Loveland, CO police settle open carry lawsuit

J

jimpeel

New member
There was a man who was open carrying at a park in Lovelend who was reported as a "man with a gun". The PD shows up, disarms him, and takes his information. Finding nothing to hold him for, they give him back his firearm and send him on his way.

He sues.

His contention was that his constitutional rights were violated because he was stopped, disarmed, and question without cause. The police have now settled the case for $15,000, or 15% of what he was suing for.

As a result of this case, Loveland officers will be schooled on "the constitutional rights to bear arms and against unreasonable search and seizure."

Here's the kicker. The ACLU weighed in on the side of the guy carrying the firearm.

SOURCE

Publish Date: 3/17/2011

City settles with owner of gun in Lake Loveland case

By Tom Hacker | Loveland Reporter-Herald

Loveland police have agreed to pay $15,000 to a man who claimed his rights were violated in 2008 when officers temporarily took away the handgun he was carrying on his hip.

[MORE]
Click to expand...
 
Here's the kicker. The ACLU weighed in on the side of the guy carrying the firearm.
Click to expand...

That is no surprise. The ACLU fights for civil liberties. They tend to be less "liberal" from a political standpoint than most people think. They generally avoid 2nd Amendment issues because gun rights are so politically charged (and many of their donors are antis) but they will fight just about any infringement of civil rights. I often do not like the things they do, but I see the rationale in each of their actions.
 
Interesting.

What's interesting is that the ACLU got involved. They have a long history of being antagonistic to 2nd Amendment issues.

The $15,000 is basically "walking around money." It's a good deal less than it would cost to defend the suit.
 
Hecker said police were correct in acting to empty ammunition from the gun to ensure public safety.

“They had the obligation to determine what his intent was, what his state of mind was,” Hecker said.
Click to expand...
Apparently Chief Heckler is not familiar with Terry and Hiibel. Absent a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, the police have no right to do anything other than say, "Good afternoon, Sir." Sitting on a park bench, eating your lunch does not strike me as providing any "clearly articulable facts" that could support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
 
Shame it costed the city $15,000+.
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry. Ideas don't get through to government until the dollar numbers rise above eye ball level. If government had to pay attention to tax dollars the same way we who earn the tax dollars do, the amounts would be a lot lower.
 
Nope. Sorry. Ideas don't get through to government until the dollar numbers rise above eye ball level. If government had to pay attention to tax dollars the same way we who earn the tax dollars do, the amounts would be a lot lower.
Click to expand...

I'm all for paying for your mistakes however I would rather the money be spent on something else other than an obvious infringement on someone's 2A right. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a shame this happened at all.
 
They generally avoid 2nd Amendment issues because gun rights are so politically charged
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the ACLU has insisted on a collective interpretation of the 2nd. This example notwithstanding, if they continue to ignore the 2nd even after the Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right then they are just exposing themselves and their agenda.
 
I read this article as "Idiot Open Carrying Costs Fellow Taxpayers Thousands!"

IMO officers ought to have every right to disarm people as part of a stop and investigate based on a 911 call. They checked him out, gave him his gun back and sent him on his way. It's just one of the things you should expect when open carrying.
 
I read this article as "Idiot Open Carrying Costs Fellow Taxpayers Thousands!"

IMO officers ought to have every right to disarm people as part of a stop and investigate based on a 911 call. They checked him out, gave him his gun back and sent him on his way. It's just one of the things you should expect when open carrying.
Click to expand...

I read it as "Law abiding citizen harrassed for exercising his Constitutional rights."

Would you like to be stopped, and questioned for speaking out publicly about an issue and exercising your First Amendment rights?
 
I don't see the issue here.

Someone called, reported a crime.

Police arrive, investigate said crime.

Realize caller was full of B.S. and sends guy on his way WITH his weapon, no worse for wear.

I hate upitty sue everyone types, and this guy was just one with a gun.

Did he get tazed? Was he tackled and disarmed? Then what's the problem?!

I understand open carrying in an open carry state, but someone called the police and reported a man with a gun.

I doubt they told the dispatcher the man was just hanging out playing frisbee, Im sure the concerned citizen made the man sound a lot more menacing then he was to justify calling the police.

When you talk to police, they are going to secure your weapon, thats just common sense for them.

IMO this guy is a sue happy idiot.

I have lots of interactions with police (positive) they all know that I have a concealed, and carry daily.

However, when I got stopped for speeding recently, I handed the officer my concealed and my drivers license (I have a holder so they stay together)

Said officer secured my handgun before we continued, issued a warning, returned my firearm and we both went our seperate ways.

Do I feel as if my rights were violated? Hell no. It was just a cop making sure he didn't get shot by some dude while doing a routine traffic stop.
 
I also feel that this sets a precedence. I am really against open carry. What if the guy that is openly carrying looks like a gang banger or hoodlum? Does that create probably cause or is that discrimination based on appearance? Does profiling come into play here and should it? We start getting into a lot of sticky situations in our "quest" to exercise out Second Ammendment rights completely unfettered. Say a hoodlum walks into a business openly carrying his firearm. He still hasn't committed a crime until he commits a crime.
 
And if that hoodlum walks out without committing a crime, then what?
Click to expand...

Basically, it allows for intimidation. I also feel that it may make the sheeple nervous and affect business. If I post a "No Guns" sign at my business, then all the pro-gun people will boycott. Basically, it is much better the way it is now. You cannoy legally carry a weapon concealed in Florida without a permit (felony). Open carry is still prohibited and would be a misdemeanor. We are not exactly in the Wild West any more. Even then I'm sure known gun slingers intimidated most people and were probably given more latitude.
 
The guy had the right to open carry. The cops had the right to respond to the call. Upon seeing that the man was doing nothing wrong, the cops should have gone on their merry way. Nothing more! They did not. They got sued. The city lost. The cops should also have been punished, not just the taxpayers.
 
Jake Balam wrote:
I don't see the issue here.

Someone called, reported a crime.

Police arrive, investigate said crime
Click to expand...

What was the crime? A man carrying a gun is not committing a crime just by carrying the gun. That is the whole point of the case: forcing the police to modify their response to "man with a gun" calls.

The question should be: "what is the man with the gun doing?" If the answer is nothing criminal or suspicions, there is no need for a police response, period!

Bob
 
stephen426 wrote:
Say a hoodlum walks into a business openly carrying his firearm. He still hasn't committed a crime until he commits a crime.
Click to expand...
When you say "hoodlum", I think "habitual criminal". They would be a prohibited person on the Federal level. They are committing a crime just by the act of possessing a firearm.

I guess that is the reason that open carrying hoodlums are not a problem- they all carry CONCEALED to avoid detection of their illegal firearms.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top