Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

[DaveM55]

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...minal-activity

Federal judge holds that carrying a firearm concealed justifies detention and disarmament, as does carrying a firearm on MARTA.
Attorney for gun carrier opines that opinion may reach into Georgia's restaurants and state parks as well.

Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled today that carrying a firearm on MARTA justifies forcible detention by the police, in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed over the half hour long detention and disarmament of GeorgiaCarry.Org member Christopher Raissi.

Christopher Raissi holds a Georgia firearms license and frequently carries a handgun concealed. On October 14, 2008, he was carrying concealed on MARTA. He did not know that a MARTA police officer observing the parking lot had seen him holstering and concealing his firearm while still at his car. Therefore, he was surprised when he was surrounded by police officers who yelled "Police!" and ordered him to stop. The officers then seized his firearm from his holster and began questioning him, asking, according to the court's written opinion,

[W]hat are you doing with a gun?

After seeing Raissi's firearms license and driver's license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.

In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. He wrote in his opinion that "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."

After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking to toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.

As a result, Judge Thrash concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Raissi was committing two crimes. As a result, the officers were justified in using force to detain him, and the "officers were entitled to take Raissi's handgun because they knew Raissi had concealed it on his person and would have easy access to it while they questioned him." The officers were also entitled to ask him for his social security number and transport him to a locked area out of the public view.

Judge Thrash was reluctant to rule on the issue of carrying firearms openly, rather than concealed, on MARTA, because Raissi was carrying his handgun concealed. Instead, he held that such relief is inappropriate until a GeorgiaCarry.Org member sues for constitutional violations while carrying openly at some future date. Judge Thrash recognized that Georgia opinions in cases involving "the separate and distinct crime of carrying a pistol without a license" observe that "the statutory language requires absence of the firearms license as an element of the crime." This makes carrying a handgun openly different from carrying concealed, as the officers seeing an open handgun bear the burden of having a reasonable suspicion that the person carrying openly does not have a firearms license. Carrying openly on MARTA under this court's ruling, however, would still subject one to detention and disarmament, since boarding the MARTA system requires a license as an "affirmative defense," and not as an "element of the crime."

Judge Thrash held for trial Raissi's Privacy Act claim, based on the demand for Raissi's social security number. He refused to rule on the request that MARTA be enjoined from requesting social security numbers because MARTA stated that it no longer demands social security numbers of those who provide firearms licenses. "It seems very unlikely that members of GeorgiaCarry.Org would carry a Georgia firearms license but then refuse to provide it to MARTA police officers."

John Monroe, Christopher Raissi's attorney, expressed disappointment with the opinion and declared that if the opinion stands its effects will be felt far beyond MARTA:

The decision means everyone see carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to stop, arrest, and prosecution, even if they have a license. Anyone carrying a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a state park is fair game. The same goes for police officers. A police officer carrying a firearm in a restaurant, bar, or school is subject to arrest, including a citizen’s arrest, because being a law enforcement officer is an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime.

Mr. Monroe has not yet decided whether to appeal, but observed that such a decision would probably not be made until the entire case is over, including the trial on the Privacy Act claim.

[gnbrotz]

Very disturbing.

[cgbudde]

Is this judge for real.

Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. So then according to him, merely driving a car justifies detention and pocession of the vehicle until the police can determine the driver has a valid license and the vehicle is not stolen, or going to be used in a crime. This decision needs to be appealed.

[tlgpa]

[Evolution]

It is obvious that some judges shouldn't be on the chair...

[AxiTech]

Let me be the one who plays 'devil's advocate' this time. But first, let me be clear, I totally believe the judge to be wrong-headed here.

I don't know what Georgia's laws are on OC, but, the accused did allow someone to see his weapon. In some states, concealed means CONCEALED. Of course in Pa, we know that concealed is merely one end of a spectrum which runs from Concealed Carry to Open Carry. It might not be so in Georgia. If it isn't, then the accused brought it on himself.

Again, I don't know Georgia's laws, so I may be off-base here. Bottom line: I'm awfully glad I reside in PA!

[TimtheDestroy]

John Monroe, Christopher Raissi's attorney, expressed disappointment with the opinion and declared that if the opinion stands its effects will be felt far beyond MARTA:

The decision means everyone see carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to stop, arrest, and prosecution, even if they have a license. Anyone carrying a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a state park is fair game. The same goes for police officers. A police officer carrying a firearm in a restaurant, bar, or school is subject to arrest, including a citizen’s arrest, because being a law enforcement officer is an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime.

i'll be waiting to hear the next story from Georgia where a Georgiacarry.org member tries this. i'm not encouraging this but waiting to see when it happens.

[ChamberedRound]

See this article, which discussed how a 2008 law which allowed CCW holders to carry on mass transit systems caused crime rates to go down:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...ake-of-gun-law

If the law doesn't prohibit CCW on MARTA, then how does CCW constitute PC or RAS for a search, seizure, detainment, or arrrest?

[dc dalton]

Very disturbing.

My exact thoughts. How in any bizarro world can a person, legally licensed to carry concealed become the criminal, even after showing any required documents?

I really hope they take this one higher, this ruling is total horse shit.

[fingers80002]

My exact thoughts. How in any bizarro world can a person, legally licensed to carry concealed become the criminal, even after showing any required documents?

I really hope they take this one higher, this ruling is total horse shit.

remember, this if from GA, where you can walk through the gene pool, and your ankles will still be dry..........