"Further, whether or not passers-by saw the gun is immaterial to the question of whether an objective officer who observed Schubert walking in such a manner would possess reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." [More]Who does this upstart think he is, having a gun in a republic where we've sworn an oath to support the supreme law of the land, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? An "Only One"?
We'll show him.
And in doing so, we'll show you.
[Via Scott N]
I believe our founders prescribed a cure for government agents, whether cops,legislators, or judges who run amok and violate the rights of citizens as guaranteed under the constitution.
ReplyDeleteIt appears these simpletons are not going to be happy until they learn to dance without their feet ever touching the ground. You would think with their specialized education they would be aware of the medicine our founders prescribed for such virulent infection.
David,
ReplyDeleteHave you read the opinion? See on page 8:
The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building.
The "important public building" of course is the courthouse. So, even if you did not intend on going inside, in Mass., the LEO's seem to have authority to detain and investigate you.
Then there is footnote 3: In addition, [Officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
Well then, because it is apparently unusual to carry a gun in Mass., then anyone doing so is likely up to no good.
So much for constitutional rights.
There appears to be a circuit split between this decision and US v. King 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993):
ReplyDelete"the Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In King, an Albuquerque police officer seized and searched King when, concerned that King's honking would cause an accident, he approached King's vehicle and observed a loaded firearm under King's thigh. Id. at 155. Recognizing that King was allowed to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in his vehicle under New Mexico law, the court explained that—in light of the legality of King's actions—permitting such detentions would render the Fourth Amendment functionally meaningless..."
"Upon observing the pistol on the front seat, Officer LeMasters drew her service revolver, pointed it at King, and ordered him to place his hands on the steering wheel, threatening to shoot him if he did not comply with her order. Officer LeMasters testified that, while she did not suspect Defendants of being engaged in any criminal activity, she took this action out of concern for the safety of herself and the bystanders, despite the fact that King had not made any threatening gesture or sudden movement."
Perhaps Schubert will request an en banc decision and/or go to the SCOTUS with the circuit conflict.