Utah Guns Forum banner

Court rules open carry now reason for detainment.

9K views 9 replies 8 participants last post by  MrReverse 
#1 ·
#3 ·
KramerD said:
I'm not a big fan of open carry for myself, but I will say this case is wrong. The judgment is wrong. Appeal it.
Nice to meet you, KramerD. As per the forum rules, please take some time to post an introductory thread letting us know about yourself.

Cheers!
 
#4 ·
This has the potential to be very beneficial. Of course the ruling could be upheld, but if overturned at the appeals court level as seems most likely, we gain a cite-able and widely binding ruling that affirms that such is not grounds for a terry stop or greater detainment. That RAS of actual criminal activity must exist, not simply a 911 call by a hoplophobe.
 
#5 ·
My legal-fu isn't the greatest. But shouldn't deberry VS U.S. already solve this?
U.S. v. DeBerry, 76 F.3d 884, 885 (7th Cir. 1996): This is not a supreme court case, but it essentially says that police are allowed to ask you any questions they want (just like any stranger on the street can ask you any questions they want), the police CAN'T, however, seize someone unless they have "a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that the person carrying the gun was violating the law.
 
#6 ·
BLKWJ said:
My legal-fu isn't the greatest. But shouldn't deberry VS U.S. already solve this?
DeBerry took place within the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision holds within the Seventh Circuit. Michigan, however, is in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision of the Seventh is not binding outside of it's boundaries. The Michigan District Court should consider the persuasive authority of the Seventh court decision but isn't required to comply with it as it would a binding precedent by the Sixth.
 
#8 ·
Car Knocker said:
BLKWJ said:
My legal-fu isn't the greatest. But shouldn't deberry VS U.S. already solve this?
DeBerry took place within the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision holds within the Seventh Circuit. Michigan, however, is in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision of the Seventh is not binding outside of it's boundaries. The Michigan District Court should consider the persuasive authority of the Seventh court decision but isn't required to comply with it as it would a binding precedent by the Sixth.
However, isn't it common for other courts to abide by decisions in other districts? I believe many rulings have been used as case setting precedents which even the Supreme Court has held up. I could be wrong, though regardless of jurisdiction, either could be struck down or upheld if their respective cases were to go to the Supreme Court.

Just my thoughts, I am no legal expert. (Though I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night :D )
 
#9 ·
Cinhil said:
However, isn't it common for other courts to abide by decisions in other districts? I believe many rulings have been used as case setting precedents which even the Supreme Court has held up. I could be wrong, though regardless of jurisdiction, either could be struck down or upheld if their respective cases were to go to the Supreme Court.

Just my thoughts, I am no legal expert. (Though I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night :D )
Sure, courts can cite a decision made by an appeals court in a different circuit as a persuasive authority in support of their decisions but they are not required to as they would a decision made by a superior court in their circuit. Likewise, appeals courts can cite the decision made by a different circuit to bolster its decision. But...just because the Tenth Circuit makes a particular decision doesn't mean it is automatically binding on other circuits. We saw this recently with differing decisions by different circuits regarding Obamacare federal subsidies - the D.C. Circuit ruled one way and the Fourth Circuit held the opposite (on the same day), thus setting up a conflict that went to the USSC.

And you're right, I think, in that the USSC quotes, when appropriate, appeals court logic to support their decisions...and dissents. Like you, I'm no legal expert but I do like to read decisions just to savor the logic, no matter how convoluted it may become. There are truly some seriously twisted minds within the judicial system.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top