Federal Court says No, You Can't Detain or Arrest Peaceful Gun Owners
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let an officer who illegally detained a Lawful Gun Owner escape accountability!
Officer Bright released Northrup with a citation for "failure to disclose personal information." (The charges were later dropped.)
No law-abiding American out for a walk with his family and his dog should end up in the back of a police car. No officer responsible for putting him there should be able to escape responsibility for his misconduct. Judge Sutton's decision provides a blueprint for ensuring that those who enforce the law are not beyond its reach. As for Bright, a jury of Ohioans will determine whether he betrayed their trust.
Failure to Disclose Personal Information?
Question: How the heck can anyone be allowed to hold the position of alleged "Peace Officer", if they don't even know the dam laws themselves?
Immigrants are required to learn fairly extensive information about this country, its history, system of law, culture, etc., and then also required to PROVE their knowledge by taking a test! But Cops, who are allowed to carry lethal weapons and use deadly force by those weapons at will, usually do not know a gd-dam thing about the many laws they allege to force the rest of us to up-hold. I have personally encountered many cops in my time on this rock, as well I know of others who have also experienced similar encounters while carrying or transporting weapons, being detained or harassed and fined for totally unrelated offenses, etc. Even myself, once while hunting in the absolute middle of nowhere Crazy Mountains, I ran into the only Barney Fife Fish & Game officer I had seen in over a week out there by myself. He walked up to me while I was walking to my truck after getting my Elk, he was all alone and appeared to be very much on guard, without even the customary Western hello and general all around small talk, he started to point out the obvious in what I could only understand to be his way of exerting some form of perceived authority over me, asking me all manner of ridiculous questions regarding my kill; was I in the militia, where was I from; asked me where my vehicle was - keep in mind he just parked next to it.
He finally got around to asking me my name, which by the way was in plain sight on my M65 field jacket that I was wearing, which may be the reason for the stupid militia questions; I say stupid because its my jacket, which still had my 75th Inf, 3rd Batt Ranger Reg and tab on one shoulder, my SF patches on the other, with my CIB and Master jump wings on the front - Militia?
At this point I became a bit less cordial because I have a very low tolerance for DUMB-ASS and STUPID, much less when combined as they were in this guy. THEN he saw my 1911 under my open jacket and continued proving his immense and in depth ignorance of our laws here by warning me, "with his hand on his pistol now", how it was a "felony" to carry concealed without a CCP, but that he would let this one go under the circumstances. Truthfully, at the time I didn't know whether to LMFAO at this ass clown, or just guarantee his inability to procreate. Being that I had already walked fourteen miles through various stages of near impossible dead-fall, hills and ravines to get the angle on one Bull Elk after over a week of watching his herd, I decided to let Barney Fife leave the mountain without being tied to one of its many beautiful trees naked for his friends to find him, more so not to disrespect GODS tree's, and only up-dated Barney's quantum lack of knowledge with two very easy to find points of law:
- A CCP is only required within the City limits in this State; leaving 98.5% of this State legal for concealed carry without having a CCP; and,
- Being caught carrying concealed even within any City limits in this State is in fact NOT a felony, but a misdemeanor.
Then I asked Barney a question: "Why do you think it is only a Misdemeanor and NOT a Felony", which was obviously rhetorical for Barney, so I quickly answered - "Because the lawmakers in all States know full well that limiting our carrying of arms in any way and or for any reason is 100% illegal on its face as limited by the overriding law of the land, The Constitutions 2nd Amendment". Of course assuming he even knew what that was. I then walked away from Barney with a cordial good by, and admonished him to be far more careful from now on out here all alone.
The reason for this story is to show how this has been and will continue to be a National law enforcement wide problem. If such professions such as commercial pilots are required to prove and even update their knowledge base ongoing because their job requires them to be responsible for the lives of everyone they deal with, why then are all these habitually ignorant law enforcement people not held to at least those standards ongoing? This case (see article below) and the thousands of others like it which have wound up with the actual deaths of legally armed and even unarmed citizens, which as we know is a growing trend among law enforcement in this country, is the most compelling reason I know of for the argument to "Privatize" all State and Local police accept for the Sheriffs Nationwide as soon as possible.
Qualified immunity protects police officers from being held personally liable for violating rights unless those rights are "clearly established." In practice, this judge-made doctrine all too often insulates police misconduct from both liability and meaningful judicial scrutiny....
There you go! I bet all the police in America know ALL ABOUT this law! I bet none of them are so in the weeds concerning this law as they are on all the more important Constitutional tidbits concerning our FREEDOMS!
