Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity

8K views 67 replies 27 participants last post by  JD 
#1 ·
Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

Federal judge holds that carrying a firearm concealed justifies detention and disarmament, as does carrying a firearm on MARTA.
Attorney for gun carrier opines that opinion may reach into Georgia's restaurants and state parks as well.

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.

Judge Thrash also held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies 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."

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 see carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to stop, arrest, and prosecution, 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.
 
#2 ·
I assume that CC on the MARTA is legal(before this ruling)? If so, then this is going to be appealed. There is no way it could not be. This is just another activist judge legislating from the bench. Good luck Mr. Raissi, but hopefully you will not need it. Hopefully the next judge to hear this will actually have his head screwed on straight.
 
#23 ·
This is just another activist judge legislating from the bench.
Activist judge? Surely you jest. The issue was whether there was probable cause to detain. Rather than requiring the lack thereof as a part of the offense, it is common for many statutes to be written in a way that casts certain exculpatory conduct as a defense rather than "lack thereof" as a part of the offense. To the extent that the statute has been written in a less than desirable manner (some say backwards or with a backwards burden of proof or going forward with proof) is a legislative shortcoming -- not a judicial shortcoming.

This means that in a trial, the person claiming the defense has the burden to raise the defense. As to how jury instructions are written -- that will vary from juristiction to jurisdiction.

Thus, "legislating from the bench" -- I think not. To hold otherwise would be legislating from the bench, and would be drifting back toward unbridled liberalism.

If it were a killer who had been detained for the 30 minutes, would you be calling him an activist judge soft on crime for the short detention period?

If he had been detained for a whole day, my opinion is that the LEO's would have been approaching conduct amounting to civil rights violations under these circumstances.

MORAL TO THE STORY: If you are carrying, be careful not to do your final adjustments in view of LEO's after you have arrived at the parking lot. Get a proper holster, and learn to use it. Avoid doing do anything to generate unneeded reasonable suspician or probable cause. If one is doing all of the obvious concealment adjustments in public view, he is not really doing a very good job of concealing.
 
#4 ·
I would need to do some reading to fully understand the issue. It seems the use of "affirmative defense" is poor wording on the part of the legislators. I am not even sure what affirmative defense means in this context.

OCGA 16-11-127 on GeorgiaPacking.org

Guilty until proven innocent?

an old thread about MARTA's rules:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbull...ssues-discussions/71965-marta-train-ride.html

from:
MARTA Monthly June 2008

Georgia law prohibits the carrying of a pistol, revolver or other firearm on public transit unless a person has a valid firearms license to carry a gun. This license must be carried at any time that an individual is carrying a firearm on MARTA. MARTA police will strictly enforce all provisions of this law. Any individual found to be carrying a firearm without a permit will have it confiscated and will be issued a citation pursuant to Georgia law.
What a mess all this is. Who wrote these silly laws?
 
#13 ·
the laws are vague on purpose so black men could be disarmed....
I'm a Black man and in reading the OPs posting of the news item as parsed I too was very confused, and disarmed.

But in seeing that the item as posted, and parsed, made little sense I choose to follow through to the articles source.

That was a key decision and action!

This is an excellent example of why it is very important to both post the entirety of an article and not just a part of it.
As well why it is even more critical to cite the source AND provide if at all possible a URL link to it as follow through.

If you go to the article it becomes obvious very quickly that the OP posted only part of the whole article.
The part as posted does not include context of why the man was stopped, why the cops thought to detain him or even how and why MARTA is involved in this decision...Muchless insight as to what the judge was thinking.
Also the entirety of the judges ruling is misrepresented in the OPs post not on purpose I think but as result of being parsed.

Bottom Line:
I agree with the judge and his ruling, as in complete statement and not parsed.
Further I also agree with the MARTA police who had observed the gentleman and choose to apprehend him for questioning.
They _reacted_ reasonably as based on his own unreasonable and ill advised catalyst _action_ as had occurred prior to him entering the MARTA system as armed without knowing/thinking that he may have been observed.

