PDA

View Full Version : A Victory for America!


KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-08-2011, 04:19 AM
A Victory

By Richard C. Evey, Libertarian/ Patriot.

Received via email - September 16th, 2009


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A federal judge has made a ruling that could change the way that law enforcement treats “We the people”.

The judge granted that the plaintiff has liability under the Fourth Amendment and that law enforcement does not have immunity. In my opinion, a major victory for liberty and freedom.

The case: St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety, U. S. District Court of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM.

Mr. St. John went into a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun. New Mexico has no law forbidding the open carry of a handgun.

The theater owner called Alamogordo Public Safety. The four law enforcement officers (LEO) approached Mr. St. John and with force removed him from the theater, took his handgun and patted him down. After checking, found out that the handgun was legal and that he was not a criminal, returned his handgun and let him go back to the movie but without his handgun, which he placed in his vehicle.

Mr. St. John filed suit in state court but the case was moved to a federal court because Mr. St. John alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and also asserts his rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The undisputed fact is that Mr. St. John's seizure was unreasonable. He had not committed a crime, was not committing a crime and was not about to commit a crime.

The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.

The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.

In short, the LEOs can be sued. I hope that Mr. St. John also sues the theater owner. The theater owner could have asked Mr. St. John to leave the theater or could have put up a sign; instead he acted like a jerk and called in the Gestapo.

This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/ or maybe face a lawsuit. Law enforcement officers, sometimes, have to make quick decisions but without taking any responsibility and with immunity. But the judicial system tell us, the citizens, if we do the same thing we will be held accountable and liable. Now things have changed, law enforcement officers will be held accountable and without immunity. Change I can live with!

This case is not over, it will be appealed and could go to the U. S. Supreme Court and with the people they have on that court, I think that the outcome will be a lot different.

But for now, We the People can claim a victory.

LIBERTY & FREEDOM
Richard C. Evey

"Government is the art of keeping people
from meddling in their own business"
Francoise Giroud

Crisco
02-08-2011, 04:29 PM
Seems like a lot is missing from this story. What exactly is forcibly removing him from the theater?

rearnakedchoke
02-08-2011, 04:29 PM
a question .. if the owner puts a sign up that says "no guns" what takes precidence? the law or the sign?

Spiritwalker
02-08-2011, 05:25 PM
a question .. if the owner puts a sign up that says "no guns" what takes precidence? the law or the sign?

Private Property.

TENNESSEAN
02-08-2011, 06:03 PM
a question .. if the owner puts a sign up that says "no guns" what takes precidence? the law or the sign?

in TN the sign does. we have the right to carry, private property owners have the right to ask us to not carry on their property.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-09-2011, 12:14 AM
Apparentlly the owner did not have a sighn up! As for what is forcibly removing him from the theater that can run the gamut from ordering him to come with them to dragging him out in cuff's. My guess is the 4 officers ordered him out and he complied. I hope that the local's boycott that theater cuase that owner was a jerk!

Buzzard
02-10-2011, 09:16 PM
Apparentlly the owner did not have a sighn up! As for what is forcibly removing him from the theater that can run the gamut from ordering him to come with them to dragging him out in cuff's. My guess is the 4 officers ordered him out and he complied. I hope that the local's boycott that theater cuase that owner was a jerk!

Why is the owner a jerk? Shouldn't he have the right to run his business the way he sees fit, or should the government get to make the all the decisions for his business?

Spiritwalker
02-11-2011, 01:04 AM
Why is the owner a jerk? Shouldn't he have the right to run his business the way he sees fit, or should the government get to make the all the decisions for his business?

I understand both sides of this..

and we don't know how the cops acted when they approached the guy.. or how the gu reacted to the cops..

IMO.. it;s kind of a non issue unless there is more disclosure..

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-11-2011, 05:44 AM
Why is the owner a jerk? Shouldn't he have the right to run his business the way he sees fit, or should the government get to make the all the decisions for his business?

