Judge upholds Open Carry
From the D.C. Gun Rights Examiner:
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge’s straight shootin’ message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have “reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot.”
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.
In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.
On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not “any reason to believe that a crime was afoot.” Judge Black’s opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
Judge Black was right on point. Another one for the rule of law. In Penna., our constitution, like many other states, protects “the Right to bear arms”. It does not say where we can bear them, and concealing them is bearing them. So, why then, do so many people simply go out and apply for a “permit” to carry concealed when carrying concealed is already included in “the Right to bear arms”?
Once the camel gets its nose under the tent with the “permit” to carry concealed, what’s next people? Re-read your state constitution and try to understand that our Founding Fathers had NO SUCH INTENTIONS for government to be involved with “the Right to bear arms” under ANY circumstances. NONE whatsoever!! But government IS involved now isn’t it?
Of course ALL liberals, the left, democrats and All anti-gunners will find ANY reason to reinterp the 2nd amendment to mean something it doesn’t in THEIR favor with the ideology of ridding the US of ALL guns from personal possession and make us a defenseless nation. When all guns are banned from the millions of law abiding citizens, ONLY the criminals, hoods, gangbangers, drug dealers and bad people with the intent on hurting or killing others, robbing, intimidating and etc., will have guns. Why? Because these criminals DON’T follow the law anyway. Only the innocent will be hurt and be defensless and become victims on a great scale. All millions of law abiding gun owners will all of a sudden become “CRIMINALS” themselves just becasue they own a gun. The 2nd amendment gives citizens of the US the “right” to own and carry guns period. Trying to change the 2nd amendment is an outright atrocity and unconstitutional itself. The constitution is NOT a living document subject to change at the whim of any President or legislator just because “they” don’t like guns. It IS my right under the constitution to own a gun and if those who don’t like guns, they have the “right” to NOT own one. Anti-gunners have NO right to tell guns owners they can’t have guns becasue they don’t like them. I have the right to have a gun as they have the right to NOT have one. Anti-gunners rights are no more right than those who have the same right to own one. Sure, there is a alot of crime where guns are used. But they are usually stolen or bought underground anyway. When guns are “outlawed” only outlaws will have guns, FACT. News ONLY brings out the bad news on crime, they NEVER or seldom ever bring out the facts of how many people have saved their lives and family and their property from the hoods with guns which aren’t supposed to own them anyway. But anti-gunners haven’t figured out yet that criminals DON’T follow the LAW anyway. The 2nd amendment as part of the constitution has to be supported, especially by the president as he took an oath to protect the constitution, not change it as Obama the muslim is trying to do. Our enemies around the world would love to have all guns banned in the US as it would create a great situation to be infiltrated by muslims and taken over on the inside. If an illigal muslim in the US can get all sorts of explosives, military weapons and RPG’s right in the US, how hard would it be for all the muslim cells to already have these weapons, plus nuclear weapons and use them in the US? Obama is helping all muslims around the world and in the US to gain control and the people in the US are just to stupid to see what is coming if they don’t take a stand on immigration and keeping the 2nd amendent right for Legal americans to own guns. For that may be the ONLY thing that saves this country, legal americans protecting it, just like the Minuteman of years ago who were CIVILIANS who were allowed by law to own guns and be called anytime anyplace day or night and on a minutes notice to protect the US against all invaders, foreign and domestic. Fact is, I have the legal right to own and gun and if you don’t like it, to bad, don’t own one as that is your right.
I am very much agreed with the right to bear arms, however I would be concerned if I went to a movie and a person walked in with an axe or hatchet on his side or carrying a chainsaw. I am would not be able to enjoy the movie without always wondering what is this guy up to. So in that respect I would agree with the theater personel to call someone to take safety measures.
[...] NGR Categories: black, firearms, fourth amendment, open carry Tags: black, firearms, fourth amendment, open carry Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...]
Someone mentioned Michigan as one of many open carry legal States. It is true that open carry is technically legal in Michigan. I suspect however, that the same or similar stumbling blocks exist in most other open carry legal States, as exist here.
OK, I decide to strap on my sidearm, and walk down to the store or restaurant. I am legal, but the owner has the right to deny me service while I’m carrying. A scared neighbor may call police about a man carrying a gun in front of her house, and the cops will respond, and may charge me with either disturbing the peace (poppycock), or in some cities with brandishing a firearm (also poppycock). The fines and likelihood of conviction are both high, so the legality of open carry is a myth not reality.
Suppose I decide to drive to the store? By entering a vehicle I have concealed the open carry gun, thus requiring a concealed pistol license.
I can hear people shouting, but it’s the law and the Constitution, and I don’t disagree, but since early in our Republic, not just since modern liberal gun grabbers, local Sheriffs, judges, and other “lawmen” have held the right to keep and bear arms in contempt, and abridged that right at will.
The problem originates with the notion of a person concealing a firearm being somewhat nefarious, such as the card shark with a derringer up his sleeve along with a fifth Ace. Open carry in rural counties may not be any problem, but don’t count on it without local knowledge. Most larger towns and cities aren’t tolerant of open carry any more than it was in Dodge City Kansas, or Tombstone, AZ under Wyatt Earp.
one man speaks!! and a thousand listen to create a domino effect, i think our own goverment is afraid of us americans!!{why} to infringe on our rights to bear arms is bias and cowardly? history lesson in 1790 one man stood tall for our rights that was george washington he stated a free people ought…to be armed…so whats our goverment stating to us when we raise our flag proudly,are we not allowed to be americans and do only what the goverment says, i think thats called communism in my book??? i am only one man who speaks the truth and beleive me when i say the truth hurts!! when the goverment says to me you better run, as a proud american i will take one step back!!
How about an organized “National Carry Day”? There are 80 MILLION gun owners in our country – that would make a real statement! I can’t imagine the government arresting 80MILLION people!
I feel Judge Black did the right thing and protected the citizen and his rights.
This Judge might make a great president. Ya think!
The war for American independence was begun by an individual. He was asleep in his bed when someone pounded on his door and shouted out in the night: “The Redcoats are coming!”
But what could he do? He was only one man against the armed might of Britain. If he had been a King, Czar, or a Potentate, he could have solved vast problems and the great things-he could have brought the powers of Europe together in harmony and made an ever lasting peace and prosperity around a world.
But he was not a king, nor a royal governor, not a rich man, not an important man. He was just one little man, unknown to anyone outside of his own neighborhood. So what could he do? Why should he take the initiative? Such things usually cleared up they always had. So why not let nature take its course, this was no time to be foolhardy. He must keep calm, use his head, and consider the practical aspects. And there was his family to think of. What would become of them?
Most men felt that way. They knew they could do nothing, and they had better sense than to try. That night in Lexington, many of them stayed in bed. But the unknown individual chose between submission that looked like safety to rebellion that seemed utterly hopeless. Many respected citizens were against him; the teachers and the writers of books were against him. Men in high places-many widely known men- stood staunchly with the King.
But the unknown individual had the courage of his convictions. He got up, put on his clothes, took his gun, and went out to meet the British troops. Not acting under orders, not being led nor wanting to be the leader, he stood on his own feet-a responsible, self controlling person and fired the shot heard ’round the world. The sound of that shot said that man is a free agent; that government is the servant rather than the master.
This post was gleaned from the book, Mainspring of Human Progress written by Henry Grady Weaver in 1947.