U.S. District Judge: Open Carrying a Handgun is Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime

These kinds of cases always outrage me. There are countless videos on the internet of police encounters with people open carrying their weapon. Most of them don’t end well for the citizen, even though in the vast majority (if not all) of the encounters, the citizens themselves were never doing anything illegal. They were just carrying a gun in the open. That’s something police do all the time. But when a “civilian” does it, it constitutes probable cause for a crime.

That’s just how one U.S. District Judge ruled recently in a case originating in Sugar Hill, Georgia, not far from where I live and probably a mile or so from the recording studio where I work.

A security guard spotted a man walking around in a park with a handgun on his hip. Apparently, the man was wearing black boots, black socks and camouflage clothing. And also, there was a playground nearby. All this added up to just way too much “suspicious activity” for the guard to pass up. So, he called the county police and reported the “suspicious” man and asked for an officer to be called to the scene.

When police arrived, they tried questioning the man. Not having committed any crime, the man was not forthright about identifying himself or answering questions about why he was there and why he had a gun.

They arrested him for criminal trespass. They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest.

According to the court document:

[Officer] Bell detained Plaintiff [the man in the park] because he had observed that Plaintiff was carrying a sidearm or firearm on his “left hip,” and was concerned for the safety of the people in the Park and for his own safety. Bell needed to identify Plaintiff to see whether Plaintiff was authorized to carry a firearm. Bell also wanted to find out why Plaintiff was at the Park

When the man was being patted down, they found an additional fully loaded gun magazine in one of his pockets in addition to the one round in the chamber of the gun that he had on his hip. They ran the serial number on his firearm to see if it was a stolen gun. It wasn’t.

The only identification that the plaintiff Christopher Proescher produced when he was under arrest was his Georgia weapons permit. But that wasn’t good enough, since it didn’t have Proescher’s photograph.

So, what they had on this guy was that he was carrying a gun out in the open at a park, near a playground (gasp!). The gun wasn’t stolen, as they found out from their warrantless and unreasonable search. And he was licensed to carry (even though the 2nd Amendment should be sufficient). Who cares that he was not wearing “clothing normally worn by walkers who exercise in the park,” as the court documents state? They had nothing on this guy to have justified their detention and interrogation of him in the first place. They had no place to even stop him.

He was arrested and jailed and all that, but thankfully, they didn’t prosecute him. The charges against him were dropped, and that was that.

But, Proescher decided to try the impossible: sue them for false arrest. It’s basically impossible, because these are police we’re talking about. Unless there’s bodily harm or property damage, the police are essentially immune from the laws they enforce on everyone else. And even when there is bodily harm or property damage, it’s your word against theirs, and we all know that most judges aren’t going to believe the word of a “civilian” over against that of the inerrant police report.

Now, if there is audio/video evidence proving your case and that the police lied to cover themselves, that’s a different story. Rarely will they go to jail for violent crimes, but they might get suspended or fired.

Not surprisingly, the judge ruled on the side of the cops. They didn’t do anything wrong in this case, according to U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. They were just doing their jobs, and they had all the probable cause in the world to arrest the man. According to the ruling:

The totality of the circumstances here and the reasonable inferences from the

facts support the existence of a reasonable suspicion. Bell was advised by a police

dispatcher that a security guard had reported a suspicious person in the Park who was “carrying a gun out in the open” as he walked near a playground, who, when Bell arrived at the Park, did have a visible weapon, and who evaded Bell’s

questions and requests for identification bearing a photograph, provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain Plaintiff.

He never did anything illegal, but they still managed to use his Constitutionally-protected freedom to bear arms against him, as probable cause for believing Proescher had committed a crime. They even threw in a claim that because Proescher was evading their questions, his “mental stability” was called into question, which gave them more reason to be concerned for their safety. So, if you’re exercising your 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment liberties, they’ll think you’re “mentally ill.” And we all know what the powers that be think about gun ownership and “mental illness.”

If open-carrying is probable cause for believing a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, then maybe these officers should be detained, questioned and given a strip search. If they refuse, that must mean they’re hiding something. Or perhaps they’re mentally ill. They can’t just walk around with guns on their hips and not expect people to be suspicious of them, right?

There are news stories everyday of police hurting, maiming or killing people who turn out to be innocent. Why should we feel safe around an armed cop, but not around an armed civilian or our own self-defense weapon? This whole war on guns thing has nothing to do with public safety, but rather turning non-government people into defenseless slaves.







Comments

comments

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Email Featured, Gun Control, Police State Tagged with: , ,
  • uncle teddy

    what a stupid judge… if a person is open carrying you can bet he hasn’t committed any crime..it is thew ones who have to hide their weapons that might have some reason to be looked into.criminals don’t open carry….just how do these stupid judges get elected??? but when they are found out, they should be removed, post haste…

    • bryan76016

      It is not nice to call the mentally ill stupid.

      • Bob_Salem

        You are right, they are retards!

      • remajohn

        yeh stupid stop calling the mentally ill stupid you idiot! hahaha

    • Señor Cruz

      He was not wearing a hoodie, he was white. Nuf said.

      • Phaenius

        That’s right he was white…probably from Puerto Rico,or Cuba. eh Cruz?

    • asoro

      they lie just like the politicians….

      • Sam

        You forgot the cops. I’ve had a case where the two cops lied right in court and covered each others butt. Need witnesses at all times…..

        • asoro

          true very true, But we always don’t have them. in court they are going to win, the judge is going to lean to them almost every time.

    • ScreaminEagle

      Judges who give rulings like this is reasonable suspicion of treason.

      • gorrie

        Not Reasonable suspicion, but finite, guilty of not supporting the U.S. Constitution, that is treason?? Try this judge and if convicted>>>>

        • Sam

          And to think he passed the bar at one point in time. Maybe he’s been to too many of the other BARS to see clearly NOW!

