Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Potentially bad ruling out of the 1st circuit of appeals

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...awful-carriers

    tl;dr - Court says it's fine for a police officer to point guns at people who legally have guns

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    The case which originates out of Springfield Mass isa very interesting read. I have quoted one part for discussionand offer my editorial opinion.

    " Stern continued to attempt to verify the validity of Schubert's weapons license, but because Massachusetts lacked a centralized database containing such information, the officer soon realized that the inquiry could take a significant amount of time.



    Thus, about five minutes after moving Schubert into the cruiser, Stern told Schubert that he was free to go, but that Schubert would have to retrieve his gun and gun license from the Springfield police department. The entire stop took about ten minutes. "


    Must citizens accept BADGES and UNIFORMS as proof positive that the individual approaching is a REAL member of law enforcement?


    Keeping this decision in mind, individuals may may now be justified in questioning the validity and authenticity of an officersbadge and uniform. If law enforcement can take a valid permit and weapon because it cannot be verified in a timely fashion, then why should we as citizens take badges and uniforms for granted?

    One only has to readnewspapers and/or listen to the broadcast news to realize that there are many individuals who impersonate members of law enforcement.

    I predict that it's only a matter of time before some criminal offers a defense that he shotbecause he DID NOT KNOW THE PERSON WAS AN OFFICER because he, while being confronted, didn't have the time or means necessary toverified the authenticity of the unidentified person's badge or uniform.

    WHY SHOULD CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT BADGES IF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT OUR VALID GOVERNMENT PERMITS?

    P.S.

    Where are the organizations, (NRA, ACLU, etc.)that protect our rights on this one?

    This case may and shouldlead to a federal civil action to require government agencies at all levelsto maintain a readily available and accessible database of ALLREQUIRED permits to carry firearms to insure that 2nd Amendment rights are not denied.

    After all, states currently maintain readily available and accessible databasesof motorvehicle information on licenses and registrations alongwith othertype permits and licenses whichDO NOT involvea constitutionally protected right.






  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Thanks BigToe, I added this to my blog, very interesting.

    http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=426

    I also included a recent video of an OCer in Michigan that was drawn down on then roughed up by some cops. Listen to the other videos this guy has, the officers instantly realize they've over reacted and start to tell the gentleman that this is all his fault and that he ought to feel lucky for the break they're cutting him. :?

  4. #4
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    What a jacked up verdict that was! Just read the story and cannot believe the outcome of that case. So they have the right, but they also lose their 4A rights in the process. Seems to me that's what licensing gets you...jacked up in the end.

    Not only has this country lost the culture of liberty, we can no longer count of the court system to discern liberty either.

    This case seems to contradict the NM ruling, with the difference being concealed carry via permitvs open carry via 2A.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  5. #5
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    What a jacked up verdict that was!* Just read the story and cannot believe the outcome of that case.* So they have the right, but they also lose their 4A rights in the process.* Seems to me that's what licensing gets you...jacked up in the end.
    Any time you accept a license or a permit, you surrender many of your rights. In California there is no law that says a man and a woman (or some other gender combination) cannot live together in the same house, purport themselves to the community as a bonded relationship, or share their money and property in any manner that they wish. But the minute that they accept a license of marriage, their rights to dissolve their relationship and their financial arrangement end, and they must accept a court of arbitration, and be bound by its judgment.

    The people of this nation are perfectly capable of surrendering their own rights; it doesn't necessarily take a legislative act to take them away.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Yup, we've become a nation bound by licensure. Licensing in almost every aspect, in almost every instance, in almost every industry is needless, senseless, and it all started as racist.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Racism is just another name for man's inhumanity to man, and his desire to control and place himself above others. Such is the history of the world, and most likely its future as well.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    There can be no justice in a judicial system that is obviously tainted by its anti-gun views and which declines to acknowledge claims to a 2nd amendment infingement.

    How is such a problem solved? In a system of judges tainted by the same views?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    which declines to acknowledge claims to a 2nd amendment infringement.

    How is such a problem solved? In a system of judges tainted by the same views?
    Who has declined the 2nd A? Ca courts have been bound by 9th circuit cases saying the 2nd is a state right. And the federal courts have now corrected themselves via Heller. McDonald will complete the reversal. That 180* course correction being effected we can now get the jurisprudence which should have been started in the 1870s if not the 1790s.

    Now is not the time tobe sorrowful for past grievances but to look to their correction with a hunger to make us fight smarter and win.

  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    This case will not effect us too much as there was not a real 2nd A. argument made buy the plaintiff to beconsidered by that court. The plaintiff who represented himself made several errors in his pleadings. We are not hurt by the ruling although we are distressed by it's findings at face value.

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    This case will not effect us too much as there was not a real 2nd A. argument made buy the plaintiff to beconsidered by that court. The plaintiff who represented himself made several errors in his pleadings. We are not hurt by the ruling although we are distressed by it's findings at face value.
    Are you reading that appellate court's decision and not seeing an obvious anti-gun bias?

    Are you siding withLEO's practice ofpointing a gun in a man's face, to cuff him, to Mirandize him, to confiscate his gun, tofrisk him, for the LEO to state "that he was the only one allowed to carry a weapon on his beat" all becausea citizenwas legally bearing his gun?!

    He bears a gun in a "high crime neighborhood" and he gets treated like a criminal. If he doesn't bear a gun, he's a great target in this "high crime neighborhood." What a carriage of misjustice!

    Please, I can't see how anyone could defend this court's decision!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    cato wrote:
    This case will not effect us too much as there was not a real 2nd A. argument made buy the plaintiff to beconsidered by that court. The plaintiff who represented himself made several errors in his pleadings. We are not hurt by the ruling although we are distressed by it's findings at face value.
    Are you reading that appellate court's decision and not seeing an obvious anti-gun bias?

    Are you siding withLEO's practice ofpointing a gun in a man's face, to cuff him, to Mirandize him, to confiscate his gun, tofrisk him, for the LEO to state "that he was the only one allowed to carry a weapon on his beat" all becausea citizenwas legally bearing his gun?!

    He bears a gun in a "high crime neighborhood" and he gets treated like a criminal. If he doesn't bear a gun, he's a great target in this "high crime neighborhood." What a carriage of misjustice!

    Please, I can't see how anyone could defend this court's decision!
    I don't think Cato was defending the decision, he was just pointing out that there wasn't a constitutional plea by the defense and it shouldn't affect us.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    cato wrote:
    This case will not effect us too much as there was not a real 2nd A. argument made buy the plaintiff to beconsidered by that court. The plaintiff who represented himself made several errors in his pleadings. We are not hurt by the ruling although we are distressed by it's findings at face value.
    Are you reading that appellate court's decision and not seeing an obvious anti-gun bias?

    Are you siding withLEO's practice ofpointing a gun in a man's face, to cuff him, to Mirandize him, to confiscate his gun, tofrisk him, for the LEO to state "that he was the only one allowed to carry a weapon on his beat" all becausea citizenwas legally bearing his gun?!

    He bears a gun in a "high crime neighborhood" and he gets treated like a criminal. If he doesn't bear a gun, he's a great target in this "high crime neighborhood." What a carriage of misjustice!

    Please, I can't see how anyone could defend this court's decision!
    I don't think Cato was defending the decision, he was just pointing out that there wasn't a constitutional plea by the defense and it shouldn't affect us.
    There was a constitutional plea by the plaintiff. The appellate courtrefused to hearit, even though it was addressed in the district court's decision.

    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    I'mdistressed by it's findings at face value.
    I'll say it a different way.^^



    On the 2nd A. issue the plantiff did not brief the court properly. What can I say, don't represent yourself in court. I wish it wasn't that way but it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •