Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

[Andy]

Got concealed gun? Check. Got permit to carry said gun? Check. Got both taken away by cop after he saw your gun, pointed his weapon in your face, discounted your "facially valid" permit and left you alone in a high crime area? Check

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[CrossHairs]

I don't get how the police officer was worried about his personal safety in all this!? Seems to me that he saw the firearm and took it upon himself to confront the man, irrespective of the attorneys actions, which, if he was walking around in a suite in a high crime area, where not eactly threatening.

As is usual, the article does not (and usually won't) report all of the facts in the matter, so it's up to us to speculate, but it does seem unfair.

 

[Retired Puddle Pirate]

Got concealed gun? Check. Got permit to carry said gun? Check. Got both taken away by cop after he saw your gun, pointed his weapon in your face, discounted your "facially valid" permit and left you alone in a high crime area? Check

<broken link removed>

Let's see here. Judge Thrash is a Clinton appointee to the bench, right?

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."

As in the case you site above, I find this interesting.

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."

Of course, we all know which political spectrum Massachusetts falls into, right? Well. It sure the **** isn't a red state.

So. Who is to blame for this mess? Not the police. How about, oh, I don't know, US! Since we keep returning politicians to office who are **** bent on passing laws that erode our 2nd Amendment rights.

From an Officer Safety aspect and from a duty to protect prospective, think of this:

a. Does someone with a valid CCW negate the possibility of criminal action? Um. No!

b. Would you not want to hold a police officer accountable if he failed to verify a CCW when he sees a concealed weapon and later it turns out that that same CCW holder had just shot his neighbor over some stupid dispute?

c. Do you expect that the police officer should have magical powers to know whether a CCW holder is not a potential threat when confronted?

In addition, we have no verification of the "lecture" given by the officer. All we are hearing from is the "lawyer" who sued.

 

[Retired Puddle Pirate]

I don't get how the police officer was worried about his personal safety in all this!? Seems to me that he saw the firearm and took it upon himself to confront the man, irrespective of the attorneys actions, which, if he was walking around in a suite in a high crime area, where not eactly threatening.

As is usual, the article does not (and usually won't) report all of the facts in the matter, so it's up to us to speculate, but it does seem unfair.

Perhaps we should ask the 4 officers in Lakewood. Oh. That's right, they are dead.

How about the 2 officers in Seattle. Dang! One is dead.

Guess we just don't have a good "read" on where the bad guys really are.

 

[ZachS]

This article was written from the perspective of somebody who's a self-appointed expert in Georgia law, but the incident took place in Massachusetts, a state with very restrictive gun laws that have not yet been overturned. I'm too lazy to look up the case today, but it looks like the issue before the court was whether or not an officer is required to assume that a permit is valid when he has no way to check and see for sure.

The judge's decision was more likely than not boneheaded, but it would behoove us to take a look at a primary source or two before getting our boxers in a bunch over this based simply on one poorly-researched article from an amateur reporter.

 

[davel686]

To me that is about the most absurd of use of police power I have ever heard of.
down south of where I live there have been 6 officers killed in the last 2 months, but the police still show some respect for CPL holders.
In Washington state when they run your lic., it comes back that you have a CPL.
All I have ever had happen was a city cop ask me if I was carrying because i had not told him so and all he asked was if I ever got pulled over again in there town to let them know that I was carrying when they asked for my Lic., reg. and proof of insurance.
Mass. needs to get with the program and lose the god with a gun attitude.

 

[JAFO]

From an Officer Safety aspect and from a duty to protect prospective, think of this:

a. Does someone with a valid CCW negate the possibility of criminal action? Um. No!

b. Would you not want to hold a police officer accountable if he failed to verify a CCW when he sees a concealed weapon and later it turns out that that same CCW holder had just shot his neighbor over some stupid dispute?

c. Do you expect that the police officer should have magical powers to know whether a CCW holder is not a potential threat when confronted?

In addition, we have no verification of the "lecture" given by the officer. All we are hearing from is the "lawyer" who sued.

A concealed weapons permit has absolutely nothing to do with criminal action. That goes both ways. Though it does show that the person had at least not been convicted of disabling offenses prior to getting it.

I do not want police officers to have the responsibility to see the future and keep me safe from every thing that could "potentially" harm me. I do not want a police officer to think every person he runs into every day may have just killed his neighbor. I would think some other evidence of criminal behavior would be required for them to jump to that conclusion.

The only magical powers the police officer needs to have is common sense and a slight grasp on logic and reason. Being a "potential threat" is not a crime and every breathing person falls into this category. Some inanimate objects do also. You can't just lock up every person than can "potentially" harm you. You can't disable all buses because they can "potentially run you over."

 

[RVTECH]

any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

These quotes from the "story" really concern me.........

 

[Andy]

a concealed weapons permit has absolutely nothing to do with criminal action. That goes both ways. Though it does show that the person had at least not been convicted of disabling offenses prior to getting it.

I do not want police officers to have the responsibility to see the future and keep me safe from every thing that could "potentially" harm me. I do not want a police officer to think every person he runs into every day may have just killed his neighbor. I would think some other evidence of criminal behavior would be required for them to jump to that conclusion.

The only magical powers the police officer needs to have is common sense and a slight grasp on logic and reason. Being a "potential threat" is not a crime and every breathing person falls into this category. Some inanimate objects do also. You can't just lock up every person than can "potentially" harm you. You can't disable all buses because they can "potentially run you over."

Amen.

 

[Retired Puddle Pirate]

Remember folks. We are talking about Massachusetts. One of the most restrictive states in regards to weapons not in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.usacarry.com/massachusetts_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Clearly, this lawyer was not concealed, or the police officer would not have seen it. Open carry in MASS is not legal.

 

[ZachS]

Remember folks. We are talking about Massachusetts. One of the most restrictive states in regards to weapons not in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.usacarry.com/massachusetts_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Clearly, this lawyer was not concealed, or the police officer would not have seen it. Open carry in MASS is not legal.

Yep... and in a jurisdiction like that, witnessing a person wearing civilian clothing carrying a gun unquestionably gives an officer probable cause to stop that person at gunpoint. I don't think that is what was at issue in this case, but I still am too lazy to look it up.

 

[Torqk911]

I also think its interesting that they are that states are so strict, highly populated, but yet cant pull up face recognition to verify the license. UPDATE your systems?

Its pretty simple that the cop did what he thought was right considering there is no open carry there. The lawyer must have had it more visible than he will admit to for the cop to react and/or after the fact saw it as a money making opportunity most likely.

Just my humble view.

 

[RVTECH]

The only magical powers the police officer needs to have is common sense and a slight grasp on logic and reason.

Unfortunately while not magic these seem to be traits that are missing with a lot of LEO's (especially the younger ones)

 

[Scott]

Just another power trip and abuse of power. Nothing new and it won't change......... Many officers love the power trip they have and abuse. I guess he just guess the client has to conceal it better next time. Ah the great nation we live in.

 

[MountainBear]

Just another power trip and abuse of power. Nothing new and it won't change......... Many officers love the power trip they have and abuse. I guess he just guess the client has to conceal it better next time. Ah the great nation we live in.

And a lot of civilians feel entitled to act like jerks around LEO's because they heard a story once that happened to their cousin's, mother's, sister's, son's, best friends college roommate, where a young LEO got a bit mouthy during a traffic stop.

Abuse of power happens. In law enforcement jobs and other jobs. But let's all try to remember most officers are good men and women doing an incredibly difficult job. Please remember; when you here a story of alleged "abuse" by an officer against some criminal (or at least someone suspected of a criminal act), lets give the officer the benefit of the doubt, or at least afford them the same courtesy we give the dirt-bags, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. In a court or hearing, not the court of public opinion...

God Bless All the men and women in uniform (both military and LEO).

 

[Buddhalux]

And a lot of civilians feel entitled to act like jerks around LEO's because they heard a story once that happened to their cousin's, mother's, sister's, son's, best friends college roommate, where a young LEO got a bit mouthy during a traffic stop.

Abuse of power happens. In law enforcement jobs and other jobs. But let's all try to remember most officers are good men and women doing an incredibly difficult job. Please remember; when you here a story of alleged "abuse" by an officer against some criminal (or at least someone suspected of a criminal act), lets give the officer the benefit of the doubt, or at least afford them the same courtesy we give the dirt-bags, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. In a court or hearing, not the court of public opinion...
God Bless All the men and women in uniform (both military and LEO).

Guess you haven't been following court cases for the last 20+ years then....

 

[CharlesAFerg]

Guess you haven't been following court cases for the last 20+ years then....

Heh, unfortunately. While I really do support the police, they have the city lawyers and plenty of funding to back them up. Something the commoner just can't match.

A concealed weapons permit has absolutely nothing to do with criminal action. That goes both ways. Though it does show that the person had at least not been convicted of disabling offenses prior to getting it.

I do not want police officers to have the responsibility to see the future and keep me safe from every thing that could "potentially" harm me. I do not want a police officer to think every person he runs into every day may have just killed his neighbor. I would think some other evidence of criminal behavior would be required for them to jump to that conclusion.

The only magical powers the police officer needs to have is common sense and a slight grasp on logic and reason. Being a "potential threat" is not a crime and every breathing person falls into this category. Some inanimate objects do also. You can't just lock up every person than can "potentially" harm you. You can't disable all buses because they can "potentially run you over."

Exactly the words that I was going to say.

To put my opinion simply, you cannot assume that somebody is guilty if they're just carrying. Unless there is some bogus law restricting carry, the reasoning that the police don't know whether or not you're a criminal is insane and dangerous.

Also, if somebody is concealing and open carry is illegal, but the officer spots the gun, I could see him freaking out because the fact that it may be illegal in his jurisdiction.
...Yet, now it's a big emotional thing, unless it's legal, then everything changes. It seems irrational, how police can suddenly get their boxers in a bunch just because something becomes illegal, that previously may have been legal. It becomes a lecture-worthy, emotional issue for some of them. Question it, and it's like you question their ego. Overnight, in many cases. For example, cell phones/texting in cars as of late. It's scary, how things can change overnight.

If it was a crime to carry a firearm in the United States, we wouldn't be here right now.

 

[MountainBear]

I have actually. I believe that officers who abuse their power should be stripped of their certification and badge. Take away their livelihood. If its a serious enough offense, prosecute them. But the armchair quarterbacks online are very quick to condemn the police based on stories from a friend or a newspaper article. I mean, we don't believe the media on anything else, why give them the benefit of the doubt on articles condemning the actions of police officers.

 

[ZachS]

Being a police officer is a very difficult job, and clearly not for everybody - I think all new officers should be evaluated by their supervisors and peers for a very long probationary period, five years or so, before being granted the kind of civil service protection they have. There should be a system for retraining and career counseling for officers that wash out, and no stigma attached to a determination that a person simply doesn't have the right temperament for the job.

I feel the same way about teachers. It's almost unimaginable to me that members of these two professions, who have the ability to screw people's lives up more than just about anyone else, can't be fired simply for being bad at their jobs.

 

[Partsproduction]

The whole notion that police are safer with guns than 'civilians' is perplexing to me. They aren't more stable psychologically on average, nor less likely to commit crime, nor necessarily more knowledgeable about firearms than the average gun owner, so why not just let the Constitution decide who gets to possess arms? I believe it is a crime not to.