Skip to comments.Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier
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 ...
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.
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.
I’m thinking this attorney went out specifically to start the ball rolling for a lawsuit.
And he got what he wanted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Right. Now all we have to say is "The cop acted stupidly."
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.
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.
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...
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.