Cuase he called the Law over something that was NOT a posted rule! The guy was breaking no laws and the theater did NOT post any rule like that!

Buzzard
02-11-2011, 08:21 AM
Cuase he called the Law over something that was NOT a posted rule! The guy was breaking no laws and the theater did NOT post any rule like that!

After rereading the story, I can understand your position. Wonder why management didn't confront the man first if the above account is a true account of the incident. I an understand why he wouldn't too though if they didn't.

Neezar
02-11-2011, 12:16 PM
Whether it is against the law or not doesn't matter to me. If it isn't common practice for people to carry guns in that theatre then the guy was an ass for taking one in on his hip. It is irresponsible and most know that only an idiot would tote a gun on his hip in public especially in a crowded, darkened theatre!

We used to have to deal with these types of idiots when I worked at the Sheriff's Dept. The chances are way higher that the idiot will hurt an innocent, himself, or someone who really doesn't need a gun will get a hold on it than the chances of him acutally using it for any good purpose.

Neezar
02-11-2011, 12:21 PM
Cuase he called the Law over something that was NOT a posted rule! The guy was breaking no laws and the theater did NOT post any rule like that!


If someone carries a gun on their hip in public they can expect a call to the po-po. If they don't expect it then they are an idiot.

Buzzard
02-11-2011, 11:52 PM
If someone carries a gun on their hip in public they can expect a call to the po-po. If they don't expect it then they are an idiot.

If you are legally allowed to open carry, they shouldn't expect a call from the popo. I've been seen legally open carrying and haven't had the cops called on me yet.............yet.

Miss Foxy
02-11-2011, 11:56 PM
In this day and age with all these nut jobs running around I would rather someone be questioned by the popo*one time* fuzz rather than be a witness or victim to some bloody massacre. It's sad to say I have to think that way, but of course I live outside of Los Angeles so what does that tell ya!! :laugh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-12-2011, 04:52 AM
If someone carries a gun on their hip in public they can expect a call to the po-po. If they don't expect it then they are an idiot.

That's part of whats wrong with this country! Whenever somebody does something that's not liked or not common they get called an idiot and the law called! Guess to some Folks their is no innocent until proven guilty. As for saying that anybody that carries a gun on their hip is an idiot,that is not a correct statement. Farther more it is arrogant,rude and very condescending. I don't know where you live but I have occasionally seen Folk's carrying a gun openly and their was absolutely no problems.

Neezar
02-13-2011, 04:33 AM
Whether it is against the law or not doesn't matter to me. If it isn't common practice for people to carry guns in that theatre then the guy was an ass for taking one in on his hip. It is irresponsible and most know that only an idiot would tote a gun on his hip in public especially in a crowded, darkened theatre!

We used to have to deal with these types of idiots when I worked at the Sheriff's Dept. The chances are way higher that the idiot will hurt an innocent, himself, or someone who really doesn't need a gun will get a hold on it than the chances of him acutally using it for any good purpose.

If you are legally allowed to open carry, they shouldn't expect a call from the popo. I've been seen legally open carrying and haven't had the cops called on me yet.............yet.


:Whistle:




:laugh::laugh::laugh: Just kidding!

Neezar
02-13-2011, 04:39 AM
That's part of whats wrong with this country! Whenever somebody does something that's not liked or not common they get called an idiot and the law called! Guess to some Folks their is no innocent until proven guilty. As for saying that anybody that carries a gun on their hip is an idiot,that is not a correct statement. Farther more it is arrogant,rude and very condescending. I don't know where you live but I have occasionally seen Folk's carrying a gun openly and their was absolutely no problems.

I am very sorry if I offended you. However, that is still my opinion. If there is a need then I might be okay with it. If you carry one around your property for varmin or a stray snake, bear, or other wild animal and happen down to the county store for a coke and don't take it off then that is one thing but a locked glove box would be more appropriate place than a darkened movie theatre in my opinion. But that's just me.