Posted on 12/16/2009 9:04:17 AM PST by greatdefender
Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled today that carrying a firearm on MARTA justifies forcible detention by the police, in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed over the half hour long detention and disarmament of GeorgiaCarry.Org member Christopher Raissi.
Christopher Raissi holds a Georgia firearms license and frequently carries a handgun concealed. On October 14, 2008, he was carrying concealed on MARTA. He did not know that a MARTA police officer observing the parking lot had seen him holstering and concealing his firearm while still at his car. Therefore, he was surprised when he was surrounded by police officers who yelled "Police!" and ordered him to stop. The officers then seized his firearm from his holster and began questioning him, asking, according to the court's written opinion,
[W]hat are you doing with a gun?
After seeing Raissi's firearms license and driver's license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.
In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. He wrote in his opinion that "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."
After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking to toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.
As a result, Judge Thrash concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Raissi was committing two crimes. As a result, the officers were justified in using force to detain him, and the "officers were entitled to take Raissi's handgun because they knew Raissi had concealed it on his person and would have easy access to it while they questioned him." The officers were also entitled to ask him for his social security number and transport him to a locked area out of the public view.
Judge Thrash was reluctant to rule on the issue of carrying firearms openly, rather than concealed, on MARTA, because Raissi was carrying his handgun concealed. Instead, he held that such relief is inappropriate until a GeorgiaCarry.Org member sues for constitutional violations while carrying openly at some future date. Judge Thrash recognized that Georgia opinions in cases involving "the separate and distinct crime of carrying a pistol without a license" observe that "the statutory language requires absence of the firearms license as an element of the crime." This makes carrying a handgun openly different from carrying concealed, as the officers seeing an open handgun bear the burden of having a reasonable suspicion that the person carrying openly does not have a firearms license. Carrying openly on MARTA under this court's ruling, however, would still subject one to detention and disarmament, since boarding the MARTA system requires a license as an "affirmative defense," and not as an "element of the crime."
Judge Thrash held for trial Raissi's Privacy Act claim, based on the demand for Raissi's social security number. He refused to rule on the request that MARTA be enjoined from requesting social security numbers because MARTA stated that it no longer demands social security numbers of those who provide firearms licenses. "It seems very unlikely that members of GeorgiaCarry.Org would carry a Georgia firearms license but then refuse to provide it to MARTA police officers."
John Monroe, Christopher Raissi's attorney, expressed disappointment with the opinion and declared that if the opinion stands its effects will be felt far beyond MARTA:
The decision means everyone seen carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to being stopped, arrested, and prosecuted, even if they have a license. Anyone carrying a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a state park is fair game. The same goes for police officers. A police officer carrying a firearm in a restaurant, bar, or school is subject to arrest, including a citizen’s arrest, because being a law enforcement officer is an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime.
Mr. Monroe has not yet decided whether to appeal, but observed that such a decision would probably not be made until the entire case is over, including the trial on the Privacy Act claim.
I may get flamed but here’s my two cents:
I think the cops acted prudently due to the fact that while holstering his weapon, he did so as others(the cops) could see him. When I carry my weapon, I holster and carry so noone else can see therfore not causing suspicion.
As one who has ridden MARTA (Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta) day and night, to and from the airport, I can attest that there are a number of stops in neighborhoods that make concealed carry a very good idea.
This loopy black robed legislator is working of the basis of his FEELINGS on weapons not the evidence of any VISIBLE criminality of legal gun owners. Clearly the law is whatever HE says it is....Of course the "judge" must be one of those satraps appointed from on high and not accountable to us mere peasants. < /shaking head in total abject disgust>
Is there a sign on each bus stating the policy?
Why is a federal judge ruling on this?
MARTA crime stats...
Murders drop to zero
In 2007, MARTA had two murders occur on its property. In 2008, the year the new (concealed carry) law took effect and peaceable citizens began lawfully carrying firearms on MARTA trains and busses, the number of murders dropped to zero, and there has not been a murder reported on the system since.
Robbery rate drops
The murder rate was not the only category of violent crime to go down in the wake of the new gun law. There were 94 robberies on the MARTA system in 2007. In 2008, the year the new law took effect, the number of robberies dropped to 71, and in 2009, it has dropped again to 67 (although we still have two weeks to go).
Overall rate lower
The overall rate per number of riders has also dropped since the new law took effect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I rest my case, Your Honor.
This feral judge used the wrong standard to judge a state violation of civil rights. Instead of strict scrutinity, he just used the weak level of probable cause. If our rights are sold this cheap, we are all prisoners of the state.
Personally, if I was the Atty General for GA, I would put in a motion that this foolish ruling violates article X of the Constitution... Oh wait, GA is subject to feral abrogation of states rights and of Georgia citizens.
Nevermind. LOL
Logic does not work well with these folks, Smoking...Thanks for the effort however.
oh wait, they can do that to non protected 'rights'...
Asshat. Now they’ll be detaining every male on suspicion of rape and every female for suspicion of prostitution.
Concealed means concealed. If it is visible to the public and cops, it aint concealed.
now if i could only convince you to be a staunch proponent of "shall NOT be infringed" maybe we wouldnt hafta anal probe citizens for exercising their rights...
I agree 100%. What do you think would have happened if the same cops had seen this person board the train while wearing a Bulldog or Night Hawk concealed-carry fanny pack? My guess is that nothing at all would have happened, as long as they didn't actually see the handgun being placed into the container. Even though the cops would have absolutely known the guy had a handgun in the fanny pack, I doubt they would have done a thing.
I've had a number of cops glance at my concealed-carry fanny pack, and then look up and check out my face. So far, I've never had a one say anything to me, or even raise an eyebrow.
It's that peekaboo now-you-see-it-now-you-don't business that causes problems. We may have the right to both concealed carry and open carry, but that doesn't mean they are they same exact thing. They are different, and they have different rules.
ping
I’m new here but couldn’t your MARTA explanation be deemed racist? Just asking. Thanks. Oh yeah. What’s a “PING” mean?
People can and do blindly deem any statement about any ethnic group to be “racist.” The facts are that MARTA conveys primarily blacks though neighborhoods where black gangsters prey. It’s an unfortunate reality. If the line went through Irish neighborhoods with Irish gangsters getting on and off and preying on passengers, and I said only the black gangsters were a problem, then yes, that would be objectively racist.
I’m sure the guy who got stabbed in the fight on the MARTA train (in the car I was in) wishes I had been carrying at the time. Everyone else in the car was just upset that they emptied the train at the next stop and made us wait for another one.
Actually, yes. You must provide proof of license, registration & insurance on demand ... and there is no minimum standard for that demand. You can also be detained until that information is confirmed, which can take as long as they like to whatever standard they like. (OK, may be some limits on these, but the gist is right.)
Core problem with "gun licensing" is that it is predicated on the law "possession of a firearm is illegal". Exceptions may exist (such as licensed carry), but they exist as _exceptions_, to wit "affirmative defense" (as in "you're guilty of violating that law, but excused for some reason").
Played right, this case could overturn licensing altogether.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.