Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067947

    Default Federal judge rules police cannot detain citizen for openly carrying gun

    Little by little, common sense (and even obedience to the Constitution) are slowly creeping back into the area of American citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

    -----------------------------------------------

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...ights-Examiner

    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

    September 9, 10:16
    PMDC Gun Rights Examiner
    Mike Stollenwerk

    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

    The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.

    In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

    Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

    On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

    Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

    [i]"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

    Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

    "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

    Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

    Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856 .
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    san antonio
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9177

    Default

    The judge is right on the decision, however he shouldn't had carried the weapon onto someone else's private property (the theater owners). I would assume the theater has a no weapons policy, and if so if would of been their right to remove the invidual with the weapon. But the fact that they just disarmed him and didn't remove him or cite him with any violations makes the decision by the judge right.
    PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
    "Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
    You can't spell Liberals without Lies.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,991
    Thanks (Given)
    696
    Thanks (Received)
    461
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1985978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theHawk View Post
    The judge is right on the decision, however he shouldn't had carried the weapon onto someone else's private property (the theater owners). I would assume the theater has a no weapons policy, and if so if would of been their right to remove the invidual with the weapon. But the fact that they just disarmed him and didn't remove him or cite him with any violations makes the decision by the judge right.
    I'm under the impression that it has to be posted that firearms are not allowed. Otherwise how would you know. I know that's the way it is in Nevada.
    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Samuel Adams


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cumberland Plateau in TN
    Posts
    996
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crin63 View Post
    I'm under the impression that it has to be posted that firearms are not allowed. Otherwise how would you know. I know that's the way it is in Nevada.
    Love your avatar!
    What are reparations? Making me pay
    for something I had nothing to do with compensates no one
    who suffered an injustice therefore I would be penalized for
    something I didnt do and someone else would receive a settlement
    for an injury they did not suffer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,818
    Thanks (Given)
    738
    Thanks (Received)
    673
    Likes (Given)
    1133
    Likes (Received)
    826
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203902

    Default

    The theater was wrong in not approaching this guy before they called the police. It's understandable however.

    The police were wrong in NOT telling the theater it was legal and taking the guy out to disarm him instead of just asking him to put the weapon in his car.

    The guy was wrong to open care into a theater were John an Jane Doe don't know nor care about the law.

    The Judge was RIGHT.

    Open carry IDIOTS PISS ME OFF! Because they do nothing but bring negative attention to gun rights through STUPIDITY!
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,991
    Thanks (Given)
    696
    Thanks (Received)
    461
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1985978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cat slave View Post
    Love your avatar!
    Thanks! It fits.
    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Samuel Adams


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067947

    Default

    Three out of four isn't bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. P View Post
    The guy was wrong to open care into a theater were John an Jane Doe don't know nor care about the law.
    The guy was not wrong. Unwise maybe, in the same way that leaving your front door unlocked in a lawless, third-world country is unwise. But it's John and Jane Doe who are wrong, in not knowing the law and sometimes going hysterical over a completely safe and harmless occurance, i.e. someone openly carrying without threatening or endangering anyone.

    Open carry IDIOTS PISS ME OFF! Because they do nothing but bring negative attention to gun rights through STUPIDITY!
    They don't bring negative attention. And they aren't idiots. The people who freak out and call cops for no good reason, over the mere fact of someone openly (and safely) carrying, are the idiots who bring negative attention (their own) to gun rights through stupidity.

    You might want to concentrate your ire (and remedial action if any) on them instead.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,818
    Thanks (Given)
    738
    Thanks (Received)
    673
    Likes (Given)
    1133
    Likes (Received)
    826
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
    Three out of four isn't bad.


    The guy was not wrong. Unwise maybe, in the same way that leaving your front door unlocked in a lawless, third-world country is unwise. But it's John and Jane Doe who are wrong, in not knowing the law and sometimes going hysterical over a completely safe and harmless occurance, i.e. someone openly carrying without threatening or endangering anyone.


    They don't bring negative attention. And they aren't idiots. The people who freak out and call cops for no good reason, over the mere fact of someone openly (and safely) carrying, are the idiots who bring negative attention (their own) to gun rights through stupidity.

    You might want to concentrate your ire (and remedial action if any) on them instead.
    I choose to focus on "responsible" gun ownership and handling, thank you. There's much more to it than just safe handling.

    What this guy did was legal but it was as stupid as walking into a Baptist Church on Sunday morning with a bottle of vodka in yer hand. Both legal but both meant to make a statement in an inappropriate manor IMO.

    I'm not alone in my opinion. I am a member of several gun forums and the consensus on open carry in public places is that it harms the fight to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. We don't need folks walking into a theater and "visually" screaming "I have a GUN!". It's detrimental, it gives the anti crowed ammo. to sway public opinion in their battle to take our rights away. So yeah, It's STUPID.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,991
    Thanks (Given)
    696
    Thanks (Received)
    461
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1985978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. P View Post
    I choose to focus on "responsible" gun ownership and handling, thank you. There's much more to it than just safe handling.

    What this guy did was legal but it was as stupid as walking into a Baptist Church on Sunday morning with a bottle of vodka in yer hand. Both legal but both meant to make a statement in an inappropriate manor IMO.

    I'm not alone in my opinion. I am a member of several gun forums and the consensus on open carry in public places is that it harms the fight to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. We don't need folks walking into a theater and "visually" screaming "I have a GUN!". It's detrimental, it gives the anti crowed ammo. to sway public opinion in their battle to take our rights away. So yeah, It's STUPID.
    Actually its not legal to walk into a church with a bottle of vodka in your hand because its illegal to disrupt a church service. Churches are private property and establish their own codes of conduct, beside my ushers wouldn't let anyone in past the doors with a bottle of vodka anyway. Two of them would very politely and kindly help the person back outside while another one was calling the police or 1 of our sheriffs would help them out.


    This may be a case of not being worth the trouble it brings down, just like not paying taxes. The forum I'm on is quite split over the topic it appears.
    Last edited by crin63; 09-12-2009 at 10:43 AM.
    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Samuel Adams


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums