On Sep 19, 2:24 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> >news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>
> >>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed..> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>
> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>
> >> 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).
>
> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>
> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
> >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> >> and federal constitutions."
>
> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> >> that
>
> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
> >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
> >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
> >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>
> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>
> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
> police intervertion.
>
> Excellent!

THat is the way the founding fathers intended it to be. No more police
extoriton plots