    • remajohn

      usually appointed

  • disqus_1cfcom3TDh

    Unfortunately, this is the type of confrontation that gives us legal gun owners, who are licensed to carry, either concealed or not in certain places, a bad name. The open carry in my opinion was not the cause for the arrest. The probable attitude problem and an unwillingness to be forthright was. People, be reasonable. If you own and carry a weapon you are supposed to be reasonable. When asked what he was doing he should have answered. Period. He brought the problem on himself. And, in the end he made it harder for others to deal with.

    • darlingrats

      Yes, you are exactly right

      • Phil McMorrow

        I disagree. Just like I don’t owe a word to
        Border Patrol when far removed from the Border. I guaranty you that if people keep acting like spineelss sheep instead of agressively defending their rights as citizens, the turmoil will only get worse. I suggest that all of the police defenders and Judge sympathizers go to Youtube and watch some of the crap pulled by the Montgomery
        County cops back in the days of the civil rights protests and Martin Luther King, a truly great American. He knew that if you gave the idiots an inch, they would take a mile.

    • gene

      I’m with you. He pushed the envelope too far. They were doing their job of avoiding a safety issue. Yes, be reasonable. Cooperate. Then scream if they act with abuse.

    • oleinwi

      He was reasonable, everything he did was within his Constitutional rights. You folks better brush up on the rights you are entitled to, or have them taken from you.

      • Bob_Salem

        The only problem here is with the lowlife janitor with nothing better to do with his day. While I am not trying to defend the storm troopers, after they get the call they must investigate.

      • axmickl

        Could this whole thing have been avoided if the citizen had simply answered the reasonable questions? There is nothing wrong with a cop checking to see if you are a sane person who is simply exercising his 2nd amendment rights. What is wrong is that the police believe they are obligated to harass anybody who is the subject of a phone call from anybody questioning someone’s status. The article didn’t say if the police approached the man with an aggressive attitude but I would be tempted to bet they did. That is probably what turned the citizen off and created the whole fiasco. God protect us from bullies in uniform before we have to start doing it ourselves.

      • asoro

        true, but when your carrying an handgun you are at the mercy of the cop’s like it or not. they can turn the whole thing on it head and make you look like the bad guy, Hell they could kill you and they would get away with it. Not saying it’s right but thats the way it is, especially with this clown in the WH and his goons, Oh and by the way we are already having our rights taken away little by little, most people don’t even notice it when it’s done very slow. And some hell they don’t even care. SAD,, But we are going to lose them if people don’t wake up, or start to care about there country. I can’t stand it when people take it all for granted the freedoms that come with being American.
        When they lose them than they will say Hey wtf just happened.

      • HOFFHACK

        With rights comes responsibility! Did he have to be nice to the Cops? No. But is sounds to me like he wasn’t even civil! I will say it again, there is not a single one of us, who if we had a kid playing in that park would not have gone over to see what was going on!

    • George Winslow

      Another one that doesn’t stand up and exercise your God given rights. You deserve all the tyranny you will get. If you don’t exercise your rights, you don’t have any!

    • Don Talenti

      Again here’s the attitude that if the police stop you, you OWE them something. WAKE UP!!! They are your servants and employees, and not your masters, and you are not beholden to them. You do not owe them the time of day. If they have questions, let them get answers legally. Has everyone in this nation forgotten the Constitution, and the reasons for the Revolution? Have we forgotten who we are in such a short time? HE did not bring this on himself. The POLICE brought it to him, instigated and escalated. Because they were pissed that he knew his rights, and did not show them the proper deference. Gestapo thinking. Your papers and grovel, or else.

      • Phil McMorrow

        Totally well stated and to the point.

    • Not_in_Denial

      What’s the limit of reasonable? You or I have no idea of what transpired. What amazes me is this occurred in Georgia, not Illinois or Michigan. The fact remains that if open carry is declared legal in that jurisdiction then what law did he violate? The unwillingness to be rousted for his ‘papers’. Did he cop an attitude, I don’t know, but the statement that having a handgun openly carried is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, no no no, that’s pure BS. You know, if he had been carrying concealed no one would ever know would they? The problem in far far too many cases is the attitude of law enforcement and if you disagree I’d suspect that you are seriously in denial.

    • Sammie15

      It’s common sense. With all the incidents with shootings, why would you put yourself in the situation to bring on that kind of attention. Granted he was legally able to open carry, but why not give up your identification to clarify your licensed to do so. I agree, instead of giving the officers a reason to mistrust you, be reasonable and then see what they do. Don’t give them the ammunition to do otherwise.

      • Phil McMorrow

        Why did Doctor King and others inisit on riding the Bus but refusing to sit in the “Negr” section? Becuase they were right and the State was very, very wrong. Governor Wallace acted like Adolph Eikman fo crying out loud. A huge number of innocent Americans were grossly mistreated for the cause of Civil Rights. Black Men have been getting screwed bcy “authorities” since before the Boston Massacre. Chek it out. Crispus Atticus was mortally wounded by the British, and that was just the start. Plenty of Blacks died for their country during WW2 and Korea/Vietnam. They earned the right to be treated with honor.

        • Sammie15

          I’m not going to just give up information to a police officer if approached for no reason. I don’t think people should sit by and not stand up for themselves. Apparently there is an assumption from my posts that I would do otherwise. I know the history of Dr King, and how they were treated by Governor Wallace, because they stood up for their rights. Really, a lot of people died for this country and they weren’t all black. Black soldiers did not get the recognition they deserved for years. Should they be treated with honor absolutely.

    • dsnevin

      Given the unconstitutional and inappropriate action of the police, you are correct in alluding to his lack of cooperation as the cause of the issue. However, it was the deplorable and inexcusable action of the police that requires criticisim. It is the errant attitude of law enforcement that should be brought into alignment with the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

      Specifically, owning a weapon, legally, is not reason for the owner to exercise an extra measure of reasonable action; rather, it should always be incumbent upon law enforcement to respect fully the rights of law-abiding Americans.

      Christopher Proescher was correct and within his rights — the police were wrong; and Proescher is to be commended for standing for his Constitutional rights. Perhaps more of the same would alter un-Constitutional actions of law enforcement.

    • Suffolk Property Inspector

      Gotta agree I live in a concealed carry state and I have to offer the fact thatI am armed when stopped by the local PD. Still common sense would dictate that one should be compliant with the local PD as to not get ones balls broken.

    • Phaenius

      He should have said, “Thank you, thank you, for being around because I know that this gun I am not brandishing, but holstered securely against my body, like my Savior admonished his disciple to put his weapon in its PLACE, might help me against several bad folk for several minutes were they even thinking of assaulting me, but with you folk coming as my backup I might survive the odds, for the Bible says two are better than one, for if one is assaulted two might prevail and a threefold cord is not easily broken.Now I know why I pray for you, because the common complaint around here is where is a cop when you need one, and you being here shows you are doing well to be our backup, by the way my name is ________, and you are detective…?

  • USN

    this is a double edged sword……with the nuts around that seem to kill innocents in camouflage and black boots…..I can see why the cops were called……2nd amendment or not. When the cops asked for ID………..the guy should of had some to produce……..and not try to evade the questions (ass hole). Had he not been wearing a side arm and been stopped………would you have been so insulted………. Perhaps he did this intentional to produce an incident to make the cops appear to be the aggressors and and the judge to make his statements. I carry all the time and never leave the house with out the proper identification……….This incident was staged as far as I’m concerned to produce a confrontation hence make all gun owners look like the problem……….once again. Common sense is lacking on the both parties……….you and the gun owner!!!

    • Nancy

      Thanks for putting a different spin on this story. I like reading the comments for insight such as this. You made a heck of a lot of sense and now I think this was a staged incident too in order to paint all gun owners as mentally ill or dangerous.

    • EDWARD

      No state, federal or local law requires ANYONE TO CARRY IDENTIFICLATION….DUMBASS

      • gw111

        And by not doing so he got taken in or arrested. You need to examine the unintended results of incident. Not to repeat the idea that this individual appeared to be setting up the police in a no win situation, how would the police know this man wasn’t crazy, mentally ill, if his identity can’t be called into question. How would we know if a person was illegal or not if we don’t require people to identify themselves. I am learning all I can about gun carry and why it is good so please don’t reply if you feel the need to call me names. Just explain where I am wrong.

        • bill

          So you suggest to presume him guilty until proven innocent? GOD help this country!

        • gw111

          What ever the cop thought of his innocents or guilt is not of the question. An id card with picture would have made it clear to the cop, Oh he a citizen that carries a gun legally. At that point any abuse from the cop like arresting him or even interrogating him is clear evidence that a citizen was being harassed. It shouldn’t be harassment to be asked to make it clear who you are. I hear all the time that we should expect illegals to provide identification, how would we know the difference if an individual is illegal or not. If we knew for certain that all gun owners were legal and mentally stable then there would be no reasonable reason to ask for id. The trouble is we do need some way to verify. If not then we are asking for every illegal to carry because he then would not be expected to have id.

        • apf2

          The officer did not have probable cause that a crime was being committed and therefor has no legal right to question ID. You seem to take the judges flawed argument as valid in any and all cases, apriori. As Americans, we are supposed to be left alone as long as we are not obviously committing a crime. It is called “probable” cause NOT “possible” cause!!!!

        • Paul Smith

          An ID card with photo was none of his business unless he had probable cause for a crime in progress. NONE! Absolutely no verification is necessary – we do NOT do ‘papers please’ in this country!

        • MarMac2768

          Bill, no trial is going on! It is simply an INVESTIGATION!! Why can’t people understand that there is nothing wrong with a police officer asking questions. He should get reasonable answers. For a person to evade, he is not acting as a reasonable person would. He is acting like a criminal would! It’s that simple.

        • JimMT

          One reasonable answer, if I am doing nothing wrong, is “my name is none of your business”.

        • MarMac2768

          James, so you are saying that we are the final authority of what is right or wrong? Suppose I think that you cheated me out of a sum of money? Do I have the right to go and break into your home to recoup my money? I might think that I am not doing anything wrong, but you might. Suppose I walk into a movie theatre with a loaded semi-auto pistol. Should people be suspicious of me? OR, do I have to kill 10 people before a police officer should ask me “why” I bring something like that into a public place?
          Also, what is so offensive for ANYONE to ask a person’s name? I don’t get that!

        • bill

          MM… that has to be the most illogical argument presented on here! Congrats for displaying mindless dribble!

        • bill

          MM.. were I to approach you, would you surrender your name to me?

        • MarMac2768

          Bill, my name is Martin David McCoy and I live in Mobile, Alabama!! Does that satisfy your curiosity?

        • apf2

          The offense comes not from asking the question, rather from the response of arresting a person merely for being willing to answer.

        • JimMT

          As others said before I could. The offense is in “requiring” me or anyone to respond to any dumb or smart question posed by ANYONE – especially government-appointed “authority figures”. It was not too long ago that the VERY SAME people who have made all this tyrannical, despotic “requirements” of us were the VERY people who were sitting on the ground yelling and screaming about “fascism”. Learn some history people! I do not have to answer any more of your questions, any more than you have to agree with me. Just live your own lives. If you want, however, to be tyrannized by “government”, why don’t you move to some other country!??

