I'm the only one professional enough to carry a weapon

[JetGirl]

No, not that Glock Cop...
This:
Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

 

[Hiram2005]

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see why what happens in Mass. has any thing to do with Georgia.

On the other hand this kind of stuff is pretty common in Massachusetts from what I hear.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the reason Georgia is mentioned is the article is an editorial written in a Georgia venue. The citizen that had his gun confiscated was a Massachusetts citizen with a Massachusetts license carrying in Massachusetts. This was a federal ruling so it has implications for all states.

 

[Hiram2005]

Oh, ok. I saw "Chicago" at the top of the story, so I thought it came out of the beautiful, charming, crime free city to our north.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

Badge-heavy . . .

. . . cop: beware!! But it could hardly happen to a better 'victim'!! Pat

 

[Agent 007]

Here is the official court ruling:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1370P-01A.pdf <--Click

Doesn't sound like the arrested party is a very good attorney. He did not even bring up any 2nd Amendment arguments, only mentioning the 2nd Amendment issues in brief towards the end of the process. A court will usually not rule on issues that are not officially brought up. You have to make your case.

The Georgia/Massachusetts thing in the article is kinda confusing. It could have been more clearly written. This is a case out of Massachusetts, and the writer is implying an effect on people carrying firearms in Georgia.

 

[redneckmedic]

 

[Ashkelon]

The cause of action was filed under 1983 for abuse of police power. The 4th and 14th are what gives springboard to the action. No 2nd amendment claim to be made. Attorney did what he should in filing COA. 2nd Amendment claim is just a toss in argument.

 

[HICKMAN]

Hmm, does self-defense include defending yourself from a cop with a shotgun pointed at you?

 

[Ashkelon]

Depends on which one of you lives.

 

[Agent 007]

Hmm, does self-defense include defending yourself from a cop with a shotgun pointed at you?

Try it, and get back with us.

 

[samot]

Hmm, does self-defense include defending yourself from a cop with a shotgun pointed at you?

it doesnt matter, ive said it once ill say it again... the cops will do whatever they want. The dude was stripped of his legal firearm & his permit after having a shotgun pointed in his face..& told since he wasnt a cop he should not be allowed to be armd, wether he has a pemit or not... It doesnt matter what state your in, MA, GA, IN, MO they do what they want. No court is going to NOT side with an LEO. Game Over

 

[MTC]

I didn't find the article confusing at all. The author clearly explains what he's getting at toward the end: legal precedent.

Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license. Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi's face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.

Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.

This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Indiana isn't in the First Circuit, though.

We're in the Seventh Circuit, folks.

 

[Josed]

First Court or Seventh Court, it does not matter, any goverment minion aka Judge will not rule against another goverment minion. Folks we no longer live in a free country, the United States of America has turned into a soft tirany. It just been a slow prosses where the goverment has slowly taken more and more of our Rights, so we don't notice. Why do you think our so called elected officials do not give a dam as to what we think. Cops rutinely interpret Indiana Laws, even thow they are not, judges or lawyers, and not to mention make up new rules and regulations as they go. Hell they won't give each other speeding tickets, but will not hesitate to fill their non existng quotas with us. Our so called public servants have becomed our defacto masters and think nothing of it. Laws don't mean anything to them anymore, they will violate the Constitution, but don't try to film their abuses, or they will drag you to jail on some made up charge, and fill justified about it.

 

[HICKMAN]

Try it, and get back with us.

ROFL, I was being sarcastic but your response and neg rep is lame...

Seriously? I'm surprised to hear this crap coming from you.

Uh no, not seriously... who the .... would draw on someone with a shotgun pointed at them?

Lighten up...

 

[j706]

Try it, and get back with us.

- Good One !

 

[kingnereli]

That's a shame. Did anyone catch if he plans to appeal? This is the kind of case I would like to see go to the SCOTUS.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

First Court or Seventh Court, it does not matter, any goverment minion aka Judge will not rule against another goverment minion.

[snip]

Hell they won't give each other speeding tickets, but will not hesitate to fill their non existng quotas with us. Our so called public servants have becomed our defacto masters and think nothing of it. Laws don't mean anything to them anymore, they will violate the Constitution, but don't try to film their abuses, or they will drag you to jail on some made up charge, and fill justified about it.

I disagree.

There is a New Castle, Indiana cop that has just been recommended for firing by the merit board because of driving drunk and crashing into a house. My guess is that he is out of a job.

A Muncie police officer that was at a Fraternal Order of Police function and had been drinking. Arrested and facing termination (if he hasn't been terminated already) for drunk driving.

Again, Muncie, Indiana: The Indiana Supreme Court (ISC) is in the process of punishing (suspending his law license) for mis-deeds when he was a deputy prosecutor and had just taken office as prosecutor, dealing with money and property seized by the local drug task force. A 90 day suspension was recommended by the ISC was rejected by the Chief Justice (Shephard? I think) as not strong enough and is now being deliberated for a longer suspension.

I am not defending LEOs here. I am writing that the system can and does work. Not all the time. Not necessarily to the extent that we would like in all cases. But it does work.

 

[Eddie]

I have on two seperate occasions defended LEO's in cases where their "bretheren" arrested them and the prosecutor prosecuted them. In both cases the cops were shocked to see just how overwhelming the system looks from the other side.

I can't tell the details. One guy quit his job in disgust even though he didn't have to. The other guy stuck to his guns and the appellate court backed us up and threw out the charges. He is still in law enforcement and I think that the experience of seeing the system from the other side has made him a better cop.