On Sep 21, 5:08 pm, j...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:24:36 -0600, "¦ 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!
>
>      No, there would be a "crime [] afoot" since it is a federal
> felony for a felon to possess a firearm.  It seems that you haven't
> the depth of thought to realize what the facts really are before you
> make remarks that are not cogent.

A court room that convicts anyone while copulating church and state is
null and void since it is illegal. Kangaroo courts are not justice.

Felons that are falsely accused and convicted have the constitution on
thier side and should bear arms against the terrorist executive
branch.

More police deserve to be shot.