        • JimMT

          And I would have every “legal” AND lawful right to shoot you dead for breaking into my house. Exigent circumstances do NOT allow YOU to “do wrong” because I might have. You have set up a string of leftist “straw men” to attack. Why don’t you stick to the point? Or, are you PAID to make waves and distract all of us? Oh, that’s right, you are immune from having to ID YOURSELF, but you think everyone else should, when pressed by the “lawful authorities” (THE PEOPLE)… Go ahead. Ask my name. But, you have no “power to arrest” if I tell you to go to hell. NEITHER does a so-called “peace officer”. Absent “suspicion” of a crime AND a warrant, I am not to be touched in public by ANY government agent. Neither are you. Unless you like being fondled….

        • MarMac2768

          Yeah, and if you shoot me, you will be arrested for murder. According to your logic, I was RIGHT in what I did by coming to you to collect my money that you stole. As for “power to arrest”, you must not watch Andy Griffith where Gomer arrests Barney for making an illegal U turn. “CITIZENS ARREST, CITIZENS ARREST!!”

        • JimMT

          No stupid. YOUR own hypothetical was that you could “break into my house” to retrieve it. That in itself, in most states, is a felony. AND, I would have NO way of knowing that was what your were after, and I’d be “in fear for my life” and within my rights to shoot you. You lose the argument based on your own sloppy hypothesis.

        • bill

          Jim.. you are debating with a low-information voter… If not a T R O L L… The definition of insanity is ” Debating with libertards and expecting rational responses:”.. .or something like that!

        • JimMT

          Ooops. Yeah. I’m a sucker for HOPING to CHANGE the unchangeably hopeless. Thanks for the reminder! I must be insane to be pursuing it any further. I swear I will stop now!

        • JimMT

          Go ahead. Ask me my name. You will not get a response. What are YOU going to do about it? Call a cop!? How’d you like it if I asked your name and had YOU arrested for not answering ME? Cops have NO special privileges or super-rights over mine, or yours.

        • JimMT

          You can ask my name until you are blue in the face. Even if you are a “cop”. I do not have a duty to respond, especially if you are just “another civilian”.

        • JimMT

          Short answer to your first question. Yes. Where is it written that you need a permit or an ID to decide what is right or wrong? Are you that bereft of moral fiber??

        • ARMYOF69

          The problem I have seen, is that the polce look at all of us as criminals FIRST, a really bad attitude, ..till they find out that we are NOT.

        • The man with no name

          And there it is.

        • Paul Smith

          Police have the right to see us as potential threats and to stay alert for trouble but barring any action from us, they have no right to TREAT us as such.

        • ARMYOF69

          I have the right to see teh cops as threats , since they CARRY a gun, a badge and uniform, and I do not, I just pay for all that. .

        • John

          Because my business is not yours, or the government’s, or the policeman’s. If I am not committing a crime, leave me the hell alone.

        • Paul Smith

          Why was he asking questions in the first place? Was there any indication that a crime was in progress? Was there any suspicion that there would be? No to both questions. The cops should never have approached the citizen – period.

        • Phil McMorrow

          I don;t presume him guilty of anything. There is no duty to obey an invalid “Order.”

        • JimMT

          Thumbs down for the first part. Can’t give up, since your first statement belied your logic.

        • JimMT

          Who cares what the “police thought”? They have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. So, why were they there?

        • Whitebird

          If you have your weapon with you, for heaven’s (and yours) sake man, carry your permit. It takes up very little room.

        • Paul Smith

          No doubt he was carrying it but no permit is needed to open carry (only concealed) so he had no need to show it.

        • Whitebird

          True, but there are a lot of uninformed jokers out there just looking for trouble, including cops. Cover it up with your tee shirt. Less trouble.

      • Sammie15

        If your not required to carry identification, than why do you need it? Sorry, I carry and have my CPL. My CPL is with me at all times, just like my drivers license, even if I may not happen to have my firearm with me. If I don’t have a cpl, I could have a firearm with me but not loaded. The magazine would have to be separated from the firearm.

        • drdon

          These are the rules for your state, presumably.

        • Sammie15

          That is correct. To carry a concealed firearm, a license is required and a certification of passing a training class. Prior to that I could transport a gun by separating the magazine and ammo from the gun. Apparently the idea of having to show a CPL license is upsetting to some.

        • JimMT

          Uh…. his was openly carried, not concealed. So, what’s your point again?

        • Sammie15

          Right he was open carry and had the right to do so. I was clarifying what the Michigan requirement is. IT was response to someone else.

        • veryconcerned12

          Who said you are required to carry identification? No such authority for them to require it exist. In fact, a “Birth Certificate” and “Social Security” record or number CANNOT be used or accepted as IDENTITY! Therefore, how can one possibly present two unidentifying documents, and obtain something like a drivers license, and magically create identity from that when using non-identifying documents to obtain a new document with? There is no such thing as identification ID’s. A drivers license is merely a license to drive commercially and nothing more. They are NOT identification, although they commonly misuse those licenses for personal identification.

          Only YOU standing there in the flesh can identify you. Not some stupid piece of paper. You can’t be two different things standing there. You are you and a piece of paper is just a piece of paper, not you.

        • John

          Sadly, the SSN is being used as ID, and it is a problem.

        • veryconcerned12

          Stop providing the SSN. Federal Law PROHIBITS IT!

        • John

          I’d love to know the exact statute. I won’t even get a fishing license anymore because they make you give your SSN to get one. How do I know what the kid in the store is doing with it, or if someone else gets access to it? So, in the name of catching “deadbeat dads” I don’t take my own son fishing because of this nonsense.

        • veryconcerned12

          Statutes do not apply to living beings. They apply to fictitious entities.

          Your license to fish is in Genesis cited in the Bible.

          Are you living man or are you a fictitious entity?

          26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

          Is it not well established God has already given YOU as a living Man dominion over everything? You do not need a fishing license, fictions need a license.

          When you use a license for anything and present that license AS IF that is YOU, then YOU are claiming YOU are a fiction owned by the STATE!

