Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

[JWiley]

Carrying concealed legaly? You're still a criminal according to Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.

Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

 

[Vegetaman]

*slams head against table*

 

[Amy May]

Yes, it's those of us who carry legally who they should worry about.

I'm going to go through the hassle of getting a concealed weapon permit just so I can legally carry the gun with which I'm going to commit a crime.

 

[ladder13]

Phew! Thought it was another NY judge.

 

[Treeman]

It is my finding that the court is in contempt of the people.

 

[Joni_Lynn]

I'm without words.

 

[1066]

I think our New Mexico judges understand the law a little better then down in Georgia. Here is a great case from Almogordo, a city in southern New Mexico.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856

 

[vytoland]

Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr

all you georgia folks remember this name come election time.

 

[Spotteddog]

See!
Ron White was right!
"Ya' can't fix stupid".

 

[JoeR]

He joined the court in 1997 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton.

Nuff said.

 

[george minze]

Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr

all you georgia folks remember this name come election time.

You don't elect Federal Judges they are appointed for life. You Got Him...

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Another example of how utterly foolish we are to permit lawyers to be judges! Only a lawyer could possibly come up with such convoluted pseudo-logic.

 

[dbarale]

Are we reading the same article? The judge determined that no crime was comitted since the guy has a license but that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him and investigate after seing him holster his gun.
I do not see anything wrong with this, if I'm printing badly or flasing my gun by accident I fully expect any LEO to investigate wether or not I carry legally.

 

[pjsjr]

Only a lawyer could possibly come up with such convoluted pseudo-logic.

And someone in the print media reporting it!

I still don't know if it is legal to carrry on MARTA or Martha, if it is legal to carry openly or if it has to be concealed OR both are illegal because it's public transportation.

Was he detained because he had a gun and was headed towards the station. Was he in the station or just because he had a gun? What's the deal about SSN, anyhow?

After reading what I just wrote I think I'll apply for that reporters job!!

(Note to self...improve comprehension skills prior to reading any print media related to firearms...get decoder ring from brother, shish!) Preston

 

[straightshooter1]

I read the stuff including the Order.

Looks like this guy armed himself in the parking lot where anyone could see him and strolled to the Marta ticketing area where he was confronted by cops since one of them had seen him arm himself.

He was asked for his ID, SS #, the gun was taken from him. It was determined he had no outstanding warrants and he was allowed to leave a few minutes later with his gun. (There's a dispute as to whether it was about 15 or 30 minutes at the longest that he was detained).

I WANT cops to check out folks they see arming themselves like this.

AND-it looks like this organization was looking for a case to take to the Courts. Didn't work out quite like they hoped.

BEFORE you jump on the "this is horrible-the sky is falling" why not READ all the stuff there, then, if the sky is still falling,

Bob

 

[JWiley]

In Georgia to carry a firearm concealed OR openly you must have a 'Georgia Firearms Licence' in your possesion. (There is no concealed carry permit in Georgia)

Raissi had a valid GFL in his possesion. He was legal to carry openly or concealed.

HB89, signed into law last year, made it legal to carry on public transportation.

Raissi was illegaly detained for half an hour. Had his firearm illegaly taken. Demanded that he provide his SSN illegaly.

All while conducting himself legaly.

 

[straightshooter1]

Illegally, YOU say.

But the judge, who gets to decide legally or illegally, says differently.

YOU, I notice, decided the facts so they fit within the guy's claim-held half an hour.

Pretty hard to figure, as a former LEO, how what took place could take a whole half hour.

But, unless he appeals and wins, it's over as to the issues that matter.

Bob

 

[JWiley]

And someone in the print media reporting it!

Ed Stone is an attorney and President of GeorgiaCarry.org. He is not just "someone in the print media". The SSN issue is that the MARTA cops did not give Raissi the proper privacy notices as required by Federal Law.

AND-it looks like this organization was looking for a case to take to the Courts.

No, we don't go 'looking' for stuff. We DO support our members such as Raissi when they are in a situation where the police ignore the law. We have taken a number of Cities and Counties to court for the same reason.

The point of the case was that MARTA police and managment blatently ignored the laws of Georgia as enacted by the General Assembly. And as of now, they've gotten away with it.

 

[davidj]

Are we reading the same article? The judge determined that no crime was comitted since the guy has a license but that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him and investigate after seing him holster his gun.
I do not see anything wrong with this, if I'm printing badly or flasing my gun by accident I fully expect any LEO to investigate wether or not I carry legally.

+1 Police need to do their job, and people putting guns in their waistbands is something the police should take note of. Yes I have a CCW and yes I support the right to keep and bear arms. I might be a little peeved under the circumstances. But the bottom line is that police need to be free to stop people they see packing guns. I have never thought that I would not be questioned if a cop saw I had a concealed handgun. I expect police to inquire into concealed handguns.

 

[straightshooter1]

But, David, it appears this organization disagrees. It appears from the pleadings/Order that they believe if a cop sees some person arming themselves, then they CANNOT act UNLESS they know (or at least have PC that) the person does not have a concealed carry permit in a situation like the one here.

I find that sorta crazy. I would expect cops to stop me if I was stupid enough to be arming myself in a parking lot where people could see me.

How about if they see six middle-eastern-looking males arming themselves in the Marta parking lot, then heading for the terminal?

This organization believes the cops should take no action.

Now I realize the sounds like a classic example of racial profiling, but, in the factual scenario above, it seems to me any cop that ignored these men, after seeing them arming themselves, would have to be crazy.

So, if the cops oughta act in the scenario above to make sure all is well, why shouldn't they also act when they see you or me arming ourselves in the same parking lot?

Of course, I pride myself on being smart enough that I won't be seen doing so-but then again, I am not looking for a case to take to court.

Bob