Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

[Ektarr]

OK, I concede. Fact is I was measuring the Laws in Mass. against the Laws in some other States where allowing your concealed weapon to be seen can be construed as 'brandishing' and can have negative repercussions. In light of the fact that Mass. allows open carry (THAT'S a surprise!!), I can see where, if the firearm were exposed there, the legality of the Plaintiff's position is pretty much a non-issue.

[kelcarry]

I may be bucking a trend in the replies but 1) concealed means concealed means concealed--if the LEO can see it--it is not concealed and 2) I will trust the LEO before I will trust an attorney. I do not know to what extent a video camera and audio recorded this incident but it sure sounds like a lot of "he said he said" and "blustering attorney comments" tend to magnify situations dramatically w/o regard to the real story. Just the idea that this case went all the way to high courts is evidence enough for me to believe that the attorney and not the LEO brought this matter to a level that it never should have been at. If there was video and audio and it proves the attorney's case--I apologize--but I can almost feel this attorney's belligerance from the getgo and if I am an LEO, I will not stand for it.

[kingofthedemo]

I may be bucking a trend in the replies but 1) concealed means concealed means concealed--if the LEO can see it--it is not concealed and 2) I will trust the LEO before I will trust an attorney. I do not know to what extent a video camera and audio recorded this incident but it sure sounds like a lot of "he said he said" and "blustering attorney comments" tend to magnify situations dramatically w/o regard to the real story. Just the idea that this case went all the way to high courts is evidence enough for me to believe that the attorney and not the LEO brought this matter to a level that it never should have been at. If there was video and audio and it proves the attorney's case--I apologize--but I can almost feel this attorney's belligerance from the getgo and if I am an LEO, I will not stand for it.

The Last time that I checked, as US citizens we are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This man was treated as if he were a criminal, EVEN AFTER HE PRESENTED HIS PERMIT, AND WAS RELEASED, HIS WEAPON WAS STILL CONFINSCATED BY THE COP!

Perhaps if you were walking down the street and a cop happened to see your little Kel-Tec- you wouldn't mind if the cop pointed a firearm at you, and subsequently took your pistol away from you even after you presented your permit and were released?

[JJFlash]

Yeah, this is BS. Unless you use "deep concealment", at some point, someone is gonna recognize that you're carrying or printing. Here in ND, we have no statutory requiremnt for "complete" concealment, just "reasonable" concealment. Give the guy his freakin' gun back, at any rate! This is LE out-of-control, IMHO.

[ggtgary]

<<< "the first consideration for me, then, is that he allowed the sidearm to be seen and didn't keep it concealed." >>>

TAUGHT ME IS, CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED! (I am one of Patti's students)




Some men learn from experience, a few by observation, the rest have to piss on the electric fence and find out for theirselves. --- Will Rogers

[kingofthedemo]

<<< "the first consideration for me, then, is that he allowed the sidearm to be seen and didn't keep it concealed." >>>

TAUGHT ME IS, CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED! (I am one of Patti's students)




Some men learn from experience, a few by observation, the rest have to piss on the electric fence and find out for theirselves. --- Will Rogers

That is irrevalent in this case, because the state in which this occured does not prohibit open carry by CCW permit holders. This cop was abusing his authority and should be held accountable for his actions.

If there's one thing that history has taught us, it is that..... ''Absolute power corrupts, absolutly''

[marionandjohn]

I feel that the problem with the case is not that weather or not he was legal (he was) In GA it is a firearm license not a Conceal carry permit how ever the problem is with the GFL. it is in fact just a piece of laminated paper with your name and stuff and a thumb print with a blue stamp under the lamination. It really does look like something that a 5th grader could make on your everyday computer and is nothing but a joke to me. I do not trust it outside the state of GA and is why I am getting my TN one. Did I mention there is not even a picture on the license? if you think I am kidding look at the permits page and they show you a picture of it you will laugh. I dont feel like trying to explain to a cop in TN or anyother state that this is a permit to carry and that it IS legit. GA needs a new permit period and this is why. I still do not feel that the officer had the right to do half of what he did and wish he would be repermandid for it. but it is what it is because of the GFL.

[kengrubb]

I rather like this quote from the Examiner discussion.

I love that no one here bothered to actually read the ruling, which goes out of its way to point out that the case has NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment!

Why? Because the *lawyer* who was arrested *forgot* to bring up the 2nd Amendment in his original claim!

He mentioned it briefly at oral arguments, but without any backing case law. So the trial court and both appeals courts ONLY considered whether the stop and seizure was legal.

As a Fourth Amendment case, it's still a troubling ruling -- using the state's logic, it would be legal to seize your car during a traffic stop if the driver's license database was down. But it appears the lawyer never made that observation either.

Bottom line: This whole mess is an embarrassment for the gun-toting lawyer, but not a threat to the rest of us.

[kelcarry]

Hey Y'all: I guess more posters disagree with my comments than agree and thats OK---many of you brought out points that tend to back up your replies. I guess from an overview point of view, I have seen many more arrogant and self-important attorneys than I have LEOs and as soon as I read the overview of this story, this made more sense to me than the reverse possibility. I still believe, however, that short of actual video/audio of the event or a trail of reliable witnesses (yes or no?--I do not know) there is a lot of he said, he said and I find it harder to believe that the LEO went off on the attorney without an arrogant and smartass attitude by the attorney that started this whole incident. I can be wrong and if I am so be it and I apologize to the attorney in abstentia--no one has ever accused me of being closed mouth and quiet

[vn6869]

There seems to be some thing(s) missing from this story. How exactly did the officer see the gun - under the suit coat - from his cruiser?
Why hasn't the firearm been returned?
On what basis the the court find the officer was in danger?
Maybe because it is a synopsis these points are missing/??