Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: ACLU and citizen suing over violation of 2A & 1A

  1. #1
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    ACLU and citizen suing over violation of 2A & 1A

    snip-

    Mark Fiorino is not an NRA card-carrying member. He’s not a radical right-winger (nor is he a liberal left-winger). He’s not some crazy with a vendetta either.

    Fiorino is an American citizen, exercising his right to bear arms.

    He and the American Civil Liberties Union are taking the Philadelphia Police to court for violating that right, as well as his right to freedom of speech.


    link-

    http://lansdale.patch.com/articles/l...nst-gun-rights
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    I don't think the ACLU cares about his 2nd amendment rights. This is more about his other rights (like 1st amendment) that they are trying to protect here.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    I don't think the ACLU cares about his 2nd amendment rights. This is more about his other rights (like 1st amendment) that they are trying to protect here.
    Here's the complaint. Judge for yourself.

    http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/fiorino21412.pdf

  4. #4
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    I don't think the ACLU cares about his 2nd amendment rights. This is more about his other rights (like 1st amendment) that they are trying to protect here.
    Yeah it really surprised me that they took this on, but as you said i'm sure they are interested in the 1A part primarily. Hopefully the guy (and other philly OC'ers) will stop being harassed after this. Hopefully it will cost the city a pretty penny too.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    I have read that while the national ACLU still holds that the 2A is not an individual right some of state level ACLU offices have adjusted their position post Heller/McDonald. I've also read that the national org. is considering adjusting their official 2A stance post H./McD.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    221
    Looks like this might be a OC test case. It is clearly about the open carry and the use of the recorder. This will be interesting to follow.




    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Here's the complaint. Judge for yourself.

    http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/fiorino21412.pdf

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Just read the complaint. I've seen this before with other ACLU cases involving firearms. The ACLU is only keen on litigating 1st and 4th Amendment violations, not the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the guy was exercising his Second Amendment rights is immaterial. Had the guy insisted on carrying a Bible openly, been accosted for it repeatedly, and so on, the ACLU could have filed essentially the same lawsuit.

    While I am happy to see the ACLU involved, we must remember that the ACLU is primarily interested in pursuing 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment cases. They have been doing this for decades and as a consequence of their success, it is getting harder and harder to find police so accommodating as to blatantly violate a Citizen's 1st, 4th & 5th Amendment rights while they KNOW they are being audio/video recorded. That is just common sense.

    That common sense goes out the window, however, when lawfully carried firearms are introduced into the equation. For some unfathomable reason the police are more than happy to abuse the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights of persons who are engaged in exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights WHILE BEING RECORDED! Go figure. Apparently the police think there is some exception to the Constitution just because someone has the balls to carry arms. Whatever, the police stupidity over dealing with lawfully armed folks, while knowing they are being recorded, is providing the ACLU with a rich source of new 1st, 4th & 5th Amendment abuse cases to litigate.

    The end result, happily is a win-win for the entire Bill of Rights.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Angry Wow! What a cluster bleep!

    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Here's the complaint. Judge for yourself.

    http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/fiorino21412.pdf
    Every citizen should read this complaint whether they choose to carry a weapon or not. It just goes to show how far off the rails our system of INJUSTICE has gotten.

    I predict PPD is going to get their asses kicked in Federal court over this, and in my honest opinion rightfully so. Some of the patrol officers involved may have a valid excuse of poor training, but the command officers can claim no such thing it is their DUTY to be well versed in current law and to see that their officers obey them
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 02-15-2012 at 04:22 PM.
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    tried the ACLU for a 2A problem once. Got nowhere. I scolded them for it, but it didnt go anywhere.

  10. #10
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Just read the complaint. I've seen this before with other ACLU cases involving firearms. The ACLU is only keen on litigating 1st and 4th Amendment violations, not the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the guy was exercising his Second Amendment rights is immaterial. Had the guy insisted on carrying a Bible openly, been accosted for it repeatedly, and so on, the ACLU could have filed essentially the same lawsuit.

    While I am happy to see the ACLU involved, we must remember that the ACLU is primarily interested in pursuing 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment cases. They have been doing this for decades and as a consequence of their success, it is getting harder and harder to find police so accommodating as to blatantly violate a Citizen's 1st, 4th & 5th Amendment rights while they KNOW they are being audio/video recorded. That is just common sense.

    That common sense goes out the window, however, when lawfully carried firearms are introduced into the equation. For some unfathomable reason the police are more than happy to abuse the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights of persons who are engaged in exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights WHILE BEING RECORDED! Go figure. Apparently the police think there is some exception to the Constitution just because someone has the balls to carry arms. Whatever, the police stupidity over dealing with lawfully armed folks, while knowing they are being recorded, is providing the ACLU with a rich source of new 1st, 4th & 5th Amendment abuse cases to litigate.

