becomes an expert and an elite?

    You, Shogun (hah), can start here http://www.uscourts.gov/courtsofappeals.html You may not.
    United States Courts of Appeals

    The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

    In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination
    I understand that much about the Federal Court system, but it is far more complicated than that and I am not sure who you are referring to about the elitist-expert comment but I see your point. God damn nothing...

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    So, if a citizen does his 'homework' and understands a bit more than is taught in HS then he becomes an expert and an elite?

    You, Shogun (hah), can start here...
    "[S]tart here..."

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Thos.Jefferson wrote:
    The story stated that the guy was observed concealing his firearm and then attempting to board the marta. It is a crime to have a concealed weapon on the marta sans permit. The justification for the stop is there folks, bad guys traditionally hide their guns that's just the way it is. The lesson being we should all open carry and then we won't be confused with bad guys.
    What RAS did the LEO have that the person didn't have a CC permit? See where this leads? Unless you have a reasonable articulble suspicion that a crime is afoot,there isno RAS. A hunch is not reasonable. So just because they see a concealed gun where is the RAS?

    As I state earlier it's unlawful to check for a DL just because you are driving a car, there needs to be more....
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    Venator wrote:

    Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.
    OH, but they can. They do it everyday. Ever heard of sobriety check points? No RAS or PC but it doesn't seem to matter. Pull everybody over and demand their papers.

    Just violate people's rights enmass and the SCOTUS sez its fine. No problem. The sheeple don't seem to have a problem with it. I do, but that's another post for another time.

    They are not demanding a DL, they are observing the driver to see if they are intoxicated. And BTW several states have found them to be unconstitutional. Michigan has ruled them illegal.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    What RAS did the LEO have that the person didn't have a CC permit? See where this leads? Unless you have a reasonable articulble suspicion that a crime is afoot,there isno RAS. A hunch is not reasonable. So just because they see a concealed gun where is the RAS?
    The actual case opinion is linked at the bottom of the article linked on page 1, if you want to read it. The judge held that knowledge of a concealed weapon gives the police officer everything he needs to establish a completed crime, which is way more than reasonable suspicion. The judge held that the burden is on the person carrying to prove he is licensed. The judge also held that the police were "entitled" to detain him, "entitled" to disarm him (this was after they had his stupid license), and "entitled" to other things as well.

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
  •