Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier
Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner ^ | December 31, 2009 | Ed Stone

Posted on 12/31/2009 9:46:30 AM PST by Still Thinking

It's open season on gun carriers.

A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: banglist; bor; examiner; jbt; jbts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2009 9:46:30 AM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
It's not concealed if somebody can see it.
2 posted on 12/31/2009 9:49:26 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

True, and an admonishment to that effect would have been a more proportionate response.


3 posted on 12/31/2009 9:52:51 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Main Entry: con·ceal Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsēl\ Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English concelen, from Anglo-French conceler, from Latin concelare, from com- + celare to hide — more at hell Date: 14th century 1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of 2 : to place out of sight
4 posted on 12/31/2009 9:54:33 AM PST by Pajama Blogger (Pajama Power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
So, the officer felt threatened or privileged?
5 posted on 12/31/2009 9:54:55 AM PST by Loud Mime (Liberalism is a Socialist Disease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
True, and an admonishment to that effect would have been a more proportionate response.

No argument from me.

The moral here is never put yourself in a position where you could be vulnerable to a thug cop.

Exposing your legally-concealed firearm does just that.

6 posted on 12/31/2009 9:55:42 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
My previous response: "True, and an admonishment to that effect would have been a more proportionate response."

And even that response would be permissible only if the incident occurred in a state where open carry is taboo. Despite requiring licenses for concealed carry, many states allow open carry with no license. If this occurred in one of those states, even that slim thread of an excuse is gone.

7 posted on 12/31/2009 9:55:51 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I’m thinking this attorney went out specifically to start the ball rolling for a lawsuit.

And he got what he wanted.


8 posted on 12/31/2009 9:56:35 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (During this joyous Christmas season, I'd like you to know....A reindeer bit my sister once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
So, the officer felt threatened or privileged? Not really following you.
9 posted on 12/31/2009 9:57:11 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I’m normally not a big fan of lawsuit trolling, but if it results in a hesitancy of cops to treat the armed among their masters as automatic suspects, I’ll live with it.


10 posted on 12/31/2009 9:58:56 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Lawyer, walking around in "high crime area", and just happens to have his "concealed" handgun visible to passing officer. I suspect that the lawyer was also dressed a bit like a gang banger, and was trying to curtail police stops of armed gang bangers.

11 posted on 12/31/2009 9:59:22 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Article says he was wearing a suit. (Presumably not a “law suit”) Don’t know if the author knows what he’s talking about or just assuming.


12 posted on 12/31/2009 10:00:53 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
My previous response: "No argument from me."

I was merely pointing out that there are indeed a fraction of cops out there who are thugs.

Since I prefer to avoid as many unpleasant events in my life as possible, I would elect to make sure that my legally concealed firearm was never unconcealed. That way I don't have to deal with thug cops.

But that's just me.

13 posted on 12/31/2009 10:03:20 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

You’re wise to do so. I don’t intend to suggest disagreement with you, but with the cop’s actions (if they’re as reported).


14 posted on 12/31/2009 10:07:01 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

In a simpler age, the verdict would have been clear: the cop was/is a moron, was entirely too full of himself, and over-reacted.

But, then, these are the Obama years.


15 posted on 12/31/2009 10:07:56 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
But, then, these are the Obama years.

Right. Now all we have to say is "The cop acted stupidly."

16 posted on 12/31/2009 10:08:47 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

The “concealing” was pathetic, and the response was disproportionate and ridiculous ... but disproportionate responses are not necessarily unconstitutional.

Lawyers are often a hammer in search of a nail.

SnakeDoc


17 posted on 12/31/2009 10:10:14 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

99/100 is a fraction....and when it comes to thug cops, I find they are the norm rather than the exception. I too would take steps to secure my weapon to avoid having to deal with a douche.

I don’t bang on the glass at the zoo gorilla exhibit, I don’t take a rake to a hornet’s nest, I don’t leap in to the isle and knock over the pope, and I don’t go to rough neighborhoods looking to provoke someone who is more often than not going to be a dick.

