Do you agree with the court?? Open Carry

[attison]

Want to hear a funny story? The range I go shoot at a lot is inside a national Forrest. The first sign you see says welcome to talladega national Forrest no fire arms allowed. The second sign says Henry creek shooting range this way. Always scratch my head as I go shoot.

Old sign...think pre-2009. Contact them and ask them to change it as it causes confusion.
Shoal Creek Ranger District
45 Highway 281
Heflin, AL 36264
256-463-2272

Shoal_creek@fs.fed.us

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/f...ational%20Forests%20in%20Alabama-%20Districts

Yeah I'm familiar with em. I think I've seen one ranger down there in the many many years I've been going there.

 

[wozbean]

I don't agree with what the guy did. BUT the court should rule as if it is illegal or not. It should NOT rule what intent was. As I have said before, creating a public disturbance and such (intent to whatever the court called it) is a catch all so they can define it to mean whatever they like.

Land of the free, home of the brave. Yup.

 

[Ken Ford]

That is not quite what the ruling was in my opinion. Seems to me that a ruling like this leads to anyone carrying and wearing camo as being perfectly fine to have firearms pointed at them and being ordered to hit the ground.

I dissagree with your assumption. This court case in no way gave blanket immunity to LEO. This case was about this incident with these circumstances. If this was about someone conducting their business with no particular suspicious action, the ruling would have been different. This case did not in any way make new case law. It only reaffirmed that in certain circumstances, LEO are justified in detaining someone for a reasonable amount of time. The time involved was lengthy and the basis of the law suit. The court simply ruled that LEOs on scene acted reasonable, and released the subject after they were informed that the gun was technically legal. If when the LEOs figured out that there was no crime involved, they continued to detain the subject, at that point they would have violated his rights.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

If the Ranger or police officer or whatever had drawn down on the guy in the park right then I could be semi ok with that. BUT he didn't, he allowed the guy to continue walking in the park. Thus in my mind he had no expectation that someone needed to draw down on the guy and take his handgun. IF he thought the guy was up to no good letting him walk free was the stupidest thing he could have done in my opinion. Plus the first Ranger said to Embody technically it is a handgun and then claims that I'm pretty sure an AK isn't a handgun.

UUMM also notice it says the barrel is within a half inch of the legal limit. As far as I know there is no federal legal limit on a handgun barrel... however that may be a state issue.

 

[attison]

If you would read, there is a STATE limit, 12 inches. The Ranger followed orders by his superior, who told him to conduct a felony take down. With you being a arm chair lawyer/LEO, you might not know what that means. So, the ruling stands, no rights were violated. The only thing that was violated was common sense, embody failed to exercise the use of it.

 

[Shovelhead]

I don't agree with the court... They are trying to shut up a coo coo

 

[tv_racin_fan]

If you would read, there is a STATE limit, 12 inches. The Ranger followed orders by his superior, who told him to conduct a felony take down. With you being a arm chair lawyer/LEO, you might not know what that means. So, the ruling stands, no rights were violated. The only thing that was violated was common sense, embody failed to exercise the use of it.

Yeah umm hmmm..

"As far as I know there is no federal legal limit on a handgun barrel... however that may be a state issue."


Yes I see the Ranger did as he was told, AGAIN in my opinion it was wrong. The guy was apparently not being an ass and they let him walk thru the park armed with no issue then take him down at gun point in the parking lot, that aint to swoft in my opinion.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

I dissagree with your assumption. This court case in no way gave blanket immunity to LEO. This case was about this incident with these circumstances. If this was about someone conducting their business with no particular suspicious action, the ruling would have been different. This case did not in any way make new case law. It only reaffirmed that in certain circumstances, LEO are justified in detaining someone for a reasonable amount of time. The time involved was lengthy and the basis of the law suit. The court simply ruled that LEOs on scene acted reasonable, and released the subject after they were informed that the gun was technically legal. If when the LEOs figured out that there was no crime involved, they continued to detain the subject, at that point they would have violated his rights.

Care to explain how and why one case sets precedence and another doesn't? The time was not the basis of the suit since the guy asked to see the sgt even knowing the time would be longer.

 

[Ken Ford]

Care to explain how and why one case sets precedence and another doesn't? The time was not the basis of the suit since the guy asked to see the sgt even knowing the time would be longer.

Easy,Every case is different, hence each individual case takes a precedent over any other.This is getting old...

 

[Bypass]

Yep