St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
“…lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.”
US v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000)
“…it is not a crime to possess a firearm… even when standing in a crowd. Second, the anonymous tipster who approached the authorities had said nothing that would indicate that Ubiles possessed the gun unlawfully (e.g., without registration); that he was committing or about to commit a crime; or that he posed a threat to the officers or anyone in the crowd. Therefore, the stop and subsequent search were unjustified because the precondition for a Terry stop was not present in this case.”
“Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager… Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.” SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
“More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.” – Verbatim, US v Black
US v. Deberry – legal firearms cannot be used as reason for stopping a person.
Delaware v. Prouse – Cannot be detained without suspicion of criminal activity.
Terry v. Ohio – LEOs cannot legally seize a weapon without reasonable suspicion.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
“Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law”.
“One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnett, (1943).