        • Gus Mueller

          The Bible? Son, that’s a Jew book that’s plum full of fictitious entities! Starting with that God feller.

        • veryconcerned12

          Regardless of your belief, what matters is what the members of the foreign corporation and their foreign courts believe.

          Here is what their foreign corporate court says:

          Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

          “[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects …… and have none to govern but themselves;”

          904 F. 2d 1208 –
          Henne v. F Wright S

          ARNOLD, Circuit
          Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

          The Founders of this Nation deeply believed that the individual took primacy over government. People existed, and had rights, before there was such a thing as government. Government might protect or recognize rights, but rights, some of them anyway, existed before government and independently of it, and would continue to exist after government had been destroyed. The source of rights was not the State, but, as the Declaration of Independence put it, the “Creator.”

          Robin v. Hardaway 1772

          “No all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7 Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.”

          Then in 1982 the members of the foreign corporation known as the CONgress provided the source of God’s Law when they declared the BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!

          PUBLIC LAW 97-280-OCT. 4, 1982, 96 STAT. 1211

          97th Congress

          Joint Resolution

          Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible” .

          Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

          On February 3rd, 1983, President Ronald Regan signed Proclamation 5018 – Year of the Bible.

          Regardless of what your belief is, the words in that BIBLE voids every man made law that is contrary to the laws stated in that book that gives Man dominion over the earth and everything on the earth.

          The ONLY thing Man’s law applies to that is not contrary to God’s Law is only that is what is FICTION!

        • Gus Mueller

          Wrong, you suck, and here’s why: Federal law prohibits the Federal gummint from requesting a SSN FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. That’s as far as it goes.

        • veryconcerned12

          Wrong you are

        • JimMT

          One does NOT need an ID to open carry, write, carry a pen, speak, pray, or any other unalienable right. Why the hell do you think CCW is “de facto registration” in many of our minds? This CCW and other “registration” crap is what is wrong, and those who “meekly comply” are part of the problem, not the solution. Grow up.

        • Sammie15

          Thank you for your input, however I am grown up. When you purchase a firearm and they run your background check, you don’t think there keeping all that information? Are you really that naïve you don’t think the government is keeping track? It may not be an all out registry but there keeping track. So tell me when you purchase a firearm you don’t give anyone any information is that it? Tell me how you purchase a firearm and give your local authority copies of your purchase and think it isn’t being tracked?

        • JimMT

          Huh? I don’t care WHO knows my name and address or – if I purchased a gun, what agency knows it – NO ONE has a right [or the "authority"] under the US Constitution (ninth amendment) to stop me for “bearing arms” or pens or any other protected instrument of my rights. If YOU think so, perhaps you should move to Cuba.

        • Gus Mueller

          Actually there’s no constitutional reason pens couldn’t be made illegal. YOu are kind of a one-note dumbass.

        • Phil McMorrow

          Wuss. If any cop asked me for my ID in a situation in which I was not operating a Motor Vehicle, I would hope I had the stones to tell the cop to f**ck off.

        • Sammie15

          Trust me, I’m not a wuss!.

        • Phil McMorrow

          I believe you. Please forgive me for labeling you as such.

        • Sammie15

          Not a problem, I’ve been called worse!. I appreciate the apology.

        • Whitebird

          Then what good does an empty gun serve? You might as well carry a picture of a gun.

        • Sammie15

          That is why I got a concealed carry permit. That is a requirement in Michigan to carry a concealed firearm. Just to clarify something, if a policeman approached me for no reason and started to question me for no reason, I’m not just going to give information without knowing his cause for the questioning.

      • asoro

        If you are carrying a handgun you better have ID, or you will be in the police station. Now you want to vote or vote more than once! nope no ID needed.

        • JimMT

          Not to be disagreeable, but there is nothing in the Second Amendment (or any for that matter) that says I need an ID to exercise my unalienable, constitutionally-secured rights. Anyone who thinks so is already a serf, and deserves to be treated like an animal lower than the stupidest slave in 1770.

        • asoro

          i know this but your not getting it, all that does not matter today, hell it never did. who ever said they followed the rules to the letter. I just saying how you can keep your self from being hassled, And they will do that to you, WHY because they can get away with it, and the judges will support them more than you. Ok you want to talk about where it says this or that in the 2nd, why can’t I carry a gun in New York city, Ch, or a few other places? DC you have to have your gun disassemble in a safe, where does it say that in the 2nd? It’s not about whats the Law anymore it’s what they can push on us, as long as the politicians let them do it they will. And it’s going to get worse, much worse. Obama is behind closed doors every day looking at ways to disarm us, he can’t have a public with gun’s and be a hitler type at the same time. look at your history. they all disarm there people, than they control you 100% we are getting closer and closer to that every day. Because the American people don’t have it in there gut to stand up to this crap, thats the one thing the founding fathers did not think about. they could only go on the way they where in those days when they gave these rights to us. Plus half the people in this country don’t even care, they are not true Americans they dont care about the country’s history.

        • Paul Smith

          Isn’t that exactly the problem with this country today, that we have allowed them to break the laws practically at will? Is it not time to stand up and say enough?

        • asoro

          yes it is Paul, But this country unlike some others need’s a person or persons to come forward and take charge to lead the people or they just sit and talk about it. And the bad part about it, is they know it.

        • cpovet

          You are correct. I live in SC. and have a CWP, I have had 2 encounters with the law. SC LAW states you must inform LEO immediately if you are carrying. I did, and our CWP has our pic on it. So, no hasseles no problems. Heck they didn’t even want to know, in both cases, where my weapon was.

        • Paul Smith

          Both laws (carry permit and requirement to declare it to a LEO) are unconstitutional). In my opinion, you handled both situations badly.

        • Gus Mueller

          That’s a stupid law.

        • Paul Smith

          And I suppose you support the tyranny?

