This is a discussion on Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Janq Very easy, and simple. 1) Being seen as in viewed by the eyes of persons, whether those persons were cops or ...
Hasn't this been a recurring issue with MARTA? I don't think this is the first issue I have heard of. That may be a reason for pushing this interaction so far.
After reading the linked article in the OP. The cops could have...
1. Asked for his permit. Assuming he presented it they could have figured out everything was on the up and up.
2. Assumed he was a criminal and treated him as such, to include detention and most likely trying to figure out what to charge him with.
I understand that carrying a gun is a touchy subject. Believe me, I OC and fully accept the inconvenience that may or may not accompany it. But once everything is squared away he should have been on his way. In the grand scheme, 30 minutes is not too bad. But I don't think it took 30 minutes to figure out he was good to carry. So was the extra time spent fishing? If so, that's the problem I would have with it.
I suspect if you have a firearm, and you refuse a cops order, you will have some lumps.
As far as the judges ruling, it has to be the stupidest I have heard.
So if you don't have a permit, you are deemed more peaceful than if you do have a permit. Go figure. Did Jimmy Carter appoint this judge?
iirc its a clinton appointee, and that is correct there is no requirement to show the GFL to anyone....
...To which the whole stands as well.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.
Source - Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity
He was background checked in the interim as prior to release, for just "half an hour".
a check takes all of about 5 seconds 30 mins is way to long to not be free to leave
That is the misinterpretation toward the reading of the article as by the thread starter and the resulting misleading title of this thread.
For more on that see my post here as early into when this thread was posted.
Unfortunately for this thread others prior and thereafter came along and read the thread title alone and/or the parsed bits from the OPs post and ran with that alone as by assumptive stance.
That sentiment of yours and theOPs and many others here is based on the _view_ of the defendants attorney which itself does not (!) match up at all to nor properly reflect that of the actual decision and statement by the judge as is quoted above.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."
- The not parsed and complete paragraph relating the judges decision statement, which is a more sensical and sensible read.
Source - http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...minal-activity
- JanqJohn 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.
Source - http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...minal-activity
Final paragraph of the report
A persons background such as do they have any warrants or judicial orders outstanding is not stated on ones motor vehicle and/or firearm permit/license.
Checking names and faces on those two documents is not as cited in court and quoted a "background check".
A background check takes far longer than 5 seconds, and anyone who has ever endured same as at the side of the road for just a motor vehicle stop against a moving violation knows it is well within normal to take as long as half an hour.
That depends on the what's being used. If the cop is doing it on an MDT it could take longer pending on system usage, if it's being radioed in to dispatch it could take a while depending on the volume of traffic that the dispatcher is dealing with.
Most PDs where I've worked (installing, maintaining, repairing public safety 911/Dispatch/radio systems) only have one machine to run NICS and one dispatcher able to log into that terminal at a time, if there's a lot going on that day, back ground checks can take longer.
Not saying that's what the case was, but stating that every single back ground check should take "X" time is bull. It gets even worse if some one has the same name as a wanted person.
Edited to add:
If the duration of the check is really that big of an issue, someone involved with the case needs to file a FOIA claim and get the traffic related to that incident and see what the hold up was.
For all we know the guys on the scene were waiting on feedback from higher on how to proceed....we just don't know or rather that info has not been presented.
Ok, rather long set of posting here.
But the way I see it, the guy made himself suspect by allowing an officer to see him place a gun into a concealed place and enter a bus.
GA allows OC, great, but the guy was clearly CC when he headed towards the bus. Does GA allow CC for any and everyone or must one have a permit. If a permit is required then the cop had every right to question the guy right then and there. Bus carry is not legal unless you have a CC permit. Cop had every right to stop him and question him about his status/legality whatever one would call it when heading for the bus.
Should it take 30 minutes to verify the legal status of a permit holder. Heck I don't know. Traffic violations can tak that long some times, I don't know if there is any set time frame that should be allowed for whateve type of stop.
Should the officer have been able to disarm the fellow, well in Texas he can, I don't know what GA law is. In my mind, an officer who is charged with keeping the peace should be able to disarm an individual during a stop. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, others are going to disagree, but if being inconvienenced by an officer by being disarmed bothers you that much, maybe you should spend a day in their shoes dealing with bad guys and see if you can tell who does and who doesn't pose a threat to you.
I think the case was much to do about nothing personally.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor