Obviously we disagree at a fundamental level. As for the officer's '1A' rights, that doesn't apply at all.
That is
completely incorrect. Officers do not lose their rights merely because they put a uniform and badge on. There is plenty of case law on that.
Garrity is a good starting point on that one.
This wasn't a friendly conversation at a bar after work, he was speaking as an armed official of the government.
So? This guy wanted attention and he got it. And by stirring up crap like this, as he stated his intentions were in his lawsuit, he's making firearms owners everywhere look bad.
What the cop said was not portrayed as 'friendly advice' or merely 'being honest'. It was a warning not to cause trouble or pay the consequences, again from a policeman.
Errrr......that wasn't what was protrayed, even by Mr. Miller's attorney.
As for the 'crime' the policeman is violating the citizens civil right to carry. Harassment IS infringing on the right. As for your Detroit scenario- that has no relation to this. This guy wasn't approached or detained for HIS safety or well being.
Ummmm....there is not a "civil right to carry." There is a right to bear arms. Just because there are no laws prohibiting something doesn't automatically make it a "right". There is no law prohibiting me from owning a radar detector, but that doesn't that I have a "right" to have a radar detector. Try arguing
that "right" in someplace like Virginia and see what happens. If there was an affirmed right to carry, CHPs would be a moot point nationwide, would it not? Had they confiscated his weapon, I would agree with you that his 2A and probably his 5A rights would have been violated, however they returned it to him once their investigation was completed. Therefore, no violation of his rights occurred.
And no, he was detained for the safety and well being of the community at large. No one knew who this guy was or what his intentions were, nor are police officers mind-readers. Yes, it turned it that he and his weapon were clean, but he could have easily been despondent and ready to go shoot up his old work place when he was done eating that apple -because he lost his job of 30 years to some young computer punk. Nobody knows what the deal actually is until someone goes to talk with him and checks him out.
And to answer your question as to how/what right was infringed- the story tells us he was detained for 30 minutes. Against his will.
Yes, that's exactly what a Terry stop is. And most courts will find 30 minutes reasonable because at times, it takes that long sometimes to get a response back from NCIC, especially during peak hours of usage. I guarantee you the federal courts will.
And threatened with more of the same if he dared to do 'it' again. Although what he did was perfectly legal- armed officials of the state 'suggested' he not do it anymore or he would be inconvenienced, questioned, detained again.
Threatened? Where was the threat? If they threatened him with arrest or criminal charges for doing the same thing, then yes, I would agree that there was threat...but once again, when someone makes a "man with a gun" call to 911, in a lot of jurisdictions, the police have the DUTY to respond and investigate it. In many places, it's written policy.
It wasn't a threat - it was a dose of common sense. Packing a weapon openly in a lot communities around this country is going to draw a lot of attention & generate 911 calls, that's just being realistic.
If being forcibly detained for 30minutes by armed men for NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG doesn't equal harassment, pressure or infringement of liberties then what does?
Do you even know the definition of reasonable suspicion??? No one knew he was not doing anything wrong until he was checked and the scene was cleared. RS can cover a plethora of things. To use your example of "a black man walking down an upscale neighborhood" - that in itself isn't RS, but "a black man walking down an upscale neighborhood, wearing unseasonable clothing (bulky clothing in 90 degree weather), carrying a bag (that possibly could contain burglar tools), and having passed the same empty house 4 times while talking on a cell phone"....is. The police wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't stop and make contact with him. See how easily the picture changes when a few missing facts are added in?
Let's face it - a person carrying a weapon openly without being in some kind of uniform or wearing some kind of badge unusual in today's society. The very sight is enough to make some people panic. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. I really don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is. Because it's unusual, the sheep are always going to call 911 when they see that. What are the police supposed to do? Ignore the calls? They can't do that. It will be their collective asses if it turns into an active shooter call later on.
And yes, Barry cited a case on PA where their Supreme Court said that open carrying a gun is not RS in itself
for that state, but you've also got to consider that the case in question was decided before Columbine, Virginia Tech, Westroads Mall, etc... Not only that, but the federal courts in which Mr. Miller has chosen as a venue is LOADED with Clinton and Obama appointees...His lawsuit is going to go nowhere fast.
By the way, he was not detained forcibly - nobody put hands on him or did anything else but get his compliance via verbal commands (i.e. "can you come here so I can talk to you for a second"). That is not using force. Secondly, once it was determined that he was not doing anything wrong, he was released with his property returned. They did not deprive him of his property, detain, or delay him more than was necessary to ascertain the facts.
If you don't see a problem with that I'm afraid your discernment is very poor. Do you work for the city of Omaha, by chance?
Perhaps it's that my discernment is tempered by training, knowledge and experience that differs from yours.
Do I work for the City of Omaha? No.
