INGOer Denied Carry Lawsuit in TN

[femurphy77]

Dude was fishing, he threw out his bait, wiggled the line but instead of a trophy bass he caught a pissed shark.

Guy goes looking for trouble and finds it, frequently apparently. The published letter to revoke would get my support in this case. But then who am I? Just another internet opinion!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the picture that was painted of this incident is accurate, I gotta admit my "situational awareness" would have perked up.

I want law abiding people to carry whatever and however they want. But this kind of thing does not help our cause. People that don't like guns and those that could go either way vote too. And such events of this sort of thing will never make converts of those we need to change the laws to our liking. And that's the key to long lasting change. To keep throwing it onto the courts to effect those changes is a gamble (and as J. Scalia recently warned), we may someday not like the result.

 

[Fargo]

I'm aware of that.

It doesn't make stopping him any more reasonable. Stopping every car to see if the driver is licensed is unreasonable. Stopping everyone with a gun to see if they have a license is basically a perfect analogy, because it requires the same presumption--that if someone is doing something that requires a license, that unless and until that fact is verified, that they do not have the license and thus it is "reasonable" to stop them and determine if they do.

My view is that it is not a reasonable presumption to assume that everyone who is carrying a gun is unlicensed in a shall issue state where any law abiding citizen can get a license.

I thought the purpose of the stop in this case was to determine whether the weapon in question was legally a handgun or not?

Joe

 

[Mark 1911]

The guy intentionally painted a picture that would be tough to ignore for any one, whether an unarmed citizen, an armed citizen, or an LEO. He got his wish.

If I was in the park and saw that guy, my first impression would not be to walk over and ask him if he was a fellow INGO member and shake his hand and talk about shooting and OC picnics. My first thoughts would honestly be more along the lines of finding a safe vantage point, and wondering if this might be "the day". I hardly have enough time to cut my lawn on the weekends, all I want is to be able to go about my normal activites and not be harassed for legal OC and hopefully get a few weekends out of the year to hunt and fish. How does anyone have time to do stuff like this?

 

[cobber]

He got his wish. He also set a precedent.

One should be careful what one wishes for.

 

[downzero]

So did the guy who wore a jacket that says "**** the draft" to court. Didn't mean he didn't have the right to do so.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Correction, he went out looking for trouble and the brief reads like a poster presentation for the Brady Campaign. I'd appeal this mother as high as my wallet would allow.
I hope his counsel receives better reception on appeal.

 

[downzero]

I thought the purpose of the stop in this case was to determine whether the weapon in question was legally a handgun or not?

Joe

As with most legal questions, the answer really depends on how you try to frame the question.

My BS-o-meter is going off, though. Did it take them 2 1/2 hours to figure out what the definition of a handgun was? Could they not have figured out what the law was before they took him into custody?

For the record, I'm not defending his conduct, but that's not the question. The question is whether the police had lawful authority to make a stop, which requires specific facts as to why they suspected him of violating a criminal statute. If the police stopped him because they didn't know if the barrel was 11.5" or 12.25", then I am not sure that there'd be any fourth amendment concern, because that's not something that most people could ascertain from any distance. It's not entirely clear as to why they didn't just ask him rather than detain him following a felony stop, however, and the opinion is void of the facts necessary to really make any determination on that.

My only concern is that these sorts of cases will become justification for police to use force and stop law-abiding people who are (1) carrying firearms and (2) engaged in fairly normal activities that do not reach the ridiculousness of this case without any recourse under the civil rights statutes. In that sense, this is a classic example of bad facts make bad law, and idiots like this could extinguish any remedy for the rest of us.

Deterring this sort of police conduct requires some probability of prevailing in a civil rights action. That's the sort of case law that says to those who supervise police that they should be careful when they detain a lawful gun owner. This case goes the other way, as if to suggest that lawful, but unreasonable behavior on behalf of the gun owner justifies this police response, because the police may reasonably presume, until they know otherwise, that an person open carrying while wearing camo is potentially violating a criminal statute.

I guess what I'm saying is, get rid of the AK pistol and suppose this guy was carrying a 500 S&W with a sling, or an 8" revolver, or whatever. Would we want the result to be the same?

 

[downzero]

Correction, he went out looking for trouble and the brief reads like a poster presentation for the Brady Campaign. I'd appeal this mother as high as my wallet would allow.
I hope his counsel receives better reception on appeal.

Unless the Supreme Court hears his case, he's done with appeals. You only get one "of right."

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Unless the Supreme Court hears his case, he's done with appeals. You only get one "of right."

Sorry, did not notice it was already Sixth District.

Thank goodness we're in the Seventh.

 

[cobber]

Is THIS the case we really want to send up to the Supremes?

Might want a slightly different fact pattern if we're going for a 2A landmark.

Re the 7th, here's Posner writing, sort of, about the SCOTUS and Heller.

The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property.

By creating a privilege to own guns of no interest to a militia, the Court decoupled the amendment's two clauses.

http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/PosnerHeller.pdf

 

[KG1]

Yeah, I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling inside about the next go around that SCOTUS gets at the 2nd Amendment. Especially in light of Justice Scalia's recent comments.

 

[Shwaisey]

I am just upset the writer of the opinion called it a 30 round clip...

 

[Ted]

Dude went looking for trouble. Dude found trouble. I can't say i feel bad for him.

This. Dude didn't do anybody any favors, except the antis.

 

[jedi]

INGOer denied right to sue under federal civil rights statute for stop involving AK-47 pistol in Tennessee park.

Twist on case: Alan Gura fought against the INGOer.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0293p-06.pdf

Why was Gura "against" this?

Ok bottom line is he did nothing wrong, the clothes are not illegal . Painting a fire arm is not illegal . During the first stop before he was detained an officer had the opertunity to find out what type of firearm it was . And with it being a second stop the felony stop was bs. And it does not take 2 and a half hours to get a tape measure an do a google search.

^This!

I am just upset the writer of the opinion called it a 30 round clip...

Yup plus this...
"No court has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms within state parks." Oh so true that no court has held but it's in freaking ENGLISH what 2A means!

 

[downzero]

Oh so true that no court has held but it's in freaking ENGLISH what 2A means!

That doesn't matter in a civil rights lawsuit. If the right is not "well-established," the police are immune.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

If law enforcement had already approached him without incident, then why would they decide on a "felony take down"?

Oh, right - to punish someone for lawful actions.

This seems to happen quite a bit....

Anyone who thinks he got what he deserves obviously does not truly put stock in the second amendment.

Looking foolish is not a crime. Some people would say the same about most of us Ingo just for carrying.

I mean, who NEEDS a gun every day, right? Carrying it might scare people, and that alone is a foolish action creating a need for harassment....

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Act like a douche, expect to be treated like a douche. People like him think they are a friend of the second amendment, but they aren't.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Act like a douche, expect to be treated like a douche. People like him think they are a friend of the second amendment, but they aren't.

Apparently that does not apply to law enforcement as strenuously as us lowly peons.

Douche away, their suits will be dismissed anyway....

Sure, you can "bear arms"... just make sure you don't, you know, bear them - or you deserve to be harassed.

 

[Fargo]

Is THIS the case we really want to send up to the Supremes?

No, no and hell no. With the standard to detain the guy being reasonable suspicion and all the actions he took to make his behavior look as suspicious as possible, I'm hard pressed to find too much fault in the 6th Circuit's ruling, particularly when it appears he intentionally prolonged the stop.

Best,

Joe