Exactly why all State and Local PD's must be disbanded and new private, corporately held security departments installed. And this will not put all those former police out of jobs as many tend to incorrectly point out. No, they can all be screened and trained properly when and (if) they are hire-able by the private security company which took their place. See our MechArmor blog article on privatizing police, this is an issue that needs to become front and center everywhere ASAP.
As we pointed out in our own article on this topic, besides all the major cost cuts that come with privatizing a police force, as well as the massive drop in REAL crime rates, one of the most important factors to do this is, that it removes all possibility of such a self-serving law as this ridiculous "qualified immunity" law. This then opens both the officer, and the corporation he works for to severe litigation, both private litigation against the offending officer and his personal assets, as well as the corporation itself. And we all dam well know, no corporation on earth will allow such litigation to go on, and will do all they can to make certain those that work for them do not pose a threat to either their corporation via posing a threat to the civilian population they are meant to police. For any corporate entity the bottom line will always be their bottom line. Which will be seriously, adversely effected by only a few major legal suits and the bad press that accompanies them.
Yes, NOT "police" officers; what we have now is "Policy" officers, much like our Bank officers. You see, the truth of the matter is, none of the State "Codes" or "Statutes" and actually "LAW". Bet you didn't know that. The Constitution is based on "Natural law", which is not Code or Statute at all. Although everyone should begin researching this topic on their own and become familiar with the two systems which continue to work in parallel, although the one, Natural law, is mostly ignored by our current judicial system in lieu of the U.S CODE, which even law scholars and lawyers who are in the know, have openly admitted and even written papers proving how all US Code is completely illegal, and not at all binding. Only binding through our ignorance of them, and of the other original law of the land, which is simply - Do and treat all others and their property as you would have them treat and do to you and yours! Outside of this there is NO law, code or statute. Within the Natural law system one faces a judge or his or her "peers" ONLY when a person knowingly or accidentally "physically" damages another person or his/her property, etc. Most of this however was historically confined to being worked out between the parties themselves, privately.
So yes, there is much most American's do not know about the land of laws they live in and are adversely controlled by. What is most funny, just as you will see in the article below, is that all the politicians, the judges and courts from top to bottom all know this to be absolutely true, but keep it out of reach for you. The supreme and Federal courts have upheld on several occasions that no drivers license, insurance, registration or tags are "Lawfully" required for any person to "Travel" - (not drive) - to and fro, even for their own commercial business if they are the ones "traveling" in their vehicle for that business. The same Supreme court rulings uphold the fact, as it is also plainly stated in all Federal US Code, that virtually ALL aspects of "DRIVING" - (not traveling) - on the open roads which requires the "DRIVER" to have a "Commercial" license, insurance, registration and tags, by their USC laws, are deemed ALL COMMERCIAL in nature and considered by their law as "commercial" use of vehicles for business. Plainly stated, if you are not driving a vehicle, specifically one hauling commercially sale-able goods across State line, then you are NOT considered to be a "DRIVER" doing "Commercial" business on the road. ALL 100% upheld many times by the courts.
WOW! How can that be? I get tickets all the time for stuff.... Because YOU CONSENT to working within their amplified concocted system of State "codes" and "statutes". There have been however many thousands, if not millions of American's by now who are re-learning all these things and starting to buck their system by utilizing their own laws to prove otherwise. Of course, most people remain afraid to do so, being cowed and branded for so long.
So, the current "police" officers are in fact only "POLICY" enforcers for the State and County corporations which we call cities and towns.
But are "Codes & Statutes" lawfully enforceable under the Constitutions limitations?
Funny you should ask that.... NO! They are not LAWFULLY enforceable. In fact you should research this topic in great detail for yourselves, because the Supreme Court has also upheld the fact that no "policy officer" has the Right or authority to even stop you from walking, much less driving for any alleged infringement of their Code or Statute Policies. The Supreme Court has upheld on many occasion, just as they did again in the following article, that NO "Policy" enforcer of the corporation has the authority to infringe, even for one second (literally), the 4th Amendment Rights of any citizen for any alleged or perceived infringement of any Code or Statute, much less the "policy" officers "suspicion" of such a code or statute policy infringement. Which makes all vehicular stops completely illegal since they are all meant to enforce ONLY Code & Statute policies. This would of course NOT be the case if say a "policy" officer saw you run over an animal, or person, or damage private property with that same car while "traveling" on a "public" road, in which case then that officer would in fact have the authority to stop and detain you; but notice, this is not for Code or Statute violations, but for physical damage to another living being or their property of some kind, of which then requires some form of remedy under the Natural, constitutional system of law.