        • JimMT

          You missed asoro’s point. Voting by ILLEGAL aliens, as invaders of USA, seems to be OK to some and no ID needed. Just pull the lever after the leftist shows you which one to pull of course. But, in 1990, SCOTUS ruled that a “resident alien” IS entitled to possess a firearm [stretching arguments about equal protection of the laws], barring any infraction that might interfere with that right, IF committed in the USA [it is somewhere inside the rulings of equal protection statements in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)] found at:

          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259

          So, if “resident aliens” have the same protections under “the jurisdiction of the US Constitution” (Federal gov’t) to be allowed to uninfringed exercise “rights” supposedly (and errorneously assumed) “only” provided to citizens of the USA, then why would we not expect the same treatment for ourselves who ARE citizens?

        • Paul Smith

          Only citizens have the right to vote under the Constitution so proof of citizenship to vote is a no-brainer. Carrying a weapon, however, is a right guaranteed to all by the 2nd Amendment and the illegal alien should be treated no differently.

        • JimMT

          Could you re-phrase that? I think you mistake LAWFULLY here “resident aliens” with the “illegal” sort. Law breakers lose rights, especially if not theirs to begin with. UNLAWFULLY here “aliens” have no Constitutionally protected rights, except to be shipped back to where they came. Otherwise, the LEFT would have screamed bloody murder at the Reno DOJ arrest, harassment of his kin in Florida, and deportation of Elian Gonzales back to Cuba in the 1990’s…

        • asoro

          lol you miss understand, I know the way they do thinks with carrying, I have been an Instructor for 10 yr’s I just know what goes on. And the way for you to satay out of trouble, even though you didn’t do anything wrong. It’s just a fact like it or not.

        • Paul Smith

          He wasn’t looking to stay out of trouble; he was out exercising his Constitutional rights and expecting to get exactly what happened. The only ‘unexpected’ thing to happen was the judge went off the reservation which, I’m sure, is quite OK with this guy since his clear purpose is to fix this kind of problem.

        • Paul Smith

          Is it illegal to carry a firearm on your hip? If not then there is no probable cause for the officer to ask for identification in the first place. No doubt he had his ID with him but the officer had no right to ask for it.

        • asoro

          all depends on where you are, State, City, County so on. Some you can and some you can’t. Now it’s suppose to be ok no mater where, but if they can get away with saying no… mostly a liberal state and city you wont be able to, Remember the 2nd is the law but they make there own laws as they wish, thats why some states are different than others. try to carry in Chicago, New York city, Wash, DC they jump all over you like you just robbed a bank. over the yr’s the Gov has little by little garbed and garbed power more and more right under our noses, what do you think is going on right now.
          Last night the new elect Mayor of NYC is one of the most far left lib’s there is. How the hell does he win? whats wrong with these people.

      • axmickl

        Maybe not but common sense does.

      • veryconcerned12

        Correct! By WHAT AUTHORITY are they using any Name and photograph for the purpose of personal identity? No such legislation exist and without specific legislation giving them authority to do a thing, they have no authority to do it.

      • grunt6970

        Hey guy, I am a certified NRA CCW Instructor in the state of Nevada, and we do have a STATE law (NRS 202.3667) Nevada Revised Statute, that does REQUIRE a permittee to carry PROPER IDENTIFICATION when ever they possess a concealed firearm. The fact that he was open carrying the firearm, does not preclude him from carrying proper ID while carrying the weapon in public.The permit and I.D must be presented if requested by a peace officer. This guy was wrong in resisting the LEO’s requests. I do not know the law where this incident occurred, but in our state, you must carry and present proper ID if requested by a LEO. So, sorry to say, you may actually be the dumb ass in this matter because there are states who DO require it.

        • bill

          So do some research on Georgia laws before putting your 2cts. in hey?

        • grunt6970

          I do not have to do any research on the subject Brainiac, because Edward said that NO State ,Federal, or Local law requires anyone to carry I.D. Now ,they may not require you to carry I.D., however, in the case of carrying a weapon either concealed or open, there are states such as this one who do require a person carrying a weapon to have in their possession a legally issued I.D. which is shown to a law enforcement officer upon request. If you say no a LEO request to produce ID while carrying a weapon in this state, you are in violation of STATE law and will be arrested. Personally, I don’t care what the laws are in Georgia because I don’t live there, nor do I offer CCW classes there. If you are able to comprehend what Edward said, HE said NO State ,Federal, or Local law requires you to carry I.D. Now that may be true if you are not carrying a firearm, however, in my state, you MUST carry Legally issued I.D. while carrying a firearm, and that is the subject of this issue, not whether or not you are caused to carry I.D. under force of law while not carrying a firearm.
          If the state of Georgia does not require a person to carry legal I.D. while carrying a concealed weapon, that’s up to them, however, I don’t think they allow unidentified persons to roam around with no ID while in possession of a concealed weapon. It would seem to be ludicrous to do so and I don’t think any jurisdiction would be that lose with their firearm laws. Maybe You should check out what it is you are defending before you run your pie hole at me. I will check the concealed carry law in your state and I suggest that you do the same. Remember, I said Concealed Carry Weapons Law in your state.

        • Paul Smith

          NO, your stupid law is wrong and needs to be challenged. Permitting infringes on 2nd Amendment rights (for everybody but especially for the poor). Requesting/demanding ID without probable cause infringes 4th Amendment rights. Both of those rights supercede Nevada law.

        • Gus Mueller

          You went from concealed to open carry in a single statement so you must be a suck instructor.

          At the very beginning of my NRA Basic Pistol course the instructor fanned the entire class with the muzzle of a revolver, so suck NRA instructors do exist.

