Egad!

Maybe FWB is right

"WE are the boss. The government is the servant. Get this in your head, draw your line in the sand, and stand up for honor and integrity.

Tiocfaidh ar la!"

oops forgot to file in my info

"Well, y'see yer honor, I was strolling through the mall, checkin' out the window of the sporting goods store, when all of a sudden this fella in a uniform comes out of nowhere, and pokes a gun in my face. Well, sure he might have been a cop or mall security, but anybody knows that you can pick up a uniform, insignia, and a badge at a dozen different places in town. No, he didn't show photo ID. It wouldn't have made any difference though. Anybody with PhotoShop can make pretty real lookin' photo ID these days. So naturally when the missus got the drop on him, I disarmed him and called the police..."

Yeah, that'll work.

Egad indeed.

This is in perfect sync with the Georgia decision discussed earlier this month. The problem in both cases is that the law prohibits carrying firearms with an exception for persons with a valid license, rather than prohibiting carry by persons without a valid license. They might sound the same to most laymen, but there's a world of difference from a legal viewpoint. In the first case (common to both of these rulings) not having a valid license is not an element of the crime, while in the later it is. Simply having what appears to be a perfectly valid license is worth exactly the same here as it would be to point to the knife on the ground near the person you just shot dead. It's a decent start, but you're not likely to just walk away. One should have to prove self defense, rather than the state disprove it, but the burden of proof whould be on the state regarding licensing.

Judges tend to be drawn from the upper classes (especially federal ones) and have a natural fear of armed citizens.

Happy is spot on. Judges, particularly federal judges, are almost always full-fledged members of the Political Made Guy Urban Elite. Even if they didn't start out that way, they become that way before being appointed to or elected to the bench. Personal protection means nothing to a federal judge because all he has to do is believe he is in danger and the Marshal Service will assign him an armed member of the federal law enforcement industrial complex to baby sit him until he feels safe.

They don't have a problem with a Second Amendment that protects their right to own a Perazzi or Merkel O/U, either. But a Second Amendment that protects Joe Six Pack's right to own a Lorcin? Big problem.

BTW, I realize federal judges are always appointed.

First Circuit is Massachusettes so this is nor surprising

Here in Utah, peace officers seem to basically have the same standing with respect to concealed carry laws as people with a concealed carry permit have. The exact language is that certain sections of the law "do not apply".

Of course, here in Utah, a police officer who sees your concealed carry permit is more likely to wish you a good day than hassle you.

76-10-523. Persons exempt from weapons laws.
(1) This part and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, do not apply to
any of the following:
(a) a United States marshal;
(b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
(c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711 ;
(e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711 ;
(f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as merchandise; or
(g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is:
(i) unloaded; and
(ii) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501
(2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504 (1)[(a), (1)(b)] and (2), and Section
76-10-505 do not apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
(a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704 ; or
(b) by another state or county.

The last paragraph is a little troubling because it says "to whom a permit to carry...has been issued" rather than "who holds a currently valid permit..." I've been issued a permit, but this seems to cover me even if I let it expire.

"One should have to prove self defense, rather than the state disprove it, "

WRONG!! Az had a case with a guy named Fish (?) where he was attacked be a guy's dogs and then the guy himself in the middle of the forest with no other witnesses. He had to defend himself by shooting the dogs and then the guy. Because he could not legally prove that it was self defense, he ended up in prison for years. It took many years and law changes to get him out and the conviction reversed.

The state SHOULD have to disprove self defense. The price for the other is simply too high.

I think the Judge missed that the police officer needs "probable cause" to believe the permit was not valid if he is going to do such a thing, just as the police officer would need "probable cause" to detain a person for any other suspected violation of the law.

If the permit appears on its face to be valid, and there is no other reason for the police officer to suspect the validity of the permit, then there is no probable cause to detain the permit holder or confiscate his property.

Even tho' we've come a long way with gun rights in the past twenty years, this shows just how much farther we have to go. The battle is nowhere near over.

I'm no lawyer, but pointing your service weapon at a civilian who's not an immediate threat seems like excessive force to me. It's astounding to me that the court considering Officer Stern's actions reasonable...

So, let's see here. If you are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and the officer looks at your driver's license, he can still stick his gun in your face and take your car.

Isn't that what crooks do? There should be a psyche test for judges.

The common police practice of pointing a loaded firearm at a suspect (which can not be justifiably shot), is a recipe for disaster. Accidental discharge happen to cops too, and a high stress situation can only make it more likely.

I read of one tragic situation where a cop killed a 12 old boy during a drug raid. The cop was covering the boy with his shotgun while the boy was face down complying with officers' orders. The cop shooter claimed his shotgun "just went off".

I assume the cop tactic of pointing a deadly weapon is to intimidate a suspect into compliance. That's the tactic of a robber and not one that should be used by law enforcement. Can you imagine the consequences for a person with a CCW permit if he wielded his handgun the same way? Isn't that the crime of assault with a deadly weapon?

The court's ruling supports proactive lethal self-defense against cops doing their jobs. There is no mechanism in place for a citizen to verify that someone is an officer of the law. Sure, you can try to obtaining ID, read a badge number, dial 911, but that's even less feasible than the scenario the court rejected.

Brad:

At least the cop didn't say:

"I didn't think it was loaded."

Here in Texas the law says if you fail to conceal it you can have it suspended (your CCW.) And the cops, if they see the weapon, sure will stop you.

BUT, Texas has a very easy way for them to check your CCW status so any wait will be short.

Still, when you pack heat, CONCEAL IT! Just as you are supposed to.

"Still, when you pack heat, CONCEAL IT! Just as you are supposed to."

Maybe in Texas, but in Pa. we are a little freer than y'all.

A number of points have come out of this story.
I must agree with the poster that the cop should have had a reason to believe the permit was not legal or valid. Lets be logical here, the guy was a lawyer and I'm sure could have produced his business card. If he had a forged CCL and offered such to a cop. He would most likely been charged with a felony and lost his ability to sell his services as a lawyer. This whole matter is yet another strong armed attack on the citizens rights and backed up by some hack in black.
Texas: You must cover up or lose your CCL. Here in Idaho we have a way around that. If you have a CWP and you don't cover up, state laws allows for open carry without a permit. This is what Texas should do, have a state law that allows open carry.
Bottom line: Yes the system fears armed citizens and is chipping away at it every chance it gets. I can prove that statement by saying, look at this blog you are reading and why you are reading it.

Sorry if my question betrays ignorance of the law, but... well that's why I'm askin':

Does he have recourse? If yes, where is the "donate" button where I can enter my paypal or visa? -Boyd