Second and Fourth Amendments. E. Volokh

[Doug_Nightmare]

Second and Fourth Amendments
"Since openly carrying a handgun is not only not unlawful [in Washington], but is an individual right protected by the federal and state constitutions [as the Washington Supreme Court had earlier held]," it cannot "be the basis, without more, for an investigative stop."
Eugene Volokh|January 31, 2019 8:36 pm

From yesterday's Washington Court of Appeals decision in State v. Tarango:
[ ... ]”

http://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/31/second-and-fourth-amendments

 

[IdahoBangBang]

Thanks, Doug

 

[eye95]

See also US v. Black and (for us Ohioans) Northrup v. Toledo.

These rulings are rapidly becoming nationwide in scope: The mere act of lawful carry cannot provide RAS for an investigative stop.

To paraphrase Pink Floyd: Hey! Officer! Leave that carrier alone!

 

[color of law]

This is all fine and dandy, but as long as qualified immunity remains those few 42 USC 1983 cases that fall through the cracks give the people false hope of getting justice in the courts. 99% of all 1983 cases are dismissed based on qualified immunity.

 

[color of law]

IdahoBangBang, I'm sure you know this forum is dedicated to open carry. And, a number of members here may take issue with your stance.

 

[IdahoBangBang]

IdahoBangBang, I'm sure you know this forum is dedicated to open carry. And, a number of members here may take issue with your stance.

Point taken. I like to view all sides of an equation. The concealed carry post has been removed.

 

[color of law]

Point taken. I like to view all sides of an equation. The concealed carry post has been removed.

I did not intend you to delete your post. You are entitled to your opinion. I was pointing out that you just may receive some flack.

 

[IdahoBangBang]

I did not intend you to delete your post. You are entitled to your opinion. I was pointing out that you just may receive some flack.

I'm new here ... I don't intend to walk on any toes. Stamp on 'm, maybe, but not walk!

Brian

 

[rapgood]

Just read the Tarango decision. It doesn't get any better than that, folks! Looking forward to reading the unpublished part.
This decision seriously weakens the Seattle-anti's arguments by clearly restating the strengths of 2Am and art. I, sec. 24.

 

[color of law]

Just read the Tarango decision. It doesn't get any better than that, folks! Looking forward to reading the unpublished part.
This decision seriously weakens the Seattle-anti's arguments by clearly restating the strengths of 2Am and art. I, sec. 24.

The unpublished opinion is at the end of the published opinion.