Terry Stop
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Terry Stop

  1. #1

    Terry Stop

    Assuming that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill - H.R. 822 gets attached to other legislation and signed by BHO, it would behove anyone traveling to the Olde People's Republics (NY - especially NYC, MA - especially Boston, NJ, MD, CA - especially LA and SF, and hopefully IL - especially the Kingdom to be of Rahm), a clear understanding of this SCOTUS ruling needs to be read, digested, and have on hand, especially early on, when the law takes effect.

    I am looking a URL (or URLs) that I can review, print to put in my travel bag for my pistole, and put on my I-Phone for instant access.

    I can just imagine the earthquake/tsunami-like impact on the LEO's there.
    Orlando, FL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    What is the current status of the bill and its prospects for final approval? And how exactly how does it read?

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    So, let me get this straight, anyone will have the right to carry Anywhere, reguardless of State laws?
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    So, let me get this straight, anyone will have the right to carry Anywhere, reguardless of State laws?
    Negative Ghost Rider.... This pattern is FULL is restrictions...

    Friday, February 25, 2011

    Last week, H.R. 822, was introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.). The measure would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill also applies to Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

    H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

    It creates reciprocity among all states (that issue CC licenses) BUT you still are restricted by the states laws however convoluted they may be.
    Life Member GeorgiaCarry.org http://www.GeorgiaCarry.org

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by GHF View Post
    Assuming that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill - H.R. 822 gets attached to other legislation and signed by BHO, it would behove anyone traveling to the Olde People's Republics (NY - especially NYC, MA - especially Boston, NJ, MD, CA - especially LA and SF, and hopefully IL - especially the Kingdom to be of Rahm), a clear understanding of this SCOTUS ruling needs to be read, digested, and have on hand, especially early on, when the law takes effect.

    I am looking a URL (or URLs) that I can review, print to put in my travel bag for my pistole, and put on my I-Phone for instant access.

    I can just imagine the earthquake/tsunami-like impact on the LEO's there.
    Here is a post I made on a previous thread. Bold text are statements from me, non-bold is quoted from the case. IANALAISBO

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

    "A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation"

    "Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger."

    "We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized."

    Terry was already acting strangely and the LEO in this case knew from his experience that Terry was about to commit a crime. You have to remember that Terry was illegally carrying a concealed firearm and was padded down for weapons for other criminal like behavior, not the legal open carry of a weapon.

    "I would, however, make explicit what I think is implicit in affirmance on the present facts. Officer McFadden's right to interrupt Terry's freedom of movement and invade his privacy arose only because circumstances warranted forcing an encounter with Terry in an effort to prevent or investigate a crime. Once that forced encounter was justified, however, the officer's right to take suitable measures for his own safely followed automatically."

    "There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation. In my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective frisk for weapons. Perhaps the frisk itself, where proper, will have beneficial results whether questions are asked or not. If weapons are found, an arrest will follow."

    This last determination automatically assumes that weapons are being carried illegally, he does not include legally carried weapons for the obvious reasons.

    "The infringement on personal liberty of any 'seizure' of a person can only be 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess 'probable cause' before they seize him. Only that line draws a meaningful distinction between an officer's mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer's personal knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime."

    So as I said before, the mere act of legally carrying a weapon IS NOT grounds for a Terry stop, other aggravating factors must be present.

    Also whether one must carry photo ID while possessing a firearm is dependent on state law. My state for instance, does not have a "stop and ID" statute, i.e. I do not have to carry ID when on foot and carrying my firearm. I also have the ideology that I will ID myself because I do appreciate what LEOs have to do on a daily basis and I do not feel it is a slight to my rights, although if one was being a prick(the one in this story was not), he is not getting it.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    34
    One question about the national ability to carry. You mention it would work like a driver's license. Well you have to have a driver's license from your HOME state. having a license from a state where you are not a resident is not proper I believe. So:

    1. You will need a CCW in your state of residence to carry nationwide? Since a driver's license has to come from your home state then will a CCW?
    2. What about those in states where there is no CCW issued?

  8. #7

    Geographic Limits

    1. You will need a CCW in your state of residence to carry nationwide? Since a driver's license has to come from your home state then will a CCW?
    It would be limited to people with permits issued under the rules of their state of residence.

    2. What about those in states where there is no CCW issued?
    Only Illinois and Wisconsin now fit that description.

    Wisconsin has had a change of governor to a person who campaigned on a platform of signing the law approving shall carry CCW there.

    It may come about as "may carry" in Illinois, due to pressure from down-state representatives because of the end of the death penality and same-sex marriage. Rahm Emanuel, the new King of Chicago, has not indicated the same fanaticism as King Richard, though he was a banner back in Slick Willie's administration.

    DC, Puerto Rico, and all US Territories would be required to permit concealed carry.
    Orlando, FL

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