This lawyer seemed to get exactly what he was looking for.


18 posted on 12/31/2009 10:11:34 AM PST by texan75010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; NFHale; hiredhand; Squantos
well if the valid 'permit' isnt verifiable, why bother ???

eventually the cops are gonna pick on a BG instead of a citizen whose gone to great lengths to ask the state 'pretty please'...

BGs typically dont ask permission, nor do they hesitate, they just start shootin to eliminate the threat...

19 posted on 12/31/2009 10:11:56 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Probably trolling for a lawsuit...BUT...the officer did a poor job....and so did the court. How can the court say it was appropriate to arrest (detain in the car) a person specifically for doing something that was legal?

What is it about the 2nd ammendment that is so confusing to people. Even if the cop was scared, concerned, whatever...this guy had the right to carry a gun. If he was dressed poorly, looked suspicious, was in a bad part of town, whatever, why does that give him the right to even ‘investigate’ the validity of his concealed carry license. Unless he stopped the guy for littering, jaywalking, etc., he has no business investigating the gun.

The court has now established that the mere presence of a gun is no probable cause to investigate the possibility the gun may be illegal. Its like getting pulled over because there is a possibility the car you are driving might be stolen.

What happens when a cop stops a guy for carrying a legal gun, and finds drugs in the pat-down? Is that admissable in court?

Sorry, I just don’t get it. Guns are legal - protected in the constitution, legally sold all over the place, and if I want to strap a holster to my belt, in the open, I should be able to.

BTW, I’m not a ‘gun nut’...only own uno rifle.


20 posted on 12/31/2009 10:15:08 AM PST by lacrew (The 274th trimester is a very late procedure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
I suspect that the lawyer was also dressed a bit like a gang banger, and was trying to curtail police stops of armed gang bangers.

Yeah, what was he thinking wearing something like that? He was just asking for it.

(Do I really have to to add a sarcasm tag?)

21 posted on 12/31/2009 10:16:33 AM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

Gotta be careful walking around in the Castro district in SF. If you drop your keys, just kick them along the ground till you get out.


22 posted on 12/31/2009 10:20:22 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Little gator was wrong cop was right.......


23 posted on 12/31/2009 10:24:06 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

How so?


24 posted on 12/31/2009 10:24:30 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Well keep on thinking there, still thinking!


25 posted on 12/31/2009 10:28:13 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Confucius: Better to light candle than curse darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Obvious profiling. This cop just has something against suits......


26 posted on 12/31/2009 10:32:26 AM PST by catchem (Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

You didn’t read the full article, DID YOU?!


27 posted on 12/31/2009 10:32:49 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Confucius: Better to light candle than curse darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
The purpose of “concealed carry” is to enable someone to protect him/herself without having to reveal that you're armed. If you do a poor job of concealment, you can frighten unarmed citizens (who may think that you have criminal intent), and invite unwanted attention from criminals (who will find a way to “get the drop” on you, and take your toy away) and the police. Granted, police officers are more attuned to spotting a concealed weapon than the average citizen, but there are ways to conceal a weapon that even a police officer cannot readily (e.g. traveling in a police cruiser) detect. Does anyone know for a fact that Mr. Attorney wasn't deliberately accentuating his “bulge” in order to intimidate any bad guys who might have eyes on him (or perhaps even subconsciously inviting attack in the hopes he could pull a Charlie Bronson “Death Wish” vigilante stunt)?
28 posted on 12/31/2009 10:33:52 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

There is no law requiring the gun be concealed. Carry is carry.


29 posted on 12/31/2009 10:33:56 AM PST by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

No, but neither do we know that open carry isn’t legal in the state in question.


30 posted on 12/31/2009 10:35:05 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: texan75010
I couldn't agree more. I've known far more thug cops than non-thug. Even those who don't consider themselves a “thug” will be the first to start justifying the abuses of their fellow officers under such false flags as “officer safety” or loyalty to their fellow patrolman.

