Play the ‘substitution game’ on this one

Via David Hardy.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier:

The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed.  According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a “high crime area.” At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney’s pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car “in a dynamic and explosive manner” with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney’s face.

Officer Stern “executed a pat-frisk,” and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern “partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney’s pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the “facially valid” license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern’s behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols.  Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern “was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety.”

What if this had been a minority of some sort, or someone exercising their right to free speech, or someone exercising their right to have a lawyer present while being questioned? Is this in any way respecting our rights? Or is the right to keep and bear arms special such that the police can ignore it if they want?

9 thoughts on “Play the ‘substitution game’ on this one

  1. This is an extremely bad ruling. The gun=criminal mentality this ruling justifies is digusting.

    mikeb302000, why isn’t the comparison necessary?

  2. MikeB302000,

    Is there any comparison — when done by the pro-rights side– that you find valid?

    You don’t like comparing firearms to cars – although misuse of cars actually kill more people.

    You don’t like comparing firearms to free speech — although both are constitutionally protected rights.

    You don’t like comparing firearms to computers – although both are tools criminals misuse in committing crimes. (By the way, why do you get so defensive when we apply YOUR LOGIC the child pron/computer debate?)

    Can you support your “reasoning” with anything other then ‘I don’t like it’?

  3. “mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”

    Odd, Schubert produced a permit that said otherwise.

    I’m rather curious why this was thrown out, and I wonder if there is ANY recourse available. Seems that not only does this fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment, as well as harassment laws, but also against the permitting system which the courts are upholding that it doesn’t exactly do what it says it does. (Allows you to lawfully carry a gun)

    Hey the substitution works even for less inflammatory comparisons. Imagine if instead the beat officer was questioning Schubert’s license to drive, and claiming his cruiser was the only lawful car on his beat.

    You don’t even need to involve race or religion, or even protected rights for this to be a VERY gross incident.

  4. Why is the comparison necessary?

    Because a right is a right is a right, regardless of whether it has to do with speech, the color of your skin, or whatever tools you decided to carry on your person on a daily basis. Unless, of course, you would like to demonstrate otherwise.

    I, too, have to wonder what kind of recourse is available, if any… Unfortunately, Georgia’s laws do seem to be written that a permit is a “positive defense”, which implies some sort of court proceeding, so perhaps working on changing that phrasing is a good start…

  5. What charges / wording / whatever / etc did Mr Lawyer use in his filing against Officer Stern (Ohhhh, Officer Krupkie, i’m misunderstood. . . )? Maybe it was thrown out because Mr Lawyer didn’t use the right counter-charges against Officer Stern’s charges. Who knows? Did Mr Lawyer ever get his gun and license back? If not, then there goes ANOTHER round of lawsuits. And I hopoe Mr Lawyer does it right this time, and is able to get his property back.

  6. It is true enough that some Lawyers could not practice law so they became Judges. This Lawyer who was detained neglected to attack the BASIC QUESTION; Legislative Intent on the Laws pertaining to the protection of public law enforcement officers. If you look at just about any State Code you will come across the Codes granting such OFFICE as PENAL CODE OFFICER (just legal eagle yak that means POLICE OFFICER), the rest of the crap that the other lawyers (District Atty) use is STARE DECISIS (let the decision stand), so when a JUDGE hears a case that might need some BRAINS they refer back to the PRIOR decisions no matter how off subject it was and dismisses the case without even investigating the Legislative intent, and this is how the BENCH (Judges) makes new law.

    Example: California Code allows a motorist to challenge a TRAFFIC CITATION on the spot by LEGISLATIVE INTENT of the law in CODE. CODE states that the OFFICER will take the person into IMMEDIATE CUSTODY and deliver in person the person in custody to the nearest MAGISTRATE to review the matter…..One day traveling along on my motorcycle I’am stopped by a MOTOR OFFICER (motorcycle cop/policeman) and was cited for speed in excess of the posted speed limit, I do not sign and he calls for a transport of a prisoner and arrests me. Three hours later I arrive with the Officer in Court. Judge knows of me and asked the Officer to please take off the HANDCUFFS and then asks the Officer if I have been out of the officers custody at any time or did he transport me on his motorcycle while handcuffed. Officer does not answer the Judge but starts the whole failure to sign the CITATION routine and the Judge GOES BALLISTIC ON THE OFFICER, the Bailiff removes my cuffs and puts them on the Peace Officer who finally brought me before the MAGISTRATE.WHY? The Judge knew that right off the bat I would attack by LEGISLATIVE INTENT of the CODE being enforced by the Peace Officer. Judge directs Bailiff to summon DA and the Peace Officers Superior into court post haste (this means NOW) and when all are present proceeds to tell them that when a citizens rights are transgressed in HIS COURT that there will be hell to pay for all involved, then he gives them a little lecture on this CODE (not signing a citation) that when this CITIZEN (pointing to me) is ever brought into COURT again on this matter THAT IT WILL BE AS THE LAW WAS WRITTEN and not what is the customary routine in handling this matter in the CODE (telling them in a round about way that it was ok to treat everyone the same old way but not me). Judge then took me to the Impound Yard and had my motorcycle released without any fees to me for the towing and impound and thanked me for allowing him to be a Judge again and not another bump on the Bench. YOU JUST HAVE TO STAND UP FOR THE LAW AND TO THE LAW ALL OF THE TIME AS A CITIZEN.

  7. This tyrant wanna be cop outrages me! And the treasonous courts sicken me! Very well, then, if they won’t respect my God-given rights which they swore an oath to protect, then I won’t respect theirs. Maybe now I won’t obey the traitorous cop but rather defend my rights against HIM! I’ve had it with these traitors! They need to feel the wrath of the patriot! Vote all the bums out!!!!

Comments are closed.