Search results for query: *

I thought he was checking this baggage?

I think I understand.. Clearly criminals started carrying openly. They must have been using this legal method of carry to get closer to their victims where they would commit awful acts of violence. I mean California only banned this loophole because criminals were abusing it, right? They...

Additionally, it's not the judiciaries place to be "responsible" for their interpretations; only accuracy is important. It's not their place to make sure we're safe. They are not setting policy. If their interpretation overturns 90% of existing gun laws, so be it. If they find that the 2nd...

An awful decision and odd departure from Terry. I second the hope that it's appealed and reversed by SCOTUS. Somebody already mentioned the possible implications in an open carry states. But lets limit our examples to a seizure incident to a lawful stop. Under this precedent. If you have a...

I'd suggest contacting the NRA right away. This is a very sensitive subject post-Katrina. Write down every detail that you can remember. If you choose to take legal action, this will prove very valuable to your attorney.

WOW. With a statement like that you can say goodbye qualified immunity, hello liability. The lawsuit will be painful.

I also see the logic the court had to worry about here. Resisting officers with sometimes deadly force within the myriad of 4th amendment exceptions can be messy. But no matter how messy it becomes, it will never remove a right to life. It sets a dangerously unlimited precedent.

Acting in good faith, even while misinterpreting laws, would cover an officer under qualified immunity. If you can prove an officer made up the law with abusive intentions, qualified immunity disappears. There are reasonable uses for the immunity doctrine. I'm not against it generally as it's...

It's about options. In the event you KNOW the entry/search is unlawful, and you have a reason to suggest that it's a threat to your life, resisting should be legal. The expectation in this country is that we may let a few of the less dangerous "bad guys" get away to protect the thousands of...

The interstate commerce clause is used as justification for jurisdiction. It does not envelope merit or automatically bless it under any standard of scrutiny when put against a constitutional right. I think the SAF has this one. It will just be a time consuming process.

Doesn't the Disaster Recovery Act of 2006 take care of that? The State receives federal funds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006 Edit: And Fla. Statute 870.044 contradicts itself:

That website's posting was by a "John Woods" of Virginia Tech. I imagine he brought up Virginia Tech in his signature as proof of experience in why we need to ban weapons on campus... Is he actually stretching to make the claim that a campus-permissive cwp law would have had a further negative...

I don't know what "compromise" the Senators have in mind. The Officers are simply against open carry. They were even against open carry with the special holster and ID requirements. In order for this bill to pass, they will have to go against the police organizations. I have my doubts they...

Wow the police are desperate! they are just panicing yelling out straight lies. Don't ever forget what these police organizations are saying today. Don't ever forget it.

I feel like these conversations always turn into either being with cops or against them. We can fully support the safety and security of our police officers while upholding basic freedoms and liberties. Yea it's a tricky balancing act, but that's why we have these discussions. It would be...

In Washington vs. State, Washington informed the police officer that he had a firearm and a concealed weapon permit. The court ruled that the officer DID NOT have the legal authority to temporarily seize it without a reason to believe his safety was at risk. I think we're confusing the term...

Washington v. State cited Malone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784. I figure Malone might have a bit more information regarding officer safety vs. "unreasonable". Malone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03200808jsk.pdf Again, Washington v. State, 922 N.E.2d 109...

I can't believe I actually dug this up: Washington v. State, 922 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. App. 2010). http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

Loosedhorse, it's a valid point of discussion. Some of us haven't had very good experiences. I feel it's worth talking about. bbuddtec, I thought my posts were awesome and worth reading :p

It's extremely unlikely to go to trial with the trivial damages from this sort of alleged civil rights violation. Most than likely a complaint will end with a settlement including minor legal fees and maybe a department policy change. I suppose if a case was pushed forward to a judgment, one...