This trend will not be abated until people start resisting the unlawful actions of thug cops by any means at their disposal.

31 posted on 12/31/2009 10:39:09 AM PST by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dayman; pawdoggie

My understanding from the class I had to take to get my Michigan Concealed Pistols License was that if you flash your gun you could lose your CPL.


32 posted on 12/31/2009 10:41:35 AM PST by Screaming_Gerbil (Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; Still Thinking

My sarcasm tag didn’t post........my bad......:(

Hope ya’ll know me better than that........:o)

Sorry !!!


33 posted on 12/31/2009 10:43:22 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Screaming_Gerbil
My understanding from the class I had to take to get my Michigan Concealed Pistols License was that if you flash your gun you could lose your CPL.

That's my understanding as well, but I believe there's a legal distinction between "flashing", "displaying" and poor concealment.

34 posted on 12/31/2009 10:52:02 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

“...Hope ya’ll know me better than that...”
-
I thought maybe you had fallen and hit your head...or maybe I had...


35 posted on 12/31/2009 10:55:43 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane

1. It’s not necessary to point the gun at the suspect. Draw it if you think you may need it, but pointing it the suspect’s head when he doesn’t have his weapon in his hand is way overkill.

2. You don’t aim your gun at someone’s head either, face or not. You aim for the torso.

This officer sounds like a total moron.

If the court’s ruling is correct, then when this officer travel’s outside his jurisdiction, he could be treated the same way for carrying a concealed weapon.

I believe most agencies would turn a blind eye to an officer having a concealed weapon. Now, it seems they would be wrong to have a policy like that.

How can they verify the I.D.?

If this cop is right, it rewrites the rules for a lot of people, and the court should be aware of that. This is just plain idiotic.

I hope the attorney takes this to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court addresses the lower courts and the officer for the moronic behavior/ruling they have exhibitied.


36 posted on 12/31/2009 10:56:06 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Good news. HC bill will not cover illegal aliens. Bad news. 20-35 million will be made citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

LOL.....reading that I thought I did !!

Snowed in for the day, made a pizza and drinking some home brew, just me not reviewing my post as usual before I hit SPEW !

Stay safe and Merry New Year !!!


37 posted on 12/31/2009 11:00:32 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

It is important that cops understand they are to respect peoples’ constitutional rights. When the cop jumped out agressively after seeing the gun, I can understand that. You don’t confront an armed man with a howdy if you want to survive as a cop. The gun was not concealed so he was right to make the assumption he was dealing with an armed criminal until he saw the registration.

However, not only did this cop act unprofessionally when presented with the gun documentation, he has a judge who has just pronounced that anti-constitutional behavior and attitude as dandy. He is probably unprofessionally rude and crude with citizens in this way every day on his beat.

So, there needs to be an education program for the cops in Georgia to understand and respect the second amendment rights of legally armed citizens and there has to be penalities for the unprofessional harassment of gun owners. There should be merely a ticket given to the concealed carry guy if his his gun is visable even though he took measures to conceal it, presented his documentation, etc.


38 posted on 12/31/2009 11:02:26 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dayman
"There is no law requiring the gun be concealed. "

WRONG! There is precisely such a law in Texas.

39 posted on 12/31/2009 11:05:17 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; pawdoggie
No, but neither do we know that open carry isn’t legal in the state in question.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/frequently-asked-questions/

(Excerpted)

I Do Not Have a Firearms License. What Can I Do?

Q: Can I carry a handgun openly, without concealing it?

A: No! Georgia is one of the minority of states that requires a firearms license to carry a pistol openly outside of your home, car, or place of business.

Please be sure to read the history of Georgia’s licensing law and find out why a license is required to carry a handgun openly. It is not what you think.

Also,

Method of Carry

Q: Do I need to carry my firearm concealed or may I carry openly?

