• 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.

4th Circuit rules OC not RAS to stop

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,320
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
The Fourth Circuit court has ruled on a case in North Carolina. The ruling says that if Open Carry is legal, then carrying openly does not constitute Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for the police to stop you.

This is what Casad (the unpublished case here in Washington) found, but this is the first time that I know of that a Federal Circuit court has ruled the same. Keep in mind that this doesn't apply outside the Fourth Circuit, but could be used as precedent. If another court rules otherwise, that sets up for a SCOTUS battle.

http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/19/fourth-circuit-gets-it-right-on-open-carry/
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
421
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
Keep in mind that this doesn't apply outside the Fourth Circuit,
I think is odd since the US constitution stipulates we are all equal under the law how can we recieve equal treatment if the 4th circuit makes a ruling at the federal level and no other court makes a counter ruling (triggering a SCOTUS appeal) yet it only applies to some citizens and not all?


To see courts upholding their oath to the constitution and it sets precidence on the matter, so all around good in my book.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
I think is odd since the US constitution stipulates we are all equal under the law how can we recieve equal treatment if the 4th circuit makes a ruling at the federal level and no other court makes a counter ruling (triggering a SCOTUS appeal) yet it only applies to some citizens and not all?


To see courts upholding their oath to the constitution and it sets precidence on the matter, so all around good in my book.
You think they take their oath seriously?........;)

Although this decision has good points, it still relies and reaffirms destructive decisions like Terry vs. Ohio. Which waters down our so called protections by the 4th amendment. They invented obscure unconstitutional terms like "States interest" etc....
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,332
Location
Okanogan Highland
Thompson in the 10th (NM) in 2002? found the same. Now we have two. Black with the 4th is the second one. For some reason I can't find Thompson right now, but it was the same desision as in Black, and the same reasoning,
 

Lante

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Kingston, Washington, USA
The quote from the ruling I found most interesting is "Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

Since the governments argument in this case is the same we hear from police officers many police officers... 'he might be a felon' and 'officer safety'
"Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms, see generally N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-415.10 to 14-415.23,Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Government avers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "go about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst to possess a firearm." We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

This also seems to argue against the "officer safety" reasoning for seizing a firearm during an encounter.

Also note that a New Mexico case was cited stating that lawful carry of a firearm was not reasonable suspicion See St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D.N.M. 2009) (finding no reasonable
suspicion where the plaintiff arrived at a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun, an act which is legal in the State of New Mexico.)

The full Black case can be seen here http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
The quote from the ruling I found most interesting is "Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status."

Since the governments argument in this case is the same we hear from police officers many police officers... 'he might be a felon' and 'officer safety'
The reverse is likewise true. We can look at a man in uniform with a pistol on his belt, yet we do not KNOW that he is in fact a police officer. He could be a felon who is merely impersonating an officer, and is therefore committing a crime in front of us.

Either possessing a firearm is probable cause by itself or it is not. If it is probable cause, then it's probable cause for everyone. If it's not probable cause, then it's not probable cause for anyone. You can have it one way or the other way, but not both ways at once. That's the basic principle of the rule of law: the law applies equally to everyone.
 
Last edited:

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
I only just saw this, and I think it's fantastic. This should be changing the way police operate... even though it isn't in some places. Still, at least we have some ammunition to fight back with.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,219
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Terry v Ohio, while a watering down of our rights IS the only thing we need......well that and a Supreme Court that doesn't try to rewrite things.

RAS must be Reasonable, Articulable, and PARTICULARIZED to an individual....... If it's lawful to carry in a given location, then police MUST have something more than the mere presence of a firearm in order to detain an individual. The "officer safety" disarmament of a citizen CANNOT (legally) happen unless the police have RAS and have first detained him.

So, when they walk up on the street because you are open carry (where it is legal), they cannot just start demanding compliance, snatching your firearms, etc.........LEGALLY. That doesn't mean they won't do it, but such actions are unlawful unless the officer has and can articulate the RAS he had PRIOR to encountering the carrier. He cannot develop his RAS (or PC) after initiating the detainment.

These other rulings help to spread the word.....but they aren't necessary.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Snipped

So, when they walk up on the street because you are open carry (where it is legal), they cannot just start demanding compliance, snatching your firearms, etc.........LEGALLY. That doesn't mean they won't do it, but such actions are unlawful unless the officer has and can articulate the RAS he had PRIOR to encountering the carrier. He cannot develop his RAS (or PC) after initiating the detainment.
Snipped
There was a guy and his son walking down a road in Texas on a HIKE while OC'ing where he had a different experience. I do believe the local judiciary found him guilty of a charge that he was FINALLY charged with weeks or months AFTER the initial incident that per the video was PURELY due to his OC of a rifle.

I do hope that on appeal he is fully exonerated and the LEO's involved face the consequences for the Civil Rights Violations they committed.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,219
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
There was a guy and his son walking down a road in Texas on a HIKE while OC'ing where he had a different experience. I do believe the local judiciary found him guilty of a charge that he was FINALLY charged with weeks or months AFTER the initial incident that per the video was PURELY due to his OC of a rifle.

I do hope that on appeal he is fully exonerated and the LEO's involved face the consequences for the Civil Rights Violations they committed.
That guy in TX is CJ Grisham and his experience (and that of many others) is why is said they can't LEGALLY do it. He was railroaded in the court and will persevere on appeal IF the defense properly preserved their ability to appeal. I've seen the video and some documentation of that case. The officer is clearly perjuring himself as his testimony does not reflect what the video reflects. Which begs the question, what the hell was the judge thinking for not dismissing AND WORSE why are our juries so ignorant (hint on juries, it's by design)?
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
That guy in TX is CJ Grisham and his experience (and that of many others) is why is said they can't LEGALLY do it. He was railroaded in the court and will persevere on appeal IF the defense properly preserved their ability to appeal. I've seen the video and some documentation of that case. The officer is clearly perjuring himself as his testimony does not reflect what the video reflects. Which begs the question, what the hell was the judge thinking for not dismissing AND WORSE why are our juries so ignorant (hint on juries, it's by design)?
Maybe I should have put the words "a guy" in quotes in my original comment to indicate that I knew who he was... LOL:lol:
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,219
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Maybe I should have put the words "a guy" in quotes in my original comment to indicate that I knew who he was... LOL:lol:
Between CJ and Terry H, Texas is getting a little shaking up. I think CJ was Pro Se at trial so I hope he preserved his appealable issues because from what I read, the whole thing was a fiasco from the gov't side and is ripe to be overturned on appeal.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
If you see spam, report spam. Then say that it has been reported.

Use that little triangle with an exclamation point thingy for reporting.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,872
Location
White Oak Plantation
If you see spam, report spam. Then say that it has been reported.

Use that little triangle with an exclamation point thingy for reporting.

stay safe.
ya oughta research my posts this morning. I even complained about the 60 second delay between posting complaints via that little triangle thingy. Again, proves my point, from another thread, regarding old dudes.
 
Top