Reading the follow on posts to this thread alone without going back to read the actual source in it's entirety only proves to further confuse things and by that I can see how folk are posting what they have...as a a result of reading the OPs post only and _not_ having read the actual source.

Read the source folks, before making a judgment...and posting it.

This threads title is misleading and inaccurate as against the facts as reported and subsequent judicial decision.

- Janq

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.
 
#7 ·
If you are observed catching a fish and putting it in your car, you have committed all the acts required for the crime of fishing without a game license. Merely carrying the fish justifies detention and confiscation of your dinner. The fact that you HAVE a fishing license is an affirmative defense, not an element of the crime.

Get ready for SWAT 2: "Game" Over (<-- that sounds funnier if you say it with the "movie guy" voice).
 
#10 ·
This is a soundly written decission and I expect it to be sustained on appeal.

Try reading the decission, not just the article.

Here is part you may find interesting:

Because a Georgia firearms license is an affirmative defense to the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, it does not matter if there was no reason to suspect that Raissi did not have a Georgia firearms license. After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking 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. Officer Nicholas saw this happen. The officers were not then required “to explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence,” including affirmative defenses, before making an investigative stop of Raissi. Ricciuti v. New York City
Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d128, 135 (2d. Cir. 2003) (“[J]ust as probable cause may exist although a suspect is in fact innocent, probable cause may exist where the police do not know of the existence
or validity of an exculpatory defense.”); Humphrey v. Staszak, 148 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[E]ntrapment is an affirmative defense . . . [and] is not part of our Fourth Amendment probable cause-to-arrest analysis.”); State v. Fry, 142 Wash. App. 456,
460 (2008) (“Medical authorization for marijuana use is an affirmative defense . . . [and] [a]ffirmative defenses are evaluated at trial, not by law enforcement at earlier stages of the proceedings.”).

In other jurisdictions that treat a firearms license as an affirmative defense, courts have held that it does not matter if there was no reason to suspect that a person did not have a firearms license. In State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390 (Minn.2008), police officers stopped the defendant’s car based solely on a 911 call from an
identified private citizen. The caller said that he had just seen “a black male and black female . . . leaving a gas station in a white Pontiac Grand Prix,” and that, before they left the gas station, he had seen the black male with a gun. Id. at 392. The officers’ stop and subsequent search revealed evidence that was the basis of the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, the defendant did not dispute the reliability of the 911 call, but said that, “because it is legal in Minnesota for a private citizen to carry a permitted gun in public, police may not conduct aninvestigat[ive] stop without additional evidence that the possession itself is illegal.”
Id. at 394. The Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the conviction and held that “consistent with our determination . . . that lack of a permit [is] not an element of the offense, the police in this case did not need to know whether [the defendant] had a permit in order to have a reasonable suspicion that [the defendant] was engaged in
criminal activity.” Id. at 395. “[T]he officers had a reasonable basis to suspect that [the defendant] was engaged in criminal activity, even without knowing whether he had a permit, based on the caller’s report that he saw [the defendant] with a gun in the vehicle.” Id

Also, in United States v. Cooper, 293 Fed. Appx. 117 (3d Cir. 2008), police officers stopped the defendant’s car based solely on information from another police officer who, while patrolling an area of Philadelphia, “observed [the defendant] lift his shirt, displaying a silver handgun . . . then [return] to his car and [drive] away.”
Id. at 118. The officers’ stop and subsequent search revealed evidence that was the basis of the defendant’s conviction for various drug possession and firearm crimes.


On appeal, the defendant said that, “ecause a firearm may be lawfully possessed under some circumstances, . . . the facts here – [the officer’s] mere viewing of [the defendant] in possession of a weapon on a public street in Philadelphia – did not create reasonable suspicion.” Id. The Third Circuit sustained the conviction and held that, because “licensure is an affirmative defense to a statutory violation for possession of a firearm,” “an officer’s observance of an individual’s possession of a firearm in a public place in Philadelphia is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to detain that individual for further investigation.” Id. at 119-20; see United States v.
Bond, 173 Fed. Appx. 144, 146 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Collins, Nos. 05-1810, 01-CR-00780, 2007 WL 4463594, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2007).

