Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

[oldRoger]

Someone please enlighten me.
I would think that if a LEO or multiple LEOs had reason to suspect that I had holstered a gun, or perhaps it was “printing”, they would simply approach me and ask for ID.
That is he/they would take the same approach as if they suspected me of driving without a license.
I can see that a single officer might ask me to step aside, just as he would ask me to pull over to the side of the road, on safety grounds.
Since concealed carry is lawful under the circumstances, the only question I see is did the man have the proper license/permit on his person. Once that is determined I would have thought all relevant questions have been answered. Why this would have to take place in the back room I fail to understand.
Am I missing something here?

 

[PDL]

And I have a question for those, 'I'll never be seen arming myself in public'. Just for a hypothetical for you. What if he'd dropped his kids off at school where he wasn't allowed to CC, and then was getting ready to go about his normal business. How would you handle that.
Including any other time you may or may not be in a place where you can't and now you can. Like postoffice county offices etc.
The cops, if that's what they were, should have asked for whatever firearms ID was appropriate and that should have been that.

And the main sticking point is the Judge ruled it was probable cause that a crime was being commited, (my words cause I forgot what he actually said).

 

[straightshooter1]

Roger, if you read the Order, that was what the Court said, they verified he was legally carrying, had no warrants, etc. But, they took control of the gun.

In Florida, and every other state I know of, if there is a valid stop (that's a term of art) then the officer can take control of any weapon he knows the suspect has. In certain circumstances, (too varied to discuss) he can frisk the person and take weapons he finds.

I don't see anything wrong with securing the weapon while the check is going on. And, they gave it back when they determined he was "OK." Again, the law allows that.

I also see nothing wrong with taking someone aside to a private area where there are not a bunch of spectators. I have had people complain when I dealt with them in public that I embarrassed them. I guess that's one of those things that, regardless of how they handled it, someone would complain.

The SS number issue I don't care about. If they did something wrong, then let the Court make whatever remedy is right.

PDL- I was talking about not being so stupid as to be seen arming myself in public. He took the gun out of his trunk in the parking lot. Put his holster on, made adjustments, etc. where people could (and did) see him.

Regardless of where he had been, he could have handled that a lot differently (unless, of course, he was hoping for a confrontation with MARTA Cops so he might have a case for the organization to take to court).

Interesting to see if there is an appeal and how the 11th Circuit rules if there is one.

Bob

 

[AZretired]

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

My department was lucky officers didn't get sued. Unfortunately this happens too often. Officers need to be taught this is a legal update class.

 

[dondavis3]

Liberal trying to change the rules from the bench.

 

[Pasifikawv]

For me, this whole things serves as a cautionary tale to be careful not to flash if I have to move my sidearm for holster to car safe or vice-versa. In some states, being seen doing so can be construed as criminal brandishing... Irks me to no end. Law says I can't go into certain places, but being seen storing the firearm in a safe before going in (or reholstering after coming out) can be considered a crime... I generally hate to store a firearm in my vehicle - in a safe or otherwise - but sometimes have no option. I will exercise extreme caution not to be "made" in these instances.

 

[oldRoger]

Bob;
Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps the “half-hour” is bothering me, I know it’s not documented, but if true it is troubling. Five minutes seems to serve to check driver’s licenses.
As the number of permits/licenses to carry increase, this sort of need; perceived or real, to check ID is also going to increase. In consequence the friction will also increase.
Statements by many of the leaders of agencies indicate that they are opposed to the whole idea of right to carry, it will be very easy for them to increase the friction, and some for example; Mayor Bloomberg, seem more than ready to do exactly that.
I hope that LE is very carefully considering how to go about this verification process. Especially in view of the fact that there is a right to carry but not to drive. Political Correctness may also rear it’s head here as we decide to check the elderly white male (me) as opposed to the black hip-hopper lest Jesse Jackson visit his wrath upon us.
Roger

 

[straightshooter1]

Roger, I agree that half an hour would seem a bit long to me. I mean what would they all do during half an hour. And, there weren't any allegations of torture, lengthy questioning, etc. So, perhaps they just stood or sat and looked at each other?