But of course American's continue to put up with all this illegal bullshit from their State officials and "policy" officers, all of which dam well know the truth I am telling you right now, but do not care. Their aim is to legislate as many policy codes and statutes as humanly possible in order to build their "TAXATION" fence higher and higher around you, for the sole purpose of extracting $$$$$ from you and yours for a life-time. Want that new home edition, PAY the Code/permit; late for work and want to drive faster, PAY the code enforcer; need or want any number of things in life, PAY the Code tax! Renew you drivers license, PAY the statute tax; And on and on and on.... ALL BECAUSE WE CONSENT! So, withdraw all CONSENT.
Am I or the owners of this blog bashing cops? No way, in fact here is just one of several good cop awards that MechArmor gave to the decent, knowledgeable, freedom loving cops they have become aware of - 2014 - MechArmor Product Award for LE Excellence!
I will now end my commentary on this subject and allow you to move on to the main article which sparked this rant using this quote from the article as I began mine:
Officer Bright released Northrup with a citation for "failure to disclose personal information." (The charges were later dropped.)
Federal Appeals Court to Police Officer: No, You Can't Slap Cuffs on Peaceful Gun Owners
Huffinton Post Politics Blog:
Every part of Shawn Northrup's midsummer evening walk with his wife, daughter, grandson, and dog was legal -- including the holstered handgun he openly carried on his hip. But that was not enough to keep Northrup from being disarmed, handcuffed, and threatened with arrest by a police officer. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let the officer who illegally detained Northrup escape accountability, exemplifying the kind of judicial engagement that is needed to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Northrup, a resident of Toledo, Ohio, was enjoying a peaceful walk with his family when a passing motorcyclist, Alan Rose, caught sight of his firearm and yelled that Northrup could not "walk around with a gun like that." Northrup's wife, Denise, informed Rose (correctly) that it is perfectly legal to openly carry firearms in Ohio. Rose nonetheless called 911, stating that he had observed "a man carrying his gun out in the open." The dispatcher also told Rose that it is legal to openly carry firearms in Ohio but, apparently a bit uncertain, directed Officer David Bright of the Toledo Police Department to the scene, relating to Bright that Northrup was "walking his dog ... carrying a handgun out in the open."
When Bright encountered Northrup, Northrup was still walking his dog, his gun secure in its holster. What happened after Bright stepped out of his vehicle and approached Northrup is disputed. According to Northrup, Bright announced that he would shoot Northrup if he went for his weapon, refused to any answer questions about what was going on or whether Northrup was free to leave, and threatened to arrest Northrup for "inducing a panic." Ultimately, Bright disarmed Northrup, placed him in handcuffs, and put him in a squad car, where he remained for half an hour. Upon discovering that Northrup had a concealed-carry permit (which, in point of fact, he did not need in order to openly carry his gun), Bright released Northrup with a citation for "failure to disclose personal information." (The charges were later dropped.)
Northrup sued Bright and other members of the Toledo Police Department in federal court, alleging violations of his rights under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments as well as state law. The district court rejected Northrup's First and Second Amendment claims but held that his Fourth Amendment and state-law claims against Bright could go to trial. Bright then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, asserting qualified immunity from suit. Qualified immunity protects police officers from being held personally liable for violating rights unless those rights are "clearly established." In practice, this judge-made doctrine all too often insulates police misconduct from both liability and meaningful judicial scrutiny.
It has long been established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from coercively stopping and frisking people without any reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime or are about to commit a crime. In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court defined "reasonable suspicion," explaining that officers must be able to point to specific, observable facts and evidence indicating that a person is "armed and dangerous" -- an inarticulate "hunch" or intuition will not suffice. Nor is it enough for officers to suspect that a person is armed. As the Tenth Circuit would later put it, to hold that the presence of a gun is sufficient to justify a frisk would be to "effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons."
In a carefully reasoned opinion, Judge Jeffrey Sutton determined that if Northrup's account of the events was accurate, whatever suspicions Bright may have harbored that Northrup was committing a crime or was about to do so were not reasonable. The specific facts that Bright relied upon in stopping, disarming, and detaining Northrup consisted entirely in (1) Northrup's open possession of a firearm, and (2) the 911 call, which informed Bright that Northrup was openly carrying a firearm. Neither of these facts suggested that Northrup was breaking the law or was dangerous. As Judge Sutton pointedly observed, "While the dispatcher and [911 caller] may not have known the details of Ohio's open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty." While Bright argued that he faced a difficult decision -- "respond to the communities' fear and the appearance of the gunman" or "do nothing ... and hope that he was not about to start shooting" -- Sutton rejected this as a false choice. Absent any actual evidence that Bright was "about to start shooting," Sutton reasoned, "Bright's hope ... remains another word for the trust that Ohioans have placed in their State's approach to gun licensure and gun possession." - (Read more here)
Best value High Quality AR Rifle Parts are Right Here!