None of the cases cited by the Plaintiffs were from jurisdictions that treat a firearms license as an affirmative defense. See United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213, 214 (3d Cir. 2000); St. John v. McColley, No. 08-994, 2009 WL 2949302, at *4 (D.N.M. Sept. 08, 2009). Ubiles is a case from the Virgin Islands and, under Virgin
Islands law, the absence of a firearm license is an element of the crime ofunauthorized possession of a firearm. 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Isaac, 45 V.I. 334, 342 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 2004). St. John is a case from New Mexico and, under New Mexico law, it is not a crime to carry a firearm without a license so long as the
firearm is carried openly, which the plaintiff in St. John did. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-7-2; St. John, 2009 WL 2949302, at *4 (“[M]erely ‘showing a gun’ . . . is not illegal in the State of New Mexico.”). These cases are, therefore, distinguishable. See Collins, 2007 WL 4463594, at *4 (“Ubiles is distinguishable [because] the gun laws in the Virgin Islands are different from the gun laws in ennsylvania.”).

Once they decided to conduct an investigative stop of Raissi, Officers Nicholas and Milton were required to conduct the stop in a reasonable manner. The Plaintiffs say that the stop was unreasonable because the officers did not have any reason to seize Raissi’s handgun, ask for Raissi’s social security number, or take Raissi to a private hallway before returning his handgun. But each of the Plaintiffs’ objections
to the nature of the stop involves second-guessing of the officers’ actions. 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.


See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 112 (1977) (“The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that [the defendant] was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, anyman of ‘reasonable caution’ would likely have conducted the ‘pat-down.’”). The
officers were entitled to ask Raissi for his social security number because a background check would help the officers determine whether Raissi had any outstanding warrants or prior felonies that would disqualify him from legally carrying a firearm. See Illinois v. Wardlaw, 528 U.S. 119, 126 (2000); United States v.
Hutchinson, 408 F.3d 796, 800-02 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

And the officers were entitled to take Raissi to a private hallway before returning his handgun because it was safer for Raissi to re-holster his handgun out of public view. (Nicholas Dep. at 23); cf.Mimms, 434 U.S. at 112 (a police officer may, for safety reasons, order a driver out of the car during a lawful stop).

Because Officers Nicholas and Milton were entitled to conduct an investigative stop of Raissi, and because the stop itself was reasonable, the Defendants did not violate Raissi’s Fourth Amendment rights. This resolves the Plaintiffs’ claims for
compensatory damages.


It does not necessarily resolve the Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, which address what MARTA officers may do in the future. It does not resolve these claims because there is evidence that MARTA hasa policy of stopping anyone seen carrying a firearm, even if that person is carrying the firearm openly. (Dorsey Second Aff. ¶ 9); (Nicholas Dep. at 29-31).

When a person is carrying a firearm openly, reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity must obviously involve some unlawful act other than the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon or the crime of carrying a concealed weapon. There is also evidence that some
members of GeorgiaCarry.Org want to use the MARTA system while carrying firearms and that interest does not appear limited to carrying a concealed firearm. (Stone Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)

Therefore, even after concluding that the Defendants did not violate Raissi’s Fourth Amendment rights, the Plaintiffs still have standing to seek a declaration that MARTA’s firearms policy as applied to any person openly carryinga firearm is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of such policy. See 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003).
 
#14 ·
Oh boy the court had opened a bucket of worms with this one.

It’s start with "affirmative defense".
The word affirmative also means assenting, positive, and confirmatory.

From Wikipedia
An affirmative defense is a category of defense used in litigation between private parties in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, a type of defense raised in criminal law by the defendant. Affirmative defenses can be classified as either a justification defense or an excuse defense.[1] Affirmative defenses operate to limit, excuse or avoid a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability, even though the factual allegations of the plaintiff's claim are admitted or proven. In fact, the defendant usually must affirm that the facts asserted by the plaintiff are correct in asserting his own defense; hence, "affirmative" defenses.

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self-defense.[2] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that his conduct was necessary to protect himself from another's use of unlawful force.
While one would think an LEO would upon producing “id” be shown more courtesy, than Mr. Raissi was, but I have known officers who were treated the same way, as Christopher Raissi's was when an officer in another jurisdiction noticed he/she was carrying a concealed weapon.