        • grunt6970

          You sound like some stinkin liberal who just got on here to run his pie hole. If you were so concerned, why would you continue with the class? If that did happen and I seriously doubt that it did, I am sure that the instructor cleared the weapon, cylinder open and weapon empty, and verified by a class member as I do prior to moving the weapon around. I do not cover students and I’m sure he did not either. You are the one sucks in that you did not say something at the time because safety is every ones responsibility in class and at the range..I’m sure he told you that during his class and if you said nothing, you are at fault in that regard.You sound like the kind that only runs his pie hole when a politician runs whom he doesn’t like, and then comes up with accusations from years past. Crawl back under your rock liberal and stay out of things you know nothing about. Oh and by the way, I discussed Edwards statement that with the Georgia state police as to whether he needs to carry ID and his permit with him when carrying a concealed weapon and they said yes and that he must present legal ID when ever an piece officer requests him to, not just when carrying a concealed weapon. I contacted them late last night and they asked me to call their legal department in the morning which I will do for the number and wording of that law. They must have a reason to stop and discuss an issue with someone and can ask for legal ID at that time like any other jurisdiction in this country. It would be ludicrous of anyone to think that law enforcement can not ask for ID to verify who they might have in their presence . If their is a concealed weapon found, it is most likely that they will also ask for the concealed weapon permit for it as well. If you chose not to co-operate with them, you do so at your peril. If you think they are violating your civil rights by asking you to ID yourself, then by all means, challenge them in court. We’ll see how that works out for you.
          The fact that I brought up both concealed and open carry in one sentence would show a reasonable person that the ID requests from a law enforcement officer would apply at all times when carrying a weapon. You appear to be an unreasonable person and stupid to boot. Have a nice day GUS !!

      • Bob Duffey

        Actually, Ohio State Revised Code DOES require that a person carry I.D. I spent 8 years in law enforcement and it most definitely is a law here. That being said, in Ohio, we are required to provide our CCW permit, which does have a picture, if we’re contacted by police for any legal action. Simply doing that would have kept him out of jail. Even though it is legal to carry, a police officer is required to respond to a citizen complaint, which means they had the right to be there and had the right to I.D. the man. Had he cooperated and answered a couple basic questions, the officers (more than likely) would have let him go with nothing further. I do agree that in 8 years as a cop, I’ve NEVER seen a criminal carrying a gun out in the open. They do everything in their power to hide it.

        • JimMT

          Ohio, or any other state, “code” is not the US Constitution, nor is it valid to require me to ID myself when I am “going about my own business” – whether I’m in camo with a gun on my hip, or swim trunks. The police power of the state ends where my skin begins.

        • RetiredTpr

          With an attitude such as your, it makes it harder and harder each day for the rest of us. I was in law enforcement for over 20 years and everyone that I came in contact with, who was armed, legally, told me that they were armed and held a license. The idiots who had unregistered guns under the seat or between the seats were the ones that I was concerned about. If you are a smart***, I always gave “special” treatment, which was richly deserved!

        • JimMT

          Then you are the a**hole. In my state, it is lawful to carry concealed outside city limits WITHOUT a permit. This is due to the leftists wanting plant wolves and grizzlies all over the landscape, as well as the distances one might need to travel to avail themselves of YOUR gracious services. WE are responsible for OURSELVES here. Perhaps you should move to a city in PA or NY or NJ – oh, I know, California – and let your brothers in tan protect you from the rest of the world. Oh, and WE protect and defend our Sheriffs here, and offer to be deputized if needed against the Federales, unlike what is happening in that “conservative” enclave, Arizona……

        • John

          Justify the moron in California cop who pulled a gun on me for not paying a breakfast tab at a Denny’s. I’ve told the story here a few times. Oh. And he had the wrong guy because I paid my bill. It was guy behind me.

          Sorry to say, but I am getting to the point where I don’t trust police anymore.

        • Gus Mueller

          It gets even worse once your balls drop.

        • John

          Not sure what you mean by that, but I will say that there are enough cops out there who pull enough stunts to create animosity without anyone else’s help.

        • apf2

          Sorry, you sound like an “asshole” cop to me. You seem to think you get to be the judge on who gets “special” treatment–that is a very strong indication that you were part of the problem. Cops should enforce the law, not make it.

        • bill

          RetardedTpr.. .I am proud of my dad and his 32 years as a LEO. He’d be, and was, ashamed of fellow LEO’s that offered up “special treatment” to others. It’s LEO’s like you that contribute to the distrust of our law enforcement community.

        • Paul Smith

          Special treatment is NEVER deserved and you just outed yourself as a rogue cop.

        • Gus Mueller

          “I was in law enforcement for over 20 years and everyone that I came in contact with, who was armed, legally, told me that they were armed and held a license. ”

          How stupid do you have to be to believe that?

        • Bob Duffey

          JimMT, just FYI, the Constitution does leave powers not given specifically to the federal government to the states. The states CAN enact laws that require people to I.D. themselves to an officer when said officer is responding to a complaint. If that complaint is about someone carrying a gun, then citizens do have an obligation to answer questions as to I.D. and so on. The 5th Amendment says you have the right against self-incrimination, but it doesn’t give you the right to not I.D. yourself. In almost every state, that constitutes obstruction of official business. That being said, an officer driving along, seeing a person open carrying a handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc. doesn’t give them the right to approach you to make sure you’re okay to possess that firearm. Your attitude toward that is what is going to cause issues with cops. I know there are bad cops out there, but the majority of the officers I personally know are actually on our side and agree with the CCW laws and open carry laws. The other advantage to cooperating is after the officer verifies that you’re not committing any crimes, it gives the officer a chance to explain to the complaintent about the legality of open carry, which reduces future complaints.

        • JimMT

          And those laws were overturned by SCOTUS way back in the 60’s.

        • Paul Smith

          Were they, Jim? Concealed carry permits are still required most everyplace and open carry is forbidden in most jurisdictions.

