Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10th Circuit court rules on Open carry.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by shelbyfan
    they had summary judgment, after this it would have been handed to a jury and they would have decided judgment for the deprivation of rights under color of no law :P
    Actually, if you read the opinion you will find that there was only partial summary judgment. Liability on two of the fourt claims had to be tried to a jury (or to the court) and one of the claims was dismised. The case never made it to a jury, and had one been empaneled, it would have had to determine more than damages.

    More importantly, there was no "consent decree." A consent decree is a form of injunction that is entered by the court pursuant to stipulation of the parties. There was nothing resembling that here -- only a monetary settlement. As the statement by the city's attorney makes clear, there was no agreement as to future conduct by the police.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Shelbyfan....I guess you missed the part where the Plaintiff's attorney agrees that the city admitted no liability. This case only relates to the action of the particular officers to the particular plaintiff. Another case in the same District on basically the same fact pattern could be decided entirely differently.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    This doesn't quite jibe with your description, shelbyfan. The article does not refer to any jury trial, and states:
    Attorney Jamie Sullivan, who represented the city and Officer McColley in the case, defended the conduct of police in the case, even though he said officers knew St. John hadn't violated any law, the Daily News said.

    "It seems that it might be reasonable conduct to me," Sullivan said. "If my daughter were in a theater, a guy had a loaded gun and people were complaining about it, then it might be a good idea to have the police at least talk to him."

    Sullivan also said he believes police officers will continue to check on calls from theater managers about people with a gun in a theater, the Daily News said.

    http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/ab...-gun-suit.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Proving once again that you get what you ask for. Many people forget that government "of the People and by the People" means the citizenry eventually gets what they want. And frightening "the People" with OC will lead "the People" to demand changes in firearms laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    $21,000 is "go away" money....city probably saved a ton not having to pay to defend the suit....obviously the plaintiff's attorney didn't think the suit was worth much.
    And the next time, the police will have the theater manager tell the guy to leave, and arrest him for trespassing if he refuses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    $21,000 is "go away" money....city probably saved a ton not having to pay to defend the suit....obviously the plaintiff's attorney didn't think the suit was worth much.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadyswat
    replied
    Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
    I go with the idea that the Constitution is continually intepreted to the best of our nation's ability as our society evolves for the greater good of everyone involved. I like to think that we have some pretty smart people in the right positions to make that possible. It's obvious that the larger majority of the US does not feel comfortable with people toting guns to their kids soccer games or to establishments that serve alcohol. To call these folks "sheep," like they're a bunch of scared drones is ridiculous; and it gets under my skin whenever the big gun advocates imply such. I guess a "living" Constitution is one way to look at it. I don't think that "the right to bear arms" means that anyone should be able to carry a gun at anytime, any way they want. SCOTUS agrees, hence the restrictions federally and the fact that they also allow states to place their own restrictions on firearm possession/carry. Obviously the states shouldn't go overboard, as DC attempted to do (which was shot down), but overall state restrictions are very similar with a few exceptions. Those states that prohibit concealed carry but allow open carry should have their heads examined, but that's my opinion.
    Well you and I will disagree on this one. I think the framers really had it together and the Constitution is not a living document. They provided a means to change it and it wasn't through the courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • willbird
    replied
    Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post

    Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. .



    p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
    First off, we had a PRESIDENT who was a felon....William Jefferson Clinton.

    Second....gun laws ARE going away, more so at the state and local level than the federal level, but they ARE going away. Every LOCAL gun ordnance in Ohio evaporated over night when state wide preemption on firearms laws took effect...thats probably tens of thousands of gunlaws, null and void overnight. And hundreds of thousands of Ohioans are going forth legally armed for the first time in my lifetime....again contrary to the gun banners wishes...

    And third, LEO can carry a gun pretty much anywhere in the USA now, even if state or local law makers do not want them to...........again contrary to the gun banners wishes.....

    sounds like the anti gun cause is a dead man walking.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • SgtScott31
    replied
    Originally posted by dadyswat View Post
    So you go with the living Constitution concept?
    I go with the idea that the Constitution is continually intepreted to the best of our nation's ability as our society evolves for the greater good of everyone involved. I like to think that we have some pretty smart people in the right positions to make that possible. It's obvious that the larger majority of the US does not feel comfortable with people toting guns to their kids soccer games or to establishments that serve alcohol. To call these folks "sheep," like they're a bunch of scared drones is ridiculous; and it gets under my skin whenever the big gun advocates imply such. I guess a "living" Constitution is one way to look at it. I don't think that "the right to bear arms" means that anyone should be able to carry a gun at anytime, any way they want. SCOTUS agrees, hence the restrictions federally and the fact that they also allow states to place their own restrictions on firearm possession/carry. Obviously the states shouldn't go overboard, as DC attempted to do (which was shot down), but overall state restrictions are very similar with a few exceptions. Those states that prohibit concealed carry but allow open carry should have their heads examined, but that's my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadyswat
    replied
    Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
    I actually got a chuckle out of this, thanks. I'm glad you knew the founders so well that you are so sure about your opinion of how they would react in today's society and the decisions made by those who make and enforce the laws. It's apparent to me that you live in a box and think that firearm regulation should be so black and white. It's quite amusing that you try to compare guns in today's society to Indians attacking your home. The Indians may have killed and scalped a few folks, but let's not forget, it was their land before ours. We were the immigrants back then and it was our armies that slaughtered them by the thousands. You say you are an American, but it seems to me you don't have a clue about American history.

    Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. It's funny you seem to think that your opinion should trump theirs and anyone/everyone should be able to tote a gun around. In case you didn't notice, you have to be pretty dam* smart to become an attorney and eventually earn a spot on the bench. I guess they are all just nimrods huh? Now politics obviously comes into play when becoming a judge, but that doesn't discredit the type of education they still have to go through to get to that point. I know, I've taken the LSAT before.

    p.s. As far as Hitler and Nazi Germany, I would assume your only choice as a 16 year old German during that era was to join the cause or end up in the camps with the Jews.

    p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
    So you go with the living Constitution concept?

    Leave a comment:


  • pfchell
    replied
    Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
    I don't look down on anyone that fights for their rights and opinions. I only ask that before you begin to make accusations and question LEOs actions when they are simply trying not to get killed, you do some research on the matter.



    No officer here (or any public forum for that matter) believes that people do not have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes.
    thanks for understanding. i re-edited the url's link.. hope you checked it out. sorry for the mistake. also i will do a better research next time and read other's post carefully.

    Leave a comment:


  • SgtScott31
    replied
    please be respectful as i would to you, dont look down your nose upon good people who want to hold thier rights and freedom close to chest
    I don't look down on anyone that fights for their rights and opinions. I only ask that before you begin to make accusations and question LEOs actions when they are simply trying not to get killed, you do some research on the matter.

    comparing "indians attacking your home" to today is still a reality nowaday. you should know better as a cop. gorey home invasion do exist today.
    No officer here (or any public forum for that matter) believes that people do not have a right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes.

    Leave a comment:


  • pfchell
    replied
    Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
    I actually got a chuckle out of this, thanks. I'm glad you knew the founders so well that you are so sure about your opinion of how they would react in today's society and the decisions made by those who make and enforce the laws. It's apparent to me that you live in a box and think that firearm regulation should be so black and white. It's quite amusing that you try to compare guns in today's society to Indians attacking your home. The Indians may have killed and scalped a few folks, but let's not forget, it was their land before ours. We were the immigrants back then and it was our armies that slaughtered them by the thousands. You say you are an American, but it seems to me you don't have a clue about American history.

    Anyone that believes felons should be able to carry firearms suffers from a severe lack of reality. It is the US Supreme Court justices who sit in the highest court of the land who just happen to decide how the 2nd Amendment (among many others) should be interpreted from month to month. It is hundreds of other judges and justices on the local and federal level that also find no problem with gun regulation for the safety of the greater good. It's funny you seem to think that your opinion should trump theirs and anyone/everyone should be able to tote a gun around. In case you didn't notice, you have to be pretty dam* smart to become an attorney and eventually earn a spot on the bench. I guess they are all just nimrods huh? Now politics obviously comes into play when becoming a judge, but that doesn't discredit the type of education they still have to go through to get to that point. I know, I've taken the LSAT before.

    p.s. As far as Hitler and Nazi Germany, I would assume your only choice as a 16 year old German during that era was to join the cause or end up in the camps with the Jews.

    p.s.s. Don't be sorry for your attempted insults. I deal with people with your attitude every day, and by the way, the gun laws are not going anywhere.
    regarding the original authors...( i threw in a trick emphatisic concerning authors) acutally thomas jefferson and ben franklin didnt wrote or even involved legislating the bill of rights. james madison and john adams did.james madison was the main author of this bill.. of course under the guidiance from mr jefferson.jefferson was in france at the time of the bill of rights passage.
    comparing "indians attacking your home" to today is still a reality nowaday. you should know better as a cop. gorey home invasion do exist today.
    fyi, i have a gene strain of american indian in me and im also a part jewish. please be respectful as i would to you, dont look down your nose upon good people who want to hold thier rights and freedom close to chest.. i ve also deal with tons of people's attitudes myself. all are good and bad. okay?
    oh btw, sir..i think this one will please you and other..check this site out..

    http://www.americaremembers.com/prod...ATP/FF2ATP.asp
    Last edited by pfchell; 09-27-2009, 06:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SgtScott31
    replied
    and no need to be an attorney on the supreme court fwiw
    You are correct, but I doubt one can make it there without being an attorney.

    Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.
    Yes, a legislative issue. They could easily amend the law to make it a violation to refuse to give name and other pertinent info during an investigation. SCOTUS (via Hiibel) has said such a law is not "unconstitutional."

    do you remember what federal district court the judge said there was no historical basis to disarm felons???
    Actually no, but my post was not to imply that all judges have the same viewpoint on firearm laws, but I believe a majority of them agree with restrictive meaures, hence why most LEOs have leeway on dealing with those who carry (with or without permits).

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
    Just to make sure I understand, it's a legislatural issue, not a Constitutional one.

    I haven't been able to finish reading it yet, been a long, busy week. Thanks for your time.
    Depends on the basis of the Wisconsin decision. If it is based on the non-existence of a statute in point, then this is a legislative issue. If it is based on the state constitution, then the only way to change it is if the Wisconsin constitution is amended. If it is based on Eisconisn's interpretation of federal constitutional law, then it was overruled by Hiibel.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5322 users online. 314 members and 5008 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X