[ACRFan]

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.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

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."

Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license. Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi's face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.
Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.

This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.
Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

 

[Hunerd Proof 1371]

Excuse me but they can lick my left you know what, I'll carry and if they want to give me crap then they can shove it >. Rant off >

 

[ACRFan]

I live in Virginia and I personally know the Attorney General, my local delegate, as well as my local sheriff. Not a single one of them would stand for that kind of behavior from our LEO's.

 

[OTO27]

AS a felow LEO I can tell you that officer was in the right up to the point were he kept the mans weapon. I come in contact with many lawful carriers here in texas and although it is for officer safety reasons to disarm the person and perform a check of the weapon for stolen and validate the concealed license. Then after all is done and cleared the weapon is returned to the owner, unless the officer determines the wepon must be taken for protective custody, due to the owner being intoxicated or discharging his firarm in a municipality or some other reason, but if not, he should return it to the owner. I have actually come across some people who have argued that if they have a CHL they could open carry, these poor bastards usually end up having a bad day.

From a police officers point of view my best advice if you conceal carry is KEEP IT CONCEALED! if you get stopped by police dont even move a muscle and as soon as the officer aproaches u let him know u are carrying and you have a CHL. If you keep the fact that u have a CHL from the officer and you are carrying, if he were to do a pat down frisk "terry frisk" and he felt that weapon, you would probably bee thrown on the ground and handcuffed for officer safety. SO to avoid this just do what was tought to you in the CHL class.

 

[ACRFan]

I agree that the officer can, for his/her safety disarm the citizen. No question there. But if you read the story the officer is clearly on a power trip. My argument would be for what reason would the officer have to doubt the guy in a suit with a briefcase? I believe LEO's would agree that the tact the officer used was very lacking and that officers do not need to be hard asses in their approach. Officers should know who to detect if there is something questionable about a person they have stopped to question. Agreed? While the officer was technically in the right. He was publicly in the wrong.

After all, he did swear to uphold and protect the Constitution and that document says that the guy he stopped has the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms and even the state gave him a permit to do so concealed.

Ultimately keeping the firearm was a violation of his Constitutional right. Of course the story doesn't state whether or not he finally got it back.

While the officer had the right to secure his own safety, he had no right to follow through with what he did once he determined the civilian was not a threat.

"Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." "

This is the biggest problem I have with some LEO. They think they make the law. They don't the enforce the law. The law stated the attorney had the right to carry concealed.

Sure the officer had the right to confirm the CCL, but why did he feel the need to do so when it was already facially valid meaning there was no reason to think it may be fake.

Just read the story and pretend you yourself were the officer in that exact same situation. Would you have handled everything the same way? Do you personally know any other officers who would have? If not then the officer was publicly wrong while technically right.

If so, then it may very well be open season on law abiding gun carriers at which point it may serve no purpose to get a CCL in the first place if you will be treated like a common criminal anyway.

 

[OTO27]

I agree with you 100%, the officer was on a power trip, specially after what he said: Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." He obviously had no criminal charges against this getlmemen, well we dont exactly know the details on this story, its verry vague how it says the officer cought a glimpse of the gun that was inside the mans suit coat. being in Law Enforcement, I have come to learn that the facts specially the ones coming from a defense attorney tend to be distorted a bit by the time they make it to the public. But yeah, the officer, for lack of better words, was being an ass.

I would have defenetly had handleled it tatcfully different, but sad to say some officers do fall under the cloudyness of thinking they are all mighty and the power usually gets to their head, ending up like this officer.

 

[username9875]

I am surprised the officer did not murder the citizen then just make up a story so he would be a big hero. After the shooting a firearm would be recovered at the scene and he could have said that the suspect reached for it. That is how they do it in my town. Actually there is not even a need for a weapon to be recovered and they sometimes lose their job. The FBI investigates less then one tenth of a PERCENT of the complaints of "civil rights violations" reported yearly and prosecutes maybe 8-10 each year nationwide. In my town the Police Commisioner has CCW carriers sign that "anytime they come into contact with police they will immediately say they have a permit to carry and have a firearm". The Commissioner does not have the authority to order CCW holders to make such an utterance. The issuance and requirements are regulated by the State. We the people have given way too much authority to the police and there is little if any accoutability. The police are not charged with or responsibile for our safety. The officer left the man in a high crime area unarmed and drove off.

 

[ACRinfidel]

Oh!, you must live in New Orleans as well! LOL!

 

[username9875]

Nope. I live above sea level. The lines between Military and Police are so blurred at this point. Any group you pick has good and bad. The problem is really when the "organization" backs the bad actions and decisions to protect itself from litigation which inevitably promotes more wrong doing. I believe that the marketing program of "terrorism" has been a great tool for the government. I am not saying that terrorism doesn't exist because it certainly does. Americans should realize that the people who were suppose to protect us (NSA, CIA, FBI as it relates to National Security) have failed miserably and now on a pretty regular basis promote to the media that they are doing a great job such as arresting "Jihad Jane". Is that a character from a new Gi Joe movie? Lol! Just remember that the 1994 Crime Bill really improved our lives, don't you wish it would come back? Anyone know whatever happened with the push for reciprocy between States for CCW? Think the cops got it right?