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

« New ammo! | Main | Chicago -- no one needs to protect themselves »

Good ruling from CA US District Court

Posted by David Hardy · 18 November 2011 04:57 PM

Opinion here. Some open carriers, complying with CA law at the time, were handing out leaflets. Two officers approached them, apparently made critical statements about their activities, handcuffed and frisked them, then ran a records request and a check on the firearms.

They sued under §1983, and the court here denies a motion to dismiss their First, Second, and Fourth Amendment claims, and motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. The only thing the City won was that they can't recover punitive damages against it (though they can against the officers, which in practice the City winds up paying), and one paragraph of the complaint (which referred to one of the officer's having been sued by a girlfriend) stricken.

"Plaintiffs allege that after Defendants checked to make sure that Plaintiffs’
firearms were unloaded, Defendants went beyond the scope of a permissible search by running
background checks on them and serial number checks on their firearms, as well as handcuffing
Plaintiffs, ordering them to get on their knees, and forcibly removing Plaintiffs’ wallets without their
consent. Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly alleged a Second Amendment violation."

hat tip to reader Alice B. ...

· Chicago aftermath

4 Comments | Leave a comment

TinCan Assassin | November 18, 2011 10:45 PM | Reply

Something has gone disasterously right... Are you sure this is Cali?

Anonymous | November 19, 2011 2:47 AM | Reply

I hope those a++holes get their a$$es sued off.

Jim | November 19, 2011 4:00 AM | Reply

I still struggle to see how any stop of a person open carrying in CA is legal (before the law changed). Its true that there is/was a statute that allowed a law officer to verify an openly carried handgun is unloaded, but under the 4th Amendment, I don't see how such a law could be sustained.

If I am driving down the road, an officer can not stop me just to see if I have a drivers license. Once they have a reason to stop me they can check.

kwikrnu | November 19, 2011 2:31 PM | Reply

Hacopian makes youtube videos ( hacopian5900 ). Long arm open carry has been his specialty. Watch his you tube vids they are excellent examples of illegal actions by california cops. Good job hacopian.

Leave a comment