• 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.

LEO justified in stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward a building

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

From FourthAmendment.com:

Officer was justified stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward an "important public building." That man was a criminal defense lawyer. This is what Terry is for. The officer also did not violate the lawyer's rights by pointing a gun at him. Schubert v. City of Springfield, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28251 (1st Cir. December 23, 2009):
. . . The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building.

Schubert contends that his clothing, his age, and the fact that he was carrying a briefcase are factors that should undercut the reasonableness of Stern's suspicion. We are not persuaded. A Terry stop is intended for just such a situation, where the officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his "on-the-spot observations," and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. We need not outline in detail the obvious and potentially horrific events that could have transpired had an officer noted a man walking toward the courthouse with a gun and chosen not to intervene.
 

Mike

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

This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Repeater wrote:
From FourthAmendment.com:

Officer was justified stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward an "important public building." That man was a criminal defense lawyer. This is what Terry is for. The officer also did not violate the lawyer's rights by pointing a gun at him. Schubert v. City of Springfield, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28251 (1st Cir. December 23, 2009):
. . . The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building.

Schubert contends that his clothing, his age, and the fact that he was carrying a briefcase are factors that should undercut the reasonableness of Stern's suspicion. We are not persuaded. A Terry stop is intended for just such a situation, where the officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his "on-the-spot observations," and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. We need not outline in detail the obvious and potentially horrific events that could have transpired had an officer noted a man walking toward the courthouse with a gun and chosen not to intervene.
What in the @#$% are they talking about?? I've read Terry, and that stop WAS NOT BASED ON ON-THE-SPOT observations.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

It is too bad he didn't make a bigger argument for violation of the second amendment. On it's face this is similar to mine, but I was stopped by one cop who said I could go before the secondjumped me with a gun.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Kwikrnu,

This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

Please...
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
Kwikrnu,

This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

Please...
OHHHH SNAP!
 

PaxMentis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
53
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon, USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
Kwikrnu,

This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

Please...

Why do you and others have the need to flat out lie about the bolded part? Can't you just say you disagree with the guy without lying about him?

There is no law anywhere of which I am aware that relates to the color of a gun...and, if there were one in TN, he would have been arrested.
 

Blackburn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
43
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

PaxMentis wrote:
Dreamer wrote:
Kwikrnu,

This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

Please...

Why do you and others have the need to flat out lie about the bolded part? Can't you just say you disagree with the guy without lying about him?

There is no law anywhere of which I am aware that relates to the color of a gun...and, if there were one in TN, he would have been arrested.

Because they are channeling George Costanza, and they manage to get a brief rush of e-power by participating in group character assassination. Thus, they justify lying.

No real power or control in their actual lives. Sad, really.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).
An important passage is on page 8:
The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building[sup]3[/sup].
Along with footnote 3:
In addition, [officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
Although the state of Massachusetts is a Green State (licensed open carry), evidently handgun carry in either mode is not common enough to warrant a lack of suspicion.

Yet, in many Gold states, Open Carry is becoming more popular, hence more commonplace. That would be a significant benefit. By normalizing open carry, not only would other citizens become used to seeing handguns without incident around them, so too would law enforcement.

Thus, another reason to promote Open Carry.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).

Until 18 USC 241 and 242 are enforced to the fullest extent of the law (both capital offenses), they will never have any reason to stop bending law-abiding citizens over a barrel.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

thinbluelines&w40ve wrote:
I dont see any problem with the LEO questioning the man. I carry openly, and I would hope an officer would do his/her job and inquire as to what my intentions are carrying a firearm into a govt. building.
At gunpoint? And then stealing his legally carried gun (a detail in the other thread) before letting him go?

Anybody know if Mass. has gun safes at the secure checkpoint of its courts? That would be even more damning, if the man was about to disarm at the checkpoint anyway, and they didn't even let him do that and give a pass to these civil rights violations instead.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

Repeater wrote:
An important passage is on page 8:
The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building[suP]3[/suP].
Along with footnote 3:
In addition, [officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
By normalizing open carry, not only would other citizens become used to seeing handguns without incident around them, so too would law enforcement.
Again, equating law abiding citizens with the criminal element the LEO has had to deal with on a daily basis ... if you deal with criminals, you start looking at everyone as a criminal.

This is what needs to be changed, and if the citizen's attorney had been on the ball, suspicion of criminal activity was not supported in the behavior, manner of dress, and location of the citizen (boldly walking up to the building in question.)

Hysterical response to "Man with a gun" will take time to change, meanwhile, calm, thoughtful, reasonable response by armed citizens will make that change happen.

Eventually, this case will probably wind up in front of a Supreme Court somewhere and hopefully the court will deny it's applicability based on no RAS ... hopefully.

And Santa Claus does exist ... somewhere
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

If I knew thatI was not breaking any laws, and ANYBODY starts pointing a gun at me, I'm not sure my response to that would be...calm or coroperative, probably the total opposite of that, I like life and living it is important to me, if some JBT LEO gets over zealous towards me... well it just makes my blood run cold thats all, and then the tunnle vision kicks in, honestly just happy it was not me.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,
This is your only point that could have a factual basis. Would you mind posting the USC about disguised firearms and any court ruling that could back up your statement?
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

thinbluelines&w40ve wrote:
I dont see any problem with the LEO questioning the man. I carry openly, and I would hope an officer would do his/her job and inquire as to what my intentions are carrying a firearm into a govt. building.

Well the man in the posted story does have a problem with it, and he has a right to be upset over it.

Just because you are happy to have policemen question you at gunpoint while you try to go about your daily business while obeying the law doesn't mean you should expect other people to share your enthusiasm.
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pagan wrote:
If I knew thatI was not breaking any laws, and ANYBODY starts pointing a gun at me, I'm not sure my response to that would be...calm or coroperative, probably the total opposite of that, I like life and living it is important to me, if some JBT LEO gets over zealous towards me... well it just makes my blood run cold thats all, and then the tunnle vision kicks in, honestly just happy it was not me.
and then if you over react, your potential to die or goto jail for a very long time kicks in as well. There are always two options of what to do.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

This is another affirmation that Federal Courts are indeed an enemy of freedom and a messenger of tyranny.

Very stupid ruling here:

“But the entire stop took only ten minutes and when Stern realized that he would not be able to confirm the gun license within a reasonable time, he sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.

....OK what is sensible aboutconfiscating a person’s private property when there is not even any evidence of wrongdoing, just a non-working gun licensing scheme.



This screams due process to me, but what do I know.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

".............a fundamental right to drive vehicles............"

No, Mike, you won't find a right to drive vehicles spelled out in the bill of rights, just as you won't find a LOT of OTHER rights defined, either.

In one of this nation's earliest supreme court rulings, chief justice Louis Brandeis was appalled at a matter before the court. To him, the subject at hand was so clearly understood, so matter-of-fact he asserted, it required NO explanation.

Us peons possess far more "rights" than most here will ever begin to comprehend.

As for your point on no basis in law for driving vehicles, can you point to anything in the early laws/ constitutions of the several states empowering the state with the power to inhibit/control the NON-commercial conveyance of one's person from place to place?
HINT: you can't, as no such authority was ceded by we the people.

How much longer till the 2nd American revolution?
 
Top