Was Christopher Raissi within his rights to carry on MARTA? Sure… absolutely

Was the officer correct, in making inquires?
Here I would have to agree that he was. But it should of stopped when Mr. Raissi produced his CCL. Or at the very worst, the officer should have called it in to verify, without undue detention of Mr. Raissi.

What this all boils down to is, this whole situation, would of never happen if Mr. Raissi would of kept his concealed weapon concealed, and for now until this ruling is “overturned” or amended, I think all of us need to take a lesson from this, and make sure our weapons stay concealed.
 
#19 ·
While one would think an LEO would upon producing “id” be shown more courtesy, than Mr. Raissi was, but I have known officers who were treated the same way, as Christopher Raissi's was when an officer in another jurisdiction noticed he/she was carrying a concealed weapon.

Was Christopher Raissi within his rights to carry on MARTA? Sure… absolutely

Was the officer correct, in making inquires?
Here I would have to agree that he was. But it should of stopped when Mr. Raissi produced his CCL. Or at the very worst, the officer should have called it in to verify, without undue detention of Mr. Raissi.

What this all boils down to is, this whole situation, would of never happen if Mr. Raissi would of kept his concealed weapon concealed, and for now until this ruling is “overturned” or amended, I think all of us need to take a lesson from this, and make sure our weapons stay concealed.


no way to verify a GFL in GA unless you call the probate that issued it and its during a normal buisness hour....
 
#15 ·
I don't know if this will stand on appeal, the judge's ruling seems reasonable, but Mr. Monroe is a little over the top with his statement. I don't really think a police officer is the same as a GFL holder...

For clarification an 'affirmative defense', in Tx it means that basically, DA's will not accept charges, because they can't win...an automatic win for the defense...

I think part of the problem goes to the carrier... why is he arming himself where someone can see him in public? This might not be the popular opinion, but the officers had every right to take him to a secure area and investigate the situation, since carrying without a GFL is illegal... Once they had him detained, it would be normal to run him to see if he had any warrants outstanding, etc...
 
#17 ·
I think part of the problem goes to the carrier... why is he arming himself where someone can see him in public?

Because they need the police action to sue.

You can't sue without standing, and absent action of the government which adversely effects you in a tangible way ("I was denied entry to a state park because I was carrying a firearm in accordance with state law...I was detained by the cops...") you are not a plaintiff the court will hear.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean the case will be heard.

You have to have some stake in the matter.
 
#16 ·
Here's a proper analogy.

You are eating in a sandwich shop, and as you are stuffing your face with a salmon burger & sweet potato fries covered in chilli & cheese (not velveta, smoked gouda...) you see a guy park his car, walk to the trunk, withdraw a pistol, tuck it into the small of his back, close his trunk, adjust his jacket and walk toward the sandwich shop you are eating in.

Could he have a permit? Maybe.

Might he just be here for an order of sweet potato chilli cheese fries & a heart attack burger (3 1/2 pound angus burgers, 12 strips of bacon, gouda, swiss & pepper jack cheese all on a pair of krispy kreme doughnuts. With a slice of pickle for fiber...)? Maybe.

But tell me you aren't starting to wipe off your hands, shift a bit in your seat and palm that J-frame in your pocket as you think "OK, if it goes down I'm going to empty the J-Frame as I start moving..."
 
#24 ·
Bingo! ^^

Correct on all points, CWBlanco.
Especially so your moral of the story point.

Dude made a serious and unwise error.
He did not know he had been observed by LEOs.
He did not know LEOs were observing him or anyone else.
He did know he was doing what he did as in plain sight which is all kinds of not advisable. Sit in your car and do such things as under cover while _concealed_.

The rest is a tale of cops reacting to his actions as well within reason.
His treatment per the storys actual report was not unreasonable either and the final result and means by which they released him was also reasonable.

The only things unreasonable here is that he made the choice to act as he did in the first place AND that he made the choice for some odd reason to take this item to court, as toward an error he made himself to get himself into trouble. Duh.

Concealed means out of sight and out of view.
Nothing less. People should know and understand this.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Concealed
1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>
2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>

- Janq
 
#25 ·
Bingo! ^^

The rest is a tale of cops reacting to his actions as well within reason.
His treatment per the storys actual report was not unreasonable either and the final result and means by which they released him was also reasonable.

The only things unreasonable here is that he made the choice to act as he did in the first place AND that he made the choice for some odd reason to take this item to court, as toward an error he made himself to get himself into trouble. Duh.

Concealed means out of sight and out of view.
Nothing less. People should know and understand this.

- Janq
Right on Janq.

I have been attorney for plaintiffs and defendants in cases such as these. When I started reading and determined that it was a civil case, I was preparing myself to read the portion where they detained the fellow all day long and beat the hell out of him. However, when considering the fact that the victim created the suspicion and probable cause, I thought he came out rather well with only the 30 minute delay and no physical or mental abuse. I have been held up almost that long before on a mere traffic violation.
 
#28 ·
Hope everyone gets behind the guy in his appeals, including the NRA. IF it's legal to carry.... and the appeal is won, it will admonish the Judge against using his personal opinions in judicial findings. An officer cannot "assume" you are doing something illegal if you are carrying a gun legally. It's 'offical' harrassment of people exercising their rights, to dissuade them from exercising those rights. Comparable to harrassing women and /or blacks when they showed up to vote in our history.. and were harrassed and dissuaded in voting.

You NEVER.... have to RAISE A DEFENSE ..... that's not American Judicial procedure... remember ... innocent until proven quity and the defendant does NOT have to do anything but sit there. The Prosecution 'must' prove it is 1) what the law is they supposedly violated , 2) that the defendant knew that or should have known the law, 3) that they "intentionally" and "knowingly" violated the law.

Doesn't appear that he violated 'any law' .

When is "adjusting" your pants illegal. ??
 
#31 ·
Again, the plaintiff arrived at the station, parked his car, stepped out, then holstered his weapon. Look at the testimony. It was an IWB holster placed in the small of the back. Who among you would drive around with that rig attached?

There was no adjustment, no "slip" of concealed carry. Even if that were the case, it would be utterly irrelevant to this case. Open carry in Georgia is also permitted only if one possesses a GFL, or is a member of a group exempted from the GFL requirement under 16-12-130. The fact that the firearm was visible has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
 
#32 ·
Guy follows the law, is completely covered by the law and yet is still stopped questioned and detained.....
Judge it seems to me just doesnt like Open or Concealed Carry, both legal in Georgia with a GCL.
 
#33 ·
Guy follows the law, is completely covered by the law and yet is still stopped questioned and detained.....
Judge it seems to me just doesnt like Open or Concealed Carry, both legal in Georgia with a GFL.


ftfy Georgia Firearms License we dont have a concealed license just one to carry OC or CC
 
#35 ·
It seems to me that there were several "over reactions" on all party's involved from the bottom all the way to the top.

Here's my rather simplistic way of looking at it from the standpoint of me playing the cop...

I see a guy exit his vehicle, go to the trunk and holster a firearm.

Legally, I can walk up to him and inquire if he has a permit to carry. Can I? Yes. Will I? Maybe, maybe not.

Lets say that I do. I introduce myself and say that I observed him concealing a handgun and I would like to see his DL and permit if he has one. We do the small talk thing, I see his DL and his permit, run it, and if it all looks good, I thank him for his cooperation and tell him to have a good day...and that is the end of the story.

It didn't happen like that though. Instead, they temporarily seized his gun,treated him like he was guilty of something when he was not, kept him a bit too long,which probably caused him to miss his ride and the whole episode pissed him off enough that the more he thought about it,the madder he got and he lawyered up to seek damages because he felt that the cops that dealt with him were somewhat heavy handed about the whole thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if had placed the gun in the trunk of the car because he couldn't legally carry somewhere and was simply rearming himself because he was complying with the law where some off duty cop called in some additional support because he saw a man placing a gun in a holster.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute and imagine how you would feel.

