Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 7th Circuit affirms dismissal of open carry civil rights claim (Jesus Gonzalez)

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    7th Circuit affirms dismissal of open carry civil rights claim (Jesus Gonzalez)


  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    So.... the basic point of this is that most of the lawsuit is moot because of the 2 SCOTUS decision and then the passage of Act 35. The ruling states that before those occurences, officers could believe that openly carrying a firearm in Menards was disorderly. Jesus getting getting convicted of a felony made the relief sought moot as well.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Viper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Just outside Madistan
    Posts
    143
    Relatively new law.....qualified immunity....

    They should know the current laws inside and out IMHO.
    Rick
    "Don't draw fire, it irritates the people around you."

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    From the decision, "At the time of the arrests, the state constitutional right to bear arms was relatively new, ..."

    Bwahahaha! What weasel-words, "relatively new"! Relative to what, today? Article I Section 25 dates from November 1998, that's 4,841 days and "relatively new" compared to what, the years of Our Lord? That's only 734502 days.

    From the decision, "The delayed return of Gonzalez’s handguns was not a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment."
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-02-2012 at 02:33 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    The court punted on where the limits of right to bear arms reside but did not attempt to further an "in the home" limitation. The decision did no harm to the constitutional argument in favor of OC as the protected core of the right to bear arms. There is actually some useful dicta here if properly used.

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I like how the court ignored a right discussed in Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford and Terry v Ohio.

    Let me back up a step. Here in Gonzalez, the 7th Circuit goes to a lot of trouble to analyze the wrong the thing, saying OC was not a clearly established right, thus the thugs-with-badges had qualified imboobity.

    However, Gonzalez did have a clearly established right that was completely trampled:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.


    Clear and unquestionable authority of law. In excusing their conduct, the court carefully shows the cops had reason to be confused and uncertain about the law on OC. Well, isn't that just grand. The court practically comes right out and says the law on OC was not clear and unquestionable. Yet, there is a right to be free from all restraint and interference unless there is clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    So much for courts protecting rights. Not that there is anything new about it when they don't.

    But, I suppose its not all the court's fault. They only answer the question before them. So, many thanks to Gonzalez'es lawyers for not including the point in their arguments. </sarcasm>
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-05-2012 at 04:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I like how the court ignored a right discussed in Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford and Terry v Ohio.

    Let me back up a step. Here in Gonzalez, the 7th Circuit goes to a lot of trouble to analyze the wrong the thing, saying OC was not a clearly established right, thus the thugs-with-badges had qualified imboobity.

    However, Gonzalez did have a clearly established right that was completely trampled:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.


    Clear and unquestionable authority of law. In excusing their conduct, the court carefully shows the cops had reason to be confused and uncertain about the law on OC. Well, isn't that just grand. The court practically comes right out and says the law on OC was not clear and unquestionable. Yet, there is a right to be free from all restraint and interference unless there is clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    So much for courts protecting rights. Not that there is anything new about it when they don't.

    But, I suppose its not all the court's fault. They only answer the question before them. So, many thanks to Gonzalez'es lawyers for not including the point in their arguments. </sarcasm>
    What makes you think I didn't?

  9. #9
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Uh Oh Chongo!
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

Posting Permissions

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