Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

[solus]

Marinepilot...unsolicited offer...do you have a fund set up as this vet and 2A supporter will contribute a c-note to at least help!!

pls advise

ipse

 

[Jared]

The cop was out of line completely. Wyoming has ALWAYS, been an open carry state with no restrictions on where you can openly carry any type of weapon or firearm. This is nothing new.

Even up until 1994, when Wyoming was may-issue and permits were given by the county sheriff for concealed carry VALID ONLY FOR THAT COUNTY..... Wyoming was still a gold star open carry state.

This cop was out of line.

He knew damn well what was legal and he should have been suspended without pay.

More proof that LEO's are held to a lower standard than the average person.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Marinepilot...unsolicited offer...do you have a fund set up as this vet and 2A supporter will contribute a c-note to at least help!!

pls advise

ipse

+1 - I would chip in also. This would make a great SCOTUS case IMHO. :thumbup:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The cop was out of line completely. Wyoming has ALWAYS, been an open carry state with no restrictions on where you can openly carry any type of weapon or firearm. This is nothing new.

Even up until 1994, when Wyoming was may-issue and permits were given by the county sheriff for concealed carry VALID ONLY FOR THAT COUNTY..... Wyoming was still a gold star open carry state.

This cop was out of line.

He knew damn well what was legal and he should have been suspended without pay.

More proof that LEO's are held to a lower standard than the average person.

And then there is the judges who enable their actions......

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

All,

I know you've been following my illegal arrest outside of Alpine in Aug 2011. To update you guys, Judge Skavdahl originally granted summary judgement to the defense. We appealed to the 10th Circuit, but lost that, too.

Basically, the 10th Circuit said that:
- By saying "I don't consent to searches" I caused a tense situation that was worsened when the officer became surprised by my pistol.
- I was argumentative and the officer was justified to arrest me for his safety because of the "tense" atmosphere I created. And that I was not compliant.
- The amount of time I was held (45 minutes) was excusable because the officer needed to wait for back up.

Here's how this plays out for you guys: There is now CASE PRECEDENT (which for some unknown reason is more important that principles and laws) before the 10th circuit court that the officers can:
1. Stop you just based off a tip and - even if the officer says he never saw you commit a crime or do anything threatening - he is not required to establish RAS or PC.
2. If you say "I do not consent to searches" it is, in the words of Judge Skavdahl, "an inexplicable" response to a law enforcement officer.
3. If an officer sees or is surprised by your weapon it is grounds for arrest.
4. Qualified immunity WILL be given to police even while violating items within the Wyoming Constitution.
5. Neither District nor Appeals court mentioned anything of the officers threatening me with lethal force while handcuffed, addressing the statements of the officers that he was "above the law" and acting in violation of Terry v Ohio, et al, or the absence of dash cam /audio from the officers.

Essentially, "Shut up and do what you're told. Comply and you have nothing to fear."

These decisions - and I sincerely apologize - have actually harmed our cause greatly and will undoubtedly embolden the wayward LEO.

Original Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXwW2nrV0bY

I wonder if recalls can be done to wayward judges just as Colorado did to the 2 senators?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wonder if recalls can be done to wayward judges just as Colorado did to the 2 senators?

If I remember correctly there is supposed to be a process for removal/impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors (high crimes not being felonies but basically acts the people feel were wrong when committed by people who are in positions of power).

If I remember correctly the D-bag federalist judges in the very early stages of the federal government then set precedent that made this very difficult to do. Kevin Gutzman who has a PHD in law and in history points much of this out in his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".

 

[MamaLiberty]

Carry your gun with pride and confidence. Train well, including how best to interact with those who do not respect or understand your sovereignty. Treat everyone with respect and consideration until you have solid reason to do otherwise. Stereotypes are for the birds.

I've encountered a good number of police and sheriffs here. The usual comment is something like, "can a little lady like you really shoot that big .45?" I just smile and invite them to come out to the range and find out. To refuse to verify that I was carrying openly would be really silly. I'm proud of it, not defensive or evasive.

We do not have to be adversaries here in Wyoming. The "LE" who is NOT a peace officer should stand out like a sore thumb, and be treated as such. The peace officers should be respected and encouraged. Setting up a controversial situation (which this sounds like to me) and provoking arrest or a dangerous confrontation most certainly doesn't do anything to promote a good relationship or the right to carry.

 

[marinepilot81]

An Explanation Forthcoming

All,

I'm currently working on a video that will explain all of this and give a few more details. To update you guys, though, the Sheriff from Lincoln County, Shane Johnson, has been in contact with my command since the 10th Cir Appeals court loss. The guy tracked down EVERY single post/comment I've made since 2006 that could be used against me, compiled them, and then sent them to my Chain of Command. He's now attempting to use his position to intimidate/coerce me via my chain of command.

I've been in contact with legislators in the State Legislature and would appreciate it if you guys would as well. If we cannot rely on the courts, we're going to have to try and influence local law to reign in our wayward servants.

Apparently, a ton of people were calling Sheriff Shane Johnson and giving him and his officers an earful. He doesn't like the negative exposure. More to follow.

 

[PALO]

All,

I'm currently working on a video that will explain all of this and give a few more details. To update you guys, though, the Sheriff from Lincoln County, Shane Johnson, has been in contact with my command since the 10th Cir Appeals court loss. The guy tracked down EVERY single post/comment I've made since 2006 that could be used against me, compiled them, and then sent them to my Chain of Command. He's now attempting to use his position to intimidate/coerce me via my chain of command.

I've been in contact with legislators in the State Legislature and would appreciate it if you guys would as well. If we cannot rely on the courts, we're going to have to try and influence local law to reign in our wayward servants.

Apparently, a ton of people were calling Sheriff Shane Johnson and giving him and his officers an earful. He doesn't like the negative exposure. More to follow.

There is quite a history of forum posts being used against people in all sorts of settings - military members, LEO's, businessmen, etc. have found that stuff they say in jest, black humor, etc. can really backfire in the real world and cause them immense grief. I know that our background investigators do a lot of internet searches on our applicants and a lot of people get disqualified for stuff they say on the internet that makes them look imprudent, like a hothead, culturally insensitive etc etc.

To the general public ( I am sure you are aware of this to the OP) don't ever think for a second that what you post on the internet is "anonymous". If you are pretty savvy, you can make it very difficult to trace the origins of your posts but very few people use these practices in real life. I am talking about using anonymizer sites, etc. I've served a # of warrants on websites, hotmail etc. in regards to criminal activity, and it's pretty clear to me that perceived anonymity is just that - perceived. I make posts with the assumption that anything I say can get back to my chief if somebody got a hair up their okole.

 

[Logan 5]

Two problems I see here is first, you should have responded when the deputy asked about the gun. Politely say yes. That is a reasonable request from him for his safety, considering the circumstances. IIRC you're active duty or active/reserve USMC? Ok, that's the second problem. Tell him so. I think there is a law that says that active duty soldiers are allowed CC when off duty, but I may be incorrect about that. But now it's over.

Ok, hindsight is 20/20 and I really don't mean ti criticize you. Lessons learned, deal with it. Except for one not so small problem...you say he's now harassing you.

I think that you can take action against him for that. His case is over and he cannot legally pursue you unless there is an additional criminal investigation. Otherwise it could and should be interpreted as at the least harassment and possibly upto stalking. The latter being extreme, though very real.
Incoming PM.

 

[marinepilot81]

Eyes on the Ball

Two problems I see here is first, you should have responded when the deputy asked about the gun. Politely say yes. That is a reasonable request from him for his safety...QUOTE]

For what it's worth, Deputy Corey Bassett, Deputy Rob Andazola, Sheriff Shane Johnson, et al, all admitted I did NOTHING to threaten their safety during the stop. They maintained that I was not arrested for anything having to do with the firearm in order to deny 2A violations and maintain qualified immunity, too. Their entire case is based upon their demand for an answer and my refusal to give one. My refusal presented a "tense and argumentative" situation and justified my arrest, their threat of lethal force, and the 45 min delay.

You, and others, are focusing on the "firearm for his safety." Judge Skavdahl, in contrast, said I "inexplicably" did not answer the man's questions. It's not about the firearm, Logan, it's about control.

 

[Logan 5]

I know buddy. I know.

 

[Logan 5]

Some cops don't seem to understand that Rambo is just a fictional character.

 

[ATM]

Some cops don't seem to understand that Rambo is just a fictional character.