    The end result, happily is a win-win for the entire Bill of Rights.
    I think the problem is some people don't understand the concept of exercising more than one right at a time.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  11. #11
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    The ACLU are a bunch of camera and ambulance chasers and I wouldn't rely on them to hold my hair back if I was puking.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    221
    That's called unruly behavior...


    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    I think the problem is some people don't understand the concept of exercising more than one right at a time.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    221
    The ACLU only wants cases that get them lots of media attention because this gets the ACLU lots of donations. It's all about the money. $$$$


    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    tried the ACLU for a 2A problem once. Got nowhere. I scolded them for it, but it didnt go anywhere.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
    The ACLU only wants cases that get them lots of media attention because this gets the ACLU lots of donations. It's all about the money. $$$$
    the ACLU has a pretty poor record of helping people vis a vis the 2nd amendment

    however, if they are in this case, good for them. whatever their motives and they may BE ulterior, they are still powerful and have good lawyers. we need all the help we can get

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    I don't care why the ACLU took this case. The simple fact they did will make this a much larger story nationally and increase awareness of OC and it's legality.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Four civil liberties were violated here:

    1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th.

    Even though the 2nd is not mentioned in the suit, this is a 2A case.

    The 1st and 4th amendment fights WILL get the job done. Yes, Marks 2nd amendment rights were violated, but I think the thought process of the attorneys and ACLU in this case believe they have a much better chance fighting the unlawful seizure and 1st amendment violations than a 2nd amendment fight.

    Regardless of personal thoughts on this post, I believe Mark has a bulletproof case here. He should win outright. ALL OFFICERS and AGENTS of the PPD that were involved should be removed from duty.

    Its hilarious to see police officers using the "I didnt know I was breaking the law" argument here. And instead of doing their jobs to the fullest extent, decided to let someone else tell them what was right and wrong. It ultimately comes down to each individual person being responsible for themselves and their actions. I dont think they didnt know, I think this was a department wide slap in the face because they dont like people not needing them.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 02-16-2012 at 11:11 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    snip-

    Its hilarious to see police officers using the "I didnt know I was breaking the law" argument here. .
    yeah, i'm sure they are real understanding when us regular folks use that argument. kinda like they 2 people recently arrested for ccw in ny because they didn't know ny has no reciprocity and tried to hand over their guns when they found out.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  18. #18
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    tried the ACLU for a 2A problem once. Got nowhere. I scolded them for it, but it didnt go anywhere.
    I tried em for a 4A "false arrest" and they said they didn't handle those kind of cases here in MI!?
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    "those" kind of cases...

  20. #20
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    POLICY whether incorporated by an organization, business, or individual is not LAW. So, regardless of what either policy of the PPD said, it isn't LAW, and PPD and any other department should be sued for actions like this, whether for damages, or to publicly address ignorance of the law by LEO's. I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't considered a Joint suit for all others who have had weapons seized and rights violated by PPD.

  21. #21
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Well, it looks like he took a settlement instead of pursuing this. what a shame-

    http://www.abc27.com/story/17111581/...over-gun-stops
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Well, it looks like he took a settlement instead of pursuing this. what a shame-

    http://www.abc27.com/story/17111581/...over-gun-stops
    Unless the citizen bringing the lawsuit is rich, they will ALWAYS settle. Especially when their lawyer is telling them they should...and they always will. Lawyers like guaranteed paychecks, that's what a settlement is. Going to trial is a crapshoot. Tell a person barely getting by they shouldn't take $25,000 guaranteed, they'll most certainly laugh at you. Like I said, the plaintiff needs to be rich so the money means nothing otherwise this will be the result 99.9% of the time.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Well, it looks like he took a settlement instead of pursuing this. what a shame-

    http://www.abc27.com/story/17111581/...over-gun-stops
    It is still very much a win and establishes prior knowledge.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    Unless the citizen bringing the lawsuit is rich, they will ALWAYS settle. Especially when their lawyer is telling them they should...and they always will. Lawyers like guaranteed paychecks, that's what a settlement is. Going to trial is a crapshoot. Tell a person barely getting by they shouldn't take $25,000 guaranteed, they'll most certainly laugh at you. Like I said, the plaintiff needs to be rich so the money means nothing otherwise this will be the result 99.9% of the time.
    I guess, but he did have the ACLU representing him, so it's not like he was paying out of pocket for the lawsuit. I don't see how taking this particular case to trial was a crapshoot, with the recording and the previous stops it sounds like a slam dunk. As far as his financial situation goes I don't know, I didn't read anywhere that he was barely getting by or if he was well off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It is still very much a win and establishes prior knowledge.
    True, I was just hoping to see the corrupt police in philly get taken to the cleaners. Do you think this will really change how they handle OC'ers in philly?
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What would you prefer to see happen here instead of the 25k?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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