That's kinda why I suspect it was a shorter time. But, I wasn't there, nor were any of the other posters, so we will just have to live with this Order or see if the 11th Circuit overturns it on appeal (if there is an appeal).

Bob

 

[PDL]

Roger, if you read the Order, that was what the Court said, they verified he was legally carrying, had no warrants, etc. But, they took control of the gun.

In Florida, and every other state I know of, if there is a valid stop (that's a term of art) then the officer can take control of any weapon he knows the suspect has. In certain circumstances, (too varied to discuss) he can frisk the person and take weapons he finds.

I don't see anything wrong with securing the weapon while the check is going on. And, they gave it back when they determined he was "OK." Again, the law allows that.

I also see nothing wrong with taking someone aside to a private area where there are not a bunch of spectators. I have had people complain when I dealt with them in public that I embarrassed them. I guess that's one of those things that, regardless of how they handled it, someone would complain.

The SS number issue I don't care about. If they did something wrong, then let the Court make whatever remedy is right.

PDL- I was talking about not being so stupid as to be seen arming myself in public. He took the gun out of his trunk in the parking lot. Put his holster on, made adjustments, etc. where people could (and did) see him.

Regardless of where he had been, he could have handled that a lot differently (unless, of course, he was hoping for a confrontation with MARTA Cops so he might have a case for the organization to take to court).

Interesting to see if there is an appeal and how the 11th Circuit rules if there is one.

Bob

Sorry bud, that wasn't exactly pointed at anyone specifically. Some folks were comming across a bit pedatic. So I guess i was just reacting to that. Of course you try to be unobtrusive in today's climate, which is actually too bad. But sometimes you can't help being seen. And he may very well have checked the surroundings and felt it was clear. Seems I think i read the the security guy saw him on a camera or maybe he was scoping the parking lot with Binocs. You can't be sure you're not being seen, no matter how discrete. Once he produced valid 'whatever was required in that state'. It should have been over.

 

[straightshooter1]

PDL-I wasn't offended, nor did I think you were picking on anyone.

I don't have a problem with how the cops handled it, though I think it could have been done quicker and easier. I think most state laws allow the officer to take the gun if the stop is valid and I know some officers would prefer to do that just to make sure there is no problem involving them and the gun.

Most officers I know and have worked with here would have probably handled it by stopping the guy, telling him not to move, telling him they believed he had a firearm on his person and asking if he had a valid carry permit, then looking at it, and releasing the man.

I don't think, however, that "we" should be in a position to tell officers how to conduct such a stop-if they want to be extra careful, fine.

Bob

 

[OLDGUNMAN]

I beleive the "judge" needs a visit from the IRA, I mean the NRA. OK, whatever one works.

 

[OLDGUNMAN]

This clown needs a lesson from an NRA lawyer!!

 

[straightshooter1]

Are you out of your mind, Oldgunman.

A visit from the IRA? That's a stupid thing for a member of this forum to say! You sound as if you are suggesting intimidating or hurting a Federal Judge.

A visit from the NRA, a lesson from an NRA lawyer?

Do you have any idea what you are saying, or are you just babbling and trying to sound tough?

The Judge is appointed for life, doesn't have to face any election and has nothing to fear from any lawyer, NRA or not.

If you are going to spout off, at least know something about what you are spouting about.


Bob

 

[PDL]

PDL-I wasn't offended, nor did I think you were picking on anyone.

I don't have a problem with how the cops handled it, though I think it could have been done quicker and easier. I think most state laws allow the officer to take the gun if the stop is valid and I know some officers would prefer to do that just to make sure there is no problem involving them and the gun.

Most officers I know and have worked with here would have probably handled it by stopping the guy, telling him not to move, telling him they believed he had a firearm on his person and asking if he had a valid carry permit, then looking at it, and releasing the man.

I don't think, however, that "we" should be in a position to tell officers how to conduct such a stop-if they want to be extra careful, fine.