I think I remember that movie... was it the one with the small town Sheriff department that violated the rights of a distinguished veteran as he was just traveling through because they thought they had the power to just demand anything they pleased, statutes and Constitution be damned?

Yeah, that one was obviously pretty far fetched...

Sorry to hear that the courts are as negligent and hostile to the Liberty of our citizens as those officers were alongside the highway, marinepilot81. I think you did a fine job politely defending your rights against the lunacy that ensued.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Two problems I see here is first, you should have responded when the deputy asked about the gun. Politely say yes. That is a reasonable request from him for his safety, considering the circumstances. IIRC you're active duty or active/reserve USMC? Ok, that's the second problem. Tell him so. I think there is a law that says that active duty soldiers are allowed CC when off duty, but I may be incorrect about that. But now it's over.

Ok, hindsight is 20/20 and I really don't mean ti criticize you. Lessons learned, deal with it. Except for one not so small problem...you say he's now harassing you.

I think that you can take action against him for that. His case is over and he cannot legally pursue you unless there is an additional criminal investigation. Otherwise it could and should be interpreted as at the least harassment and possibly upto stalking. The latter being extreme, though very real.
Incoming PM.

Fail, I am under no obligation to answer any questions by intrusive costumed agents. They are to be constitutionally restrained my refusal is not supposed to be construed to mean anything.

 

[Logan 5]

I think I remember that movie... was it the one with the small town Sheriff department that violated the rights of a distinguished veteran as he was just traveling through because they thought they had the power to just demand anything they pleased, statutes and Constitution be damned?

Yeah, that one was obviously pretty far fetched...

I guess I worded it wrong. In Hollywood, aka "Rambo", it's was acceptable. Small town sheriff thinks it's ok to pull this crap, because he's now a junior god. In real life if a soldier with the qualifications that John Rambo allegedly had were to go through this...(1) he wouldn't be alone because some of his fellow soldiers would be there to back him up and (2) they'd hand the sheriff his ass on a paper plate with veggies and a muffin. Sometimes I get to think that's exactly what we need right now, to set the LEO community back in it's place.

Fail, I am under no obligation to answer any questions by intrusive costumed agents. They are to be constitutionally restrained my refusal is not supposed to be construed to mean anything.

Point made. You're right.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I guess I worded it wrong. In Hollywood, aka "Rambo", it's was acceptable. Small town sheriff thinks it's ok to pull this crap, because he's now a junior god. In real life if a soldier with the qualifications that John Rambo allegedly had were to go through this...(1) he wouldn't be alone because some of his fellow soldiers would be there to back him up and (2) they'd hand the sheriff his ass on a paper plate with veggies and a muffin. Sometimes I get to think that's exactly what we need right now, to set the LEO community back in it's place.

Reminds me of the real life event of the Battle of Athens.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

So, now the courts have OK'd suspicionless stops, arrests, and detentions...

So, the powers that be say 'don't resist an unlawful arrest, take it to court afterwards'..

Well, that clearly won't work.

Looks like the judge is forcing people to make a decision that will end up with people resisting unlawful arrests.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Might I remind EVERYONE, PALO included, that pat downs under terry are only allowed when a suspect is considered both armed AND dangerous.

In Florida VS JL, the USSC outright stated that just because someone is armed, does NOT make them dangerous. Such an assertion would mean that ANY person can be permanently disarmed in the vicinity of any LEO under the guise of 'officer safety', with no ability to have the weapon returned, something that clearly, under law, cannot be.

So, the 'armed' part is met, how is the 'dangerous' part met? Because he was 'confrontational and non-cooperative'?

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Not sure what your very very lengthy post has to do with the conclusions the OP provided as to what he contends are the consequences of the decision.

What I gather from this particular incident:
1. This was a traffic stop, cop is right you are wrong, right then and there. Later a court may say to that cop, nope, you blew it.
2. When asked the question "are you armed", say yes...or no, then keep your hands in plain view and move like molasses in January. (I knew this already)
3. Let the cop(s) do all the talking.
4. Provide proper documents as required, if required.
5. Keep the "conversation" to simple yes or no answers if possible.
6. Get permission to exit the encounter as quickly as possible, then do what is required to gain redress later.

Then get #%(&ed over by a corrupt system.