Your case gets picked up by a Judge that doesn't like guns and uses legal jargon,cheap rhetoric and manipulation of the English language to influence his decision ,one that comes real close to harassment for doing what the state has already considered to be a legal act.

So technically, this guy is danged if he does and danged if he don't.

He broke no law, yet was treated as he if he had. He wasn't accused of anything other than holstering a weapon...a legal weapon that he had a permit to carry concealed. His only mistake was letting someone see what he was doing.

And because of that, we get to talk about him on the Internet and the various bulletin boards where people talk about such things.

I see a stack up of several unfortunate events here.

The guy got caught by the wrong dude sticking a gun in his britches.

The cops were piss poor communicators and only served to piss the guy off and the fact that the guy filed for damages proves it. They wanted to see a crime where none was committed.

The judge and the lawyers involved complicated the whole manner because thats what judges and lawyers do for a living...they complicate simple matters into tangled twisted balls of crap that only they can understand while charging you by the hour and laughing all the way to the bank, because they treat you as if you are guilty, rather than the other way around like it is supposed to be because there is more money in it.

And that is exactly why this whole country of ours is screwed up beyond all repair.
 
#36 ·
Wow, HG and I on same page, world is going to end



HG and I actually about 100% agree here. The world must be coming to an end.

I differ only in that I put no blame on the plaintiff's civil lawyer for whatever economic benefit he might have gotten by bringing the case.
 
#37 ·
I don't know what the big deal is, this is pretty much standard and nothing new.

The only thing is, once again, the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause are confused. There is a huge difference.
 
#40 ·
I don't know what the big deal is, this is pretty much standard and nothing new.
That is exactly how I see it, but it seems that we share a minority view from many of these scholars who are posting on this topic.

Actually, I am quite surprised that he found a lawyer to take this case. Having tried cases for plaintiff and defense for almost 40 years, lawyers assign a unique label to this type of case -- It is called a DOG case. Typically these type of cases are taken on a contingent fee basis. I assure you that the lawyer who took the case has wasted a lot more time than the 30 minutes. Contrary to the belief of many, this is not the type of case that the NRA is going to spend money on.

The good news is that some lucky lawyer will get someone to pay him a good fee up front to take the case on appeal. The bad news for the client is that he will get no where on an appeal even if it were before the most conservative appellate court in the country.

The ones who are complaining about the outcome are likely the same ones who are screeming for tort reform to limit lawsuits, and to limit the amount that the lawyers will get paid.

So Georgia may be an open and concealed carry state. Converting from open to concealed or vice versa in public view, gives reason for suspician.

Hmmmm -- Could there must be a reason for going concealed? Perhaps it is to avoid the suspician that cost the man 30 minutes. Was he concealed? Obviously not. Someone saw him putting on the holster with the gun and then attempting to carry concealed as he left his car. Contrary to what some are contending, if it is seen in public, it is not concealed.
 
#38 ·
I just skimmed through the ruling looking for anything from the US Supreme Court since 2000 that affirmed a firearm exception to Terry. I couldn't find any such reference.

It looked like the judge used appellate court, and state court rulings to reach the decision.

This should be over turned. It needs to be overturned. It would remove the burden of suspicion of criminal activity since what the plaintiff did was legal. It would remove innocent until proven guilty. It would also add a firearm exception to Terry where the USSC had previously ruled one did not exist.
 
#39 ·
JL v Florida refused to make a firearms exception to Terry. And it was specifically a firearms case.

JL v Florida
"This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.

Florida v. J.L.
 
#42 ·
And JL was at a bus stop, was he not? MARTA also has bus stops.

If a cop sees me carrying and inquires to my license, I can politely tell him to pound sand. GA law only requires me to have it in my possession and not surrender it to him (like a driver's license).

Likewise, there is no hard and fast rule on concealing a weapon in GA except that a concealed weapon be in a holster (or using a hipgrip, or similar device). Even a poorly concealed gun with the grip exposed is considered OC in this state.

This judge's ruling is utter crap. This case had best be appealed and I hope it is. It will sure cause a ruckus until the circuit court hands down a ruling. This is our Ubiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top