Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

There are to many people that always think they are entitled to something extra.
Click to expand...

Mr. St. John is NOT one of them.

and the movie theater manager and owners
Click to expand...

As I understand it, and well after the incident, the manager/owners now have a sign restricting firearms in the theater. It was not there before.
 
There are to many people that always think they are entitled to something extra./QUOTE]

Nothing extra. Just due process, cops actually following, understanding the laws of the state they work in. And, not to be hassled, humiliated in public. This a violation of civil rights under color of law. The officers, IMO, need some "off time" and never to wear a badge again. They, and the department need to pay a hefty fine. The only way that problems like this will stop happening is when cops that mess up do jail time, just like everyone else. This immunity crap is just that, crap.
Click to expand...
 
What is worthy of note, is that there is now a growing body of case law, against unreasonable searches and seizures, simply because you are lawfully carrying a gun in the open.
Click to expand...

Join in now.... "It's Aaaaaaaa Beautiful day in the neighborhood..." :D
 
A member of VCDL who has been legally open carrying a handgun has been illegally detained by, I believe, Norfolk police. He's won at least one case against the police, and received damages.

Only a few hours after one award he was again detained by police who detained only him out of a group of, IIRC, at least three open carriers. The others were not detained.
Click to expand...


Thanks Mike, I read the articles and all I can say is unbelievable!

I wonder how many zeros it's gonna take before the DA gets the message? And on top of all that, looks like he might have a case for race discrimination this time. This one is gonna get really interesting !
 
That's what I thought, but since that incident there hasn't been a single word of follow up on whether he's pursuing a damages claim/discrimination suit or not.

I certainly hope that he is.
 
What is worthy of note, is that there is now a growing body of case law, against unreasonable searches and seizures, simply because you are lawfully carrying a gun in the open.
Click to expand...
This is a good thing in general, not even related to guns. The courts need to show some backbone. They have been giving police carte blanche for 50 years, regardless of what the constitution actually says.

Absent some especially good reason, police should not be detaining anyone for any reason.
 
I'm in agreement about the police having their "magic fairy shield" removed on this one. But before people jump on the bandwagon and say it ought to be abolished, consider what it was really intended to do.

The qualified immunity police enjoy is there to protect them from so-called "honest" errors. For example, an officer stops someone for "public consumption" of alcohol because he sees the man drink what appears to be a Budweiser can. But after detaining him, the officer finds it's a Coca-Cola can inside a foam insulator with the Budweiser logo.

It also shields officers when some activity might be a crime if certain elements are met and in good faith he intervenes. But after establishing the facts he realizes one or more required elements are missing or dubious, he lets the person go. Such could be the case of someone selling "fake ID's" and the officer not noticing the fine-print that says "Novelty Use Only" and the prosecutor rejecting the charges.

Now... accusing someone of a crime that isn't even on the books is different. That's most likely why the judge stripped them of their immunity. Had they made a mistake -- i.e. if an O.C. statute required a holster and they couldn't see his deep-tuck IWB holster until they were outside -- that would be covered by the immunity.
 
No one has mentioned the police chief, who should be responsible for making sure his officers receive the required training they need to stay current on changes in the law, as well as the old laws themselves. He, along with the police department trainer if it is another person, should also be held responsible.

Here in Missouri we are allowed open carry. There are times when I go to pick my wife up at work that I still have my sidearm belted on. I have one convenience store I like to stop at and get my coffee and argue with the clerks on duty about politics (They are wrong all the time!:D). If I do not show up for a few days, they actually have a list of things to 'argue" about. I love that place. But I digress.... Anyway, the owner finally posted a 'No firearms' sign and I explained I would not be back as often.

I guess I can understand some of these places not knowing about open carry, but I can not excuse a police officer who does not know state law.
 
What would really deter the police from overreaching like this would be not just potential civil but criminal liability. What happened to the victim in this case could be compared with kidnapping - he was targeted, under the color and authority of the law and in bad faith, and illegally detained.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would also take the tax payer off the hook when LE agencies screw up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top