Bob

Bob,
I can't fault anything you're saying. It's always best, in my mind, to let an officer know from the get go that you are a licensed CCW holder exercising your rights accordingly. Then ask the officer what would make him comfortable in the situatation and how would 'he' like to handle it.
There is a very great difference from east coast cities to western towns on how those things are dealt with.
But the thing I've got a problem with, is the judge's rulling that it is 'probable cause' to suspect a crime. What happened to the presumption of innocence. Just cause guns are involved that went out the window - not in my mind.
Like I said. The LEO needs to be on guard, but there are some of us who have firearms legally. And we should be treated accordingly.

 

[Hoptob]

You made a good argument, Bob. The problem is that if we follow Judge Thrash's line, we would have to conclude that people can be stopped for driving cars on a suspicion that they are driving without a license. That's a nonsense but how is it different from stopping a person carrying concealed gun on a suspicion that he carries it without a license?

You may not think that stopping a person without good reason is a big deal if it's done with intention to protect others. After all it only took 15 min and the gun was returned to him. Unfortunately it is a big deal. If we allow this to happen, where do we stop encroaching on civil liberties? We all know what happens to public safety when there is no due process to protect individual rights.

Judge Thrash decided that there were no violations in this case. Until this bizarre decision, courts consistently held that carrying a gun where permitted is not a reason to stop a person unless there are other factors such as suspicious or threatening behavior. That's why I think his decision will be overturned on appeal.

Mike

 

[straightshooter1]

Wouldn't bother me if it was overturned.

I still think about a couple or six middle-eastern men, putting pistols under their shirts in a parking lot and heading towards the ticketing area.

If an officer sees them, should he ignore them?

Bob

 

[Hoptob]

I like the way you are thinking, Bob. You are a good man. There are no easy answers to these questions. Democracies struggled for a long time to find right balance between civil liberties and public safety,they still do. It does come down to an officer or an agent making these decisions on the street, with little time to consult a book on history of civil liberties.

In your example, officer needs something more than their guns and race to stop them. It'd be a lot easier if they started yelling "Allah Akbar", wouldn't it? But they don't. I suppose officer could call for a back up, when back up arrives make their presence obvious and watch the reaction. If our middle eastern guys get nervous, start acting suspiciously, then they are good to go. But if they just say "good morning, officers" and start reading Wall Street Journals then maybe not.

In any event, what police can do? Call in the Marines to take down 6 armed individuals in a crowded train station... And find out that these are 6 law abiding US citizens of Yemeni decent with valid CCW's who are concerned about high crime rate on the commuter trains... Ouch!

I think what pisses most of us is not what police did but what the judge did. He could have said -- offs. were concerned about public safety but over-reacted and crossed the line. Go home and don't do it again. Instead he used very weak in this circumstances affirmative defense argument to generalize and made it legal to stop anyone who flashes concealed gun. In his order he went on to warn his anti-gun comrades that MART policy to stop people with open guns is indefensible, explained why it is indefensible but refused to ban it. I sure look forward to read what the circuit will have to say about this order.



Mike

 

[smitholdtimer]

Judges Decision

Please keep us informed on the outcome, I see both sides of the original "stop". Just believe carrying legally should by just that and am at a loss at the many places that are "off limits" for concealed carry. Agree with the alcohol consumption and no guns rule but cannot understand why I am only trustworthy in certain areas and only some of the time. I am not sure of the consistency of requirements in the different states but we are asked to attend a class of around six hours then prove we are proficient with a hand gun and then endure several mental health and back ground checks in order to carry. Again, this is very important to the future of many things not just the right to carry.

 

[PDL]

I'll say this with tongue in cheek,( cause i've got a foot + of snow in the driveway). I think Bob is suggesting that it would be better for all concerned if we could all 'open' carry. That way there would be no question of hidden motives.

 

[MWAG]

Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr

all you georgia folks remember this name come election time.

it's my understanding that this judge was appointed by bill clinton in 1997, not elected.........