Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause

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.

Click to expand...

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 KMA$$ God damn the Obamination

Click to expand...

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...

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"tart here..."

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.

Click to expand...

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....

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

I have to agree the detainment and disarmament was legal up until they verified his CHP. Concealment is a crime and the burden is on you to prove your a licensed person. Until that obligation has been met, the police have RAS for a terry stop, search and seizure.

Doesn't make all that necessary. This stop should have lasted 5 minutes.

Not that I approve of the law. VT and AK got it right.

IANAL

imported post

This judge is off his rocker.

In every other precedent setting decision the courts have declared (paraphrased)that the presence of a conditionthatis perfectly legal for some people (such as the open carrying of a loaded firearmin a jurisdiction where some people are licensed todo so),but illegal for others, does not constitute RAS or PC for a Terry stop in the absense of other circumstances.

He seems to be hanging his decision (politically and prejudicially made in my opinion) on the "affirmative defense" language which is intended not to imply that it is a crime until affirmatively defended in court by way of posession of a license but rather to ensure that anyone UNLAWFULLY charged with a violation need do no more than point to the posession of the license for their total case should it, for some politically driven gun grabbers agenda, make it into the courts. Forgive my "hateful and prejudiced" language as I'm only a first year college student and my liberal professors have not yet beaten it out of me. LOL

Another facet that is troubling is that they asked for his SSN. I don't even put my SSN on a firearms purchase form. Disclosure of the SSN is voluntary in all but a few circumstances and no local jurisdiction has the authority to compel is disclosure. NO ONE gets my SSN voluntarilly from me unless I absolutely desire their services (i.e. home loan or similar) or it is statutorilly mandated (i.e. opening a bank account).

The language in the article was a bit confusing on the SSN issue though. Do GA licenses have the SSN on them? If not, I don't see why having the license would stop them from asking for the SSN where not having one they would (which seems to be implied). Maybe someone from GA can chip in on that?

Let's hope this one goes on up the chain as it is definitely either a bad decsion or notice that many of of need to review our own state laws for the need to change any "affirmative defense" language in licensee exemptions.


One other thought. Even if the concealed firearm is "PC" in the anointed ones opinion, the moment the license was produced the officers no longer had PC and the detainment should have been over. Thus his Civil Rights WERE violated since the article states they ran background checks, hewas detained forhalf an hour, and he was taken away, under arrest/detention AFTER the license was produced and should have ended the detainment. Let's hope the Privacy Act and Civil Rights violations case is continued and the correct decision is made.

If they keep this crap up, someone, somewhere, is going to say NO and defend themselves from theassault with deadly force (drawn firearms) by exercising their right of self defense and meeting deadly force with the same force. NONE of us needs that.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

I have to agree the detainment and disarmament was legal up until they verified his CHP. Concealment is a crime and the burden is on you to prove your a licensed person. Until that obligation has been met, the police have RAS for a terry stop, search and seizure.

Doesn't make all that necessary. This stop should have lasted 5 minutes.

Not that I approve of the law. VT and AK got it right.

IANAL

Click to expand...

(1) No way to verify a license in Georgia. It is what it is.

(2) As far as the burden being on the person, this is just not the way it is in almost every state and U.S. territory, including the Virgin Islands, where licenses are may issue and almost non-existent. Take a look at the Ubiles case out of the Third Circuit.

(3) Driving without a license is a crime, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held (Delaware v. Prouse) that an officer may not stop a driver without a reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed (or committing another crime).

Yes, Vt. and Ak. got it right.

imported post

Hmmmmm.

I can not seem to find the code that makes the exception for licensed persons.

Can someone point me to it?

I don't seem to see anything about in in the statutes.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Hmmmmm.

I can not seem to find the code that makes the exception for licensed persons.

Can someone point me to it?

I don't seem to see anything about in in the statutes.

Click to expand...

Here are the Georgia gun related statutes.

http://georgiapacking.org/GaCode/

Take a look at 16-11-127, and then look at the statutes it cites, too. Then look at 16-11-126, and, if you are a glutton for punishment, 16-11-128, and, if you missed them when looking at the statutes cited in 16-11-127, make sure to look at 16-12-123, 16-12-127, and the definitions in 16-12-122 (especially number 10).

That should give you everything you need for this opinion, although there are more gun laws.

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

c45man wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

It is precedent in the Northern District of Georgia but may be cited in other places, like North Carolina.

If you read the opinion, then you will see this judge cites other jurisdictions.

GCO is weighing whether to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

I have to agree the detainment and disarmament was legal up until they verified his CHP. Concealment is a crime and the burden is on you to prove your a licensed person. Until that obligation has been met, the police have RAS for a terry stop, search and seizure.

Doesn't make all that necessary. This stop should have lasted 5 minutes.

Not that I approve of the law. VT and AK got it right.

IANAL

Click to expand...

(1) No way to verify a license in Georgia. It is what it is.

(2) As far as the burden being on the person, this is just not the way it is in almost every state and U.S. territory, including the Virgin Islands, where licenses are may issue and almost non-existent. Take a look at the Ubiles case out of the Third Circuit.

(3) Driving without a license is a crime, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held (Delaware v. Prouse) that an officer may not stop a driver without a reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed (or committing another crime).

Yes, Vt. and Ak. got it right.

Click to expand...

Sorry I thought this was a VA case. In VA a concealed handgun is considered a reasonable concern to officer safety allowing seizure.