Police lose OC harrassment case
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
Quote: Federal Judge Upholds New Mexico Open Carry: 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... 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... http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns[ed:fixed link - plb]
_________________ President of AACFI, GOCRA, CCRN, and A2A
|
|
|
|
|
realtor_packing_heat
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:32 pm Posts: 180 Location: St. Paul
|
That is an awesome story But I think your link is not working to the whole story.
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:22 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
I saw this on another member's Facebook page. WOOHOO!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
havegunjoe
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:10 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:32 am Posts: 515 Location: Metro Area - Apple Valley
|
“Leave open carriers alone unless you have “reason to believe a crime [is] afoot”” I might add leave “everyone” alone…..afoot. This is a nice outcome indeed.
_________________ DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodentman
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:56 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:09 pm Posts: 117 Location: South of the River
|
If anyone has an extra foot (right, size 9.5 but not fussy) I'll take it. Preferably with tibia and fibula.
|
|
|
|
|
Aquaholic
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:49 am Posts: 687 Location: South Minneapolis (Nokomis East)
|
Rodentman wrote: If anyone has an extra foot (right, size 9.5 but not fussy) I'll take it. Preferably with tibia and fibula. I might have a left foot around somewhere... then you could dance as bad as me! )
_________________ I smoke. Thanks for holding your breath.
"Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ unknown
Never been tazered. (yet).
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:57 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
Anyone notice the caption on the picture? I didn't the first time I glanced at the page. Quote: Open carriers (courtesy Oleg Volk)
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Re: Police lose OC harrassment case Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:24 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
I've been reading the opinion. Quote: Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at 1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive, controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so. It's nice to see that at least some courts understand this.
_________________ Jeff Dege
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|