Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

  1. Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

    Sorry if this a repost, I looked around and didn't see it yet.

    The short version of this story is a cop draws his weapon upon a legally carrying citizen in a "high-crime area". Citizen displays his license for his CW but cop takes loophole of not being able to confirm ID, says some things that probably would've gotten him into trouble if the conversation was recorded, and takes the legally carrying citizen's firearm with him, leaving said citizen in the "high-crime area". This is then upheld, so far, in the courts.

    Awesome!

    Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

  2.   
  3. #2
    That officer deserves to be smacked down by his department.. Not necessarily for what he did, but just for what he said..
    So, this lends itself in support of the states that list your CCW permit on your Drivers license.. The officer would then be able to confirm the validity of the license through that system..

    How many times do you think when you have a Drivers license do police suspect that it is fraudulent?? I know they go and check on your license on their computers,
    The problem to me is this opens the door fore every officer, anywhere, to question if your CCW permit is valid at anytime you produce it.. and to take away you gun on the spot..

    It does speak to those CCW people who state that they don't care if they print or not.. If the lawyer had insured that his gun was never exposed, then this would have never happened to him.. I'm NOT saying this SHOULD have happened to him.. But his lack of attention to concealment started the chain of events..

    The article says he was dressed in a suit.. Was it a Pimp suit?? A mobster sharkskin suit..


    To reiterate, it seem to me the officer WAY over reacted and should be smacked down by his department...

    Gulf Coast, Floriduh
    Sccy is the limit

  4. Doesn't seem like that would happen considering it's been upheld now by two courts. Also, the suit doesn't seem that strange: he's a lawyer so I'm not sure what else he would be wearing. It's still unfortunate, like you mentioned, that he was printing (through a suit, no less). Regardless of how this situation came about, that's not really the problem in my humble opinion. The problem is in how the officer handled a citizen with a concealed weapon -- which he could have found out about in any multitude of ways.

    Good point about using this loophole when confronting any concealed weapon carrier but from what I understand it'll only fly in this state where verification of the weapon license is not possible. Seems its an easy enough fix -- make it possible!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by migm View Post
    Doesn't seem like that would happen considering it's been upheld now by two courts. Also, the suit doesn't seem that strange: he's a lawyer so I'm not sure what else he would be wearing. It's still unfortunate, like you mentioned, that he was printing (through a suit, no less). Regardless of how this situation came about, that's not really the problem in my humble opinion. The problem is in how the officer handled a citizen with a concealed weapon -- which he could have found out about in any multitude of ways.

    Good point about using this loophole when confronting any concealed weapon carrier but from what I understand it'll only fly in this state where verification of the weapon license is not possible. Seems its an easy enough fix -- make it possible!
    It could happen in other states as well. Suppose the computer verification system is "down" or for some reason, the officer is unable to communicate with the necessary personnel via radio or other means of communication. This court case could set precident to confiscate your firearm until the officer is able to "verify" the validity of the permit.

    The entire situation stinks, and I feel the officer was way out of line. The attorney should have retained co-council who was familiar with firearms laws and has experience trying such cases. Too often I see attorneys representing themselves in areas they have limited practice. Being the defendant in a court case is stressful and having a competent attorney to work with will help to aliviate some of the stress.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    Or just pass a law which states that a proffered CCP is valid on its face if it cannot be proven to be falsified by the officer in the field and thus force the officers' hands to let the gun carrier go.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    Or just pass a law which states that a proffered CCP is valid on its face if it cannot be proven to be falsified by the officer in the field and thus force the officers' hands to let the gun carrier go.
    Now there you go Cathy, trying to use common sense dealing with law enforcment, kind of like miltary intelligence

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gulf Breeze FL
    Posts
    64
    I agree, I think its written somewhere innocent until proven guilty????

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast