Thread: OT - First Circuit Ruling
It's open season on gun carriers.
A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.
Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."
For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.
The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."
The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."
Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license. Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi's face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.
Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.
This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.
Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.
It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.
He needs to go all the way to the top with this case.
:shock: What the Heck??? that is the most idiotic thing I have heard this week...and it has been a doozy!
This needs to have a lot more attention (and judicial review) Hope he appeals.
Appeal to the Supreme Court!
ive been heart broken since i first read this!
all of the good that i felt after the alamagordo ruling has been totally trashed!
this ruling has got to be taken to the surpremes and reversed!
EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...
All power is inherent in the people,
it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!
Seems like we are getting various reading's from different circuits. I sure hope this goes to the top now, and they slap this one down.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
So many things wrong in this ruling it is sad to think these are some of the brightest legal minds in the Country.
Why didn't they question the reason to validate the license? Is there a rash of counterfeit concealed carry permits in the area? That is almost as absurd as one of us not wanting to believe that this Officer is actually a cop. How are we suppose to "facially validate" their badge/license?
And once is was discovered that he had a permit, that should have been the end of it, as long as no other circumstances. Weapon returned, apology given and the "victim" sent on his way. They need to start looking at the Officer's actions and intent..isn't that what they tell us all the time?....the simple statement that no one else needs a weapon on "his" beat is quite revealing and shows absolute prejudice.
I wish the courts, media and politicians, etc would stop taking officer's statements as absolute truths. Especially given some court rulings that they are not obligated to tell the truth! (usually caveats re: not all police, etc.) (I tried to find a couple of links to cite this position, but couldn't at this time, even though I am petty sure I read that somewhere at sometime.)
Arent we in the system? doesnt it come up that we have CPL when they call our name in?
If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas
"They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
amzbrady wrote:If they run your license it alerts them that you have a CPL.Arent we in the system? doesnt it come up that we have CPL when they call our name in?
M1Gunr wrote:True in Washington, not necessarily so in all states. I recently received my Utah Concealed Firearm Permit. I would expect a Utah LEO to be able to verify it butI wouldn't necessarily expect a Pennsylvania or North Carolina LEO to be able to do so. Come to think of it, I don't know if I want the permit records to be that connected, at least not until we get nationwide carry reciprocity (hey, a guy can dream, can't he?).amzbrady wrote:If they run your license it alerts them that you have a CPL.Arent we in the system? doesnt it come up that we have CPL when they call our name in?
UPDATE: I just looked at the back of my Utah CFP. There is a number printed for law enforcement to call to verify a permit's validity. Don't know if that number is attended 24/7/52 but at least it appears Utah is ahead of the game.
Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)
Navy reservist, Master at Arms First Class JB Stern, 44, of Agawam, Massachusetts and member of the Navy Marksmanship Team, brought his son Jake, 13, to the SAFS for the second time.
â€śIâ€™d like it to become a family tradition,â€ť the Navy vet said. â€śThis is an important time for us.â€ť
MA1 Stern, now a police officer, recently returned from a deployment in Kuwait and took the opportunity to bond with Jake and Jakeâ€™s friend, John Kroetz, 13.
M1Gunr wrote:...and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area."...and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."
And you wonder why it is a high crime area... I know its become a cliche statement among us gun-toter's, but the absence of the ability to defend oneself allows criminal's to run rampant.
This guy is just another"Enforcer" who thinks he is the "Law-maker and Judge". It's also known as a "God-Complex" which islikely the case as it is reinforced by his statement that only HE is allowed to carry a weapon on HIS beat.
Sadly the 1st Circut has mishandled this case. Are they trying to 1-up the 9th? Did they learn nothing from the aftermath of Katrina and the law enforcements failures there in New Orleans? It is a sad day for Law and Justice. Justice is truly blind... blind to the government trespasses on the law-abiding, yet legal-suffering citizen.
Essentially this means that your "permit" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, plus "Terry" is completely gutted. Also, Georgia is (or Was) a "Discretion" State, where you had to give a valid reason to local LE to get a permit, like living or working in a high crime area!
Even worse, this was an attorney! A man schooled in the system looking to act within the law and with the brains and money to defend himself well.
Payback for Heller.
Yeah, I was sickened when I read this.... we are dealing with despots and wannabe dictators in this government. They DO NOT want us to have inalienable rights... they want to control EVERY LITTLE THING we do, and then they make what they call "COMMON SENSE" laws that force us to ask permission to exercise our inalienable rights... and claim that they have every right to do so in a CIVILIZED society with the obvious attempt to infer that any other opinion is uncivilized.
How do you combat these Statists who would gut our Constitution and take away our rights "for our own safety"?
We are heading into some scary times... that's for sure.
Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington
He is in the military?!? I can't believe someone in the military would act like this...
Unbelievable! Obviously NOT a member of Oath Keepers.