1st Circuit Ct App. says its ok to take your gun and hold you at gun point....

[rmodel65]

Schubert v. Springfield : http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1370P-01A.pdf

The First Circuit includes New Hampshire what are yall gonna do about this???

Plaintiff-Appellant Greg Schubert brought a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Springfield and police officer J.B. Stern. Schubert 1 alleged that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Officer Stern stopped him in front of the Springfield courthouse to investigate Schubert's possession of a handgun. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officer as to all claims against him and dismissed sua sponte Schubert's claims against Officer Stern's employer, the City of Springfield. Having carefully reviewed the facts of the case and the applicable case law, we affirm the district court's decision in full.

The precise location of the gun is inconsequential; what matters is that Stern observed the weapon on Schubert's person. Further, whether or not passers-by saw the gun is immaterial to the question of whether an objective officer who observed Schubert walking in such a manner would possess reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.4

. . . the officer leaped from his cruiser in a "dynamic and explosive" manner, with his gun unholstered. Stern then pointed his weapon at Schubert's face.[/quote]

Schubert stayed in front of the cruiser for several minutes, then moved to ask Stern if he could stand in the shade because it was a hot day. Stern denied the request. Shortly thereafter Stern escorted Schubert into the back of the cruiser. Inside the vehicle, Stern partially Mirandized Schubert, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966), mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.

. . once Stern had reasonable suspicion justifying a stop, he was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety. . . . The officer took several reasonable steps given that Schubert was an unknown armed man walking in that particular location: he emerged quickly from his vehicle, drew his gun, executed a pat-frisk, requested identification and a gun license, attempted to confirm the validity . . .

Just as an officer is justified in attempting to confirm the validity of a driver's license, such a routine check is also valid and prudent regarding a gun license. As it happens, Massachusetts did not have a simple way for police officers to conduct such a check, so Stern's effort to do so took several minutes. But the entire stop took only ten minutes and when Stern realized that he would not be able to confirm the gun license within a reasonable time, he sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.

can some one say aggravated assault and theft??

[Bill St. Clair]

The only legal remedy here would be for Schubert to appeal. The other remedy I'm not allowed to mention on this board.

[Ogre]

I shouldn't be, but I'm kind of surprised that failed on the fourteenth amendment charge. I guess the state claims they didn't take the firearm, but actually plan to give it back after a few years.

Sure, the decision is disgusting, but nothing more than what's common with today's government. There are few, if any, in the government system today that believe individuals have rights, so they see nothing wrong with doing whatever they want to people.

[Kat Kanning]

... what are yall gonna do about this???

You obviously have a problem with this, why don't you do something about it?

[thinkliberty]

Schubert v. Springfield : http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1370P-01A.pdf

The First Circuit includes New Hampshire what are yall gonna do about this???

can some one say aggravated assault and theft??

Maybe some people will run around Springfield with empty holsters. 

Maybe some of those people that love the constitution can bring it down to the courthouse, I am pretty sure that will not get them to follow it. Judges can do whatever they want from the bench and they are immune for their actions.

Judges can even get millions of dollars in kickbacks from for profit prisons for illegally jailing kids and keep their immunity, like those judges recently in PA.  (see: http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10278292  "U.S. Supreme Court rulings dating to 1871 have established judges cannot be sued for their actions from the bench, even if they act in bad faith, U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo, said.")

I think we should remove NH from the 1st circuits court's jurisdiction. Does anyone have a good idea on how to do this? Is succeeding from the US the only way to do it?

[Jim Johnson]

The First Circuit includes New Hampshire what are yall gonna do about this???

I'm going to let my self righteous indignation raise until 'The One' arrives and unites all the tribes of libertarianism.

I don't know what I'll do after that, cuz if it's still Bob Barr I'm going to be wash'n my hair that day.

[Ogre]

Is succeeding from the US the only way to do it?

More than likely. Its quite clear that the feds would never allow anyone to operate outside their control.

[rmodel65]

... what are yall gonna do about this???

You obviously have a problem with this, why don't you do something about it?

well im a little far away from your federal district im way down south in the warmth lol but its sad to see this

[thinkliberty]

... what are yall gonna do about this???

You obviously have a problem with this, why don't you do something about it?

well im a little far away from your federal district im way down south in the warmth lol but its sad to see this

Doing something about it is the NH way. Please don't take offense and please help us do something about it.

[rmodel65]

well if it wasnt cold as balls and i had gas money id come OC but i like the 55 degree weather down south....i mean you guys have this weird stuff called snow

[Kat Kanning]

I guess it's not that important to you. 

[Pat McCotter]

... what are yall gonna do about this???

You obviously have a problem with this, why don't you do something about it?

well im a little far away from your federal district im way down south in the warmth lol but its sad to see this

Well, Georgia is a little closer to you, then.

2:00 p.m. Friday, December 18, 2009
Judge rules for MARTA in concealed weapons case
By Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A lawsuit asserting the rights of MARTA passengers to carry concealed weapons has all but backfired with a judge dismissing most of its claims.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash said MARTA police had good reason to stop Christopher Raissi after an officer saw Raissi clip a holstered handgun to the waistband of his pants, pull his shirt over it and then walk toward the Avondale station.

Raissi was detained for about 30 minutes on Oct. 14, 2008, by MARTA police officers who ran a criminal background check on Raissi after asking for his identification, firearms license and social security number. After the check came back clear, they returned the gun to Raissi and said he was free to leave.

[rmodel65]

yep and hopefully GCO which im a member of will appeal.... if unlicensed it is a crime to carry a gun on marta so the judge a clinton appointee iirc said gun=crime.....

my brother was arrested a while back(last december) for refusing to produce an ID for Open Carry(you must be licensed but there's nothing in the law that states you must present the ID to a LEO) GA also doesnt have a Stop and ID law....

they arrested him for obstruction(in the Atlanta case the judge said a GCO member wouldnt refuse to present his GFL but Justin did, wonder if they will mention that in an appeal along with providing an incident report )