Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Hit piece on GLock | Main | Test of buck in a rifled shotgun »

Ruling protecting open carry

Posted by David Hardy · 13 September 2009 12:34 PM

Story here. The district judge ruled as a matter of law (i.e., no need for it to go to a jury) the officers had violated the carrier's constitutional rights and that they had no qualified immunity (meaning the rights violated were clearly established at the time of violation -- qualified immunity protects against suit for damages where a right may have been violated, but it was not clearly established at the time).

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Flighterdoc | September 13, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply

Good.

So do the cops get charged now with a federal violation of civil rights charge?

Will the city appeal? Cover the cops defense costs?

VXbinaca | September 13, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply

Good to see a judge have some common sense finally.

Jim D. | September 14, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply

Although I agree that LEOs need protection from the bad guys they arrest, they need to understand there's consequences when they break the law, too. Equal protection under the law is one of our basic principles, not "My friend says...."

Leave a comment