A: Under the law, a firearms license holder may carry a firearm openly or concealed in any location that is not off limits. However:

It is quite possible that a given law enforcement officer in a given jurisdiction may not have been properly briefed on (or may not have understood) the changes in the law brought about by HB89 and thus may still choose to challenge or even arrest someone carrying openly in the new locations, believing they are doing the right thing under the law. The legality of detaining people openly carrying firearms is the subject matter of two federal lawsuits filed by GCO.

Interesting stuff at their site, georgiacarry.org

40 posted on 12/31/2009 11:23:45 AM PST by GizmosAndGadgets (That given freely is charity; Taken by force, theft; Stolen by the government, tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

So, the officer felt threatened or privileged? Not really following you.
*********************************************
His question was clear to me ... I see tigers at the zoo but I don’t feel threatened by them and I wouldn’t feel threatened if I saw a glimpse of a gun being carried by someone that did not appear to be up to something.


41 posted on 12/31/2009 2:01:24 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
[forehead slap] Obviously the "threatened" part was understandable. It was the "privileged" part that was giving me trouble. The only thing I could think he meant to ask was if the officer felt privileged to be able to jump out of his car and accost the guy, but as I typed the reply, I'm thinking he meant "entitled" or "superior", as if only cops should be allowed to go armed. If so, I don't care HOW they guy feels so long as he only enforces laws that are actually on the books.
42 posted on 12/31/2009 2:16:39 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Good for the cop. A real man can handle himself without a gun. If the lawyer is too afraid to go out without a weapon he is either a punk or a pansy.


43 posted on 12/31/2009 2:17:50 PM PST by awake-n-angry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: awake-n-angry
Good for the cop. A real man can handle himself without a gun. If the lawyer is too afraid to go out without a weapon he is either a punk or a pansy.

Then what about the cop?

44 posted on 12/31/2009 2:20:23 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

So? The incident occured in MA and the news source is out of GA. Did you even bother to read the article?

Texas may not honor a person’s right to carry as they choose but they are in the minority of states.


45 posted on 12/31/2009 2:45:59 PM PST by Dayman (My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry.

Hmm, that puzzles me.

In Michigan a CPL (concealed pistol license) is in the system along with drivers license and plate registration. Therefore, if a cop 'lights up' and pulls over a vehicle he knows if the registered owner has a CPL just by running the plates.

Now, in this instance, the cop was in his cruiser when he spotted the citizen. Why couldn't he verify the concealed carry license along with the drivers license (valid state ID) and case closed?

Do not all states have this interchange of information or ability of officers to verify information from within their vehicles?

46 posted on 12/31/2009 2:49:02 PM PST by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varon

Indiana does.


47 posted on 12/31/2009 2:52:26 PM PST by CholeraJoe (My baloney has a first name, it's B-A-R-A-K. My baloney has a second name, it's O-B-A-M-A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dayman
There is no law requiring the gun be concealed. Carry is carry.

I have a concealed carry permit from my state.

My state requires you to carry your firearm concealed. If it bulges out but is covered by clothing that is OK.

I don't know where you get the idea that the law is anything that you say it is. Good luck with that.

48 posted on 12/31/2009 3:00:06 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; All
The State involved is Massachusetts. Important facts that are in the whole story when you read it are:

The officer confirmed that the lawyer had a facially valid concealed carry permit, then impounded the firearm, and left the permit holder defenseless in a high crime area after telling the lawyer that he was the only one allowed to have a firearm in his beat.

The court upheld this insane bit of illogic by saying that the officer had no way to immediately check the records to see if the permit was valid (presumably it might have been revoked, I suppose. This makes no sense to me, because if the officer thought the permit was not valid, why would he have left the lawyer without arresting him?

This is a truly bad court decision, but what do you expect from the New England States.

49 posted on 12/31/2009 3:17:18 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Georgia is a licensed open carry state

http://www.opencarry.org/ga.html

Best regards,

50 posted on 12/31/2009 6:42:56 PM PST by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson