• 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.

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

detroit_fan

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
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/...hia-police-for-retaliation-against-gun-rights
 
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.
 
detroit_fan

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
xmanhockey7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 
O

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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.
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Wow! What a cluster bleep!

Herr Heckler Koch said:
Here's the complaint. Judge for yourself.

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/fiorino21412.pdf
Click to expand...

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 :mad:
 
Last edited:
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
OC4me said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is some people don't understand the concept of exercising more than one right at a time.
 
.40S&W

.40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
74
Location
earth
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.
 
P

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
alphamale said:
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. $$$$
Click to expand...

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
 
S

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
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.
 
Tucker6900

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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:
detroit_fan

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Tucker6900 said:
snip-

Its hilarious to see police officers using the "I didnt know I was breaking the law" argument here. .
Click to expand...

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.
 
WOD

WOD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
224
Location
Onalaska WA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top