        • JimMT

          Sorry Paul, but I was referring to the harassment laws that required one to ID oneself. The cases that come to mind are the NUMEROUS harassments of black attorney who, dressed like a normal human being (suit and tie), was constantly “challenged” on his way into courthouse in his city (I do not have the citations, but I am sure anyone with an ounce of sense – and time – could easily locate them). This man’s efforts served notice to gummint that, no, one does not have an obligation to ID him or her self in public to ANYONE. I leave it to you to decide if you want to remain a serf or a master – of your own fates.

        • JimMT

          Laws, I stated. Perhaps I should have said “legalisms”. Or authoritarianisms. Whatever, it was NOT the “power” delegated to anyone to “require ID” of anyone else. At the time of those cases (see my comment below about who and when, being, I believe in the 1970’s)

        • JimMT

          Secondly, WE, the people, owe NO duty to ID ourselves or act for any reasons, just because someone in a uniform says, “Jump!” They work for us. We do not work for them. Our system of law REQUIRES that one break a law (not a legalism, or an authoritarian dictat) in order to be charged with a “crime”. Anticipating crime still is not a positive means of applying after-the-fact rules of conduct on the people. Does NO ONE remember what the 60’s revolters were asserting!?? “So, you say you want a revolution….” Well? Was that supposed to bring us Hitler???

        • apf2

          States can no more infringe our god-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights than the federal government. You are miss reading the document. The Bill of Rights guarantees our rights as citizens and reserves those rights to us. The states can regulate any not assigned to the fed or the people–our rights are ours, period.

        • Bob Duffey

          I’m not saying that I think these gun laws are Constitutional, but we need to get them removed, whether through the courts or getting the laws repealed. I’m talking about the fact that the states HAVE made it law that you must I.D. yourself to an officer if he contacts you in response to a complaint. You may think you don’t’ have to show who you are, but if your state requires it, you do. Not doing so is what will get you arrested, not the act of open carrying. If the person in this case would have simply complied with that part, the cops would have been on their way and so would he. I think there is blame on each side here and I will say, even as a former police officer, the way a lot of jurisdictions have become, I don’t like it. If I were still a cop, I would have a very difficult time staying in law enforcement today with seeing how some departments are enforcing laws that are clearly unconstitutional. There are cities I go to today like Ft. Wayne, IN, Toledo, OH, and Lima, OH, where I am just as concerned with the cops there as I am with the criminals. I will also add that I believe the division in this country is going to lead to a full blown revolution if they continue on the current path and I will be one of the people defending our U.S. Constitution.

        • Paul Smith

          A LEO is under no obligation to enforce an unconstitutional law and being dismissed for that is just as valid a reason to go to the SCOTUS as any other.

        • Paul Smith

          Except for the silly god part, I agree.

        • CitizenJon

          The bottom line to the ‘guard house’ lawyers is Cops have a tough job and there is no point in making it tougher for them. Their life is on the line every day so why resemble a ‘nut’ if you are not a nut? Why escalate a situation especially with a nervous cop? Cops will kill you if they are threatened or perceive a threat. They know that they will “get” away with it and if they didn’t, why would you care, you are dead ! OK, your survivors can go up against the power of the State and sue and after an unpleasant and costly 2 or 3 years lose anyway ! Put yourself in a cop’s shoes, we all see potential problem people out there every day, a cop can’t avoid them like most of us do. Every traffic stop for a cop is a potential encounter with the ‘criminally insane’ as they used to say. Could be someone on the run or a hot head guard house lawyer trying out his version of the Constitution and or Law while being a jerk. It might be someone like me who is on the way to the range with a rack of bang-bangs who is polite, explains the situation, and tries to smooth his way out of a ticket which is the worst thing that can happen in my State. About everybody carries legally or illegally for protection of their family. Some of you nimrods may think that I am a wuss for giving the Cop, Yes sirs, and here’s my ID and some explanation like we are getting sighted in for deer season, or taking the grandson down to the range to give him some safety instruction and practice. I always have a reason to carry and I don’t mind sharing it with someone who could legally kill me if I got twitchy. I don’t fear the cops but I do respect their authority, the difficulty of their job, and I am not going to be a problem for them, they have more important things to do. That’s the way my generation was raised. I will avoid trouble at all costs but if it finds me and my family, I have the training and resolve to do whatever is necessary. If the Cop or anyone else needed help they would get it from me regardless of the personal consequences that might come my way. CC, no I don’t want my name on a list, thank you very much. Old fashioned legal, suits me.

        • JimMT

          I agree, their jobs are tough. But, MANY times OTHER “private citizens” (“civilians”) ask them to go out of their way to do things that a simple question from the private party could have answered, and resolved. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) of the US has declared again and again that cops do NOT have duty to protect anyone. AND, the only reason cops are so heavily armed is to protect THEMSELVES. Yet, we are to meekly roll over and be frisked and probed and prodded and questioned by those same heavily armed persons – without any “authority” to protect OUR selves from such bullying? I respect they have a tough job. But, most make it tough on themselves, and their superiors prod them to do so for whatever largesse those “uppers” might gain from it. Bottom line: most tickets are to raise funds for local “law enforcement” – and anything they can confiscate in the process is icing.

        • CitizenJon

          Yep, as my Grandpaw used to say, sometimes you just have to take another chaw on you terbacker…. HP has a speed trap set up on I-40 at Morganton, NC in a so called “work zone” even when no one is working and dummy me got caught and it cost me $316 dollars with fine and Court Costs, It said, “was polite” on the ticket. This one damn ticket could have cost me thousands of dollars and put me in the clink if I had acted the way that I wanted to. The HP, Court System, and Lawyers are all acting in collusion by generating a ticket about every ten minutes all under the guise of protecting the workers, so what do you do? I avoid the damn place and wouldn’t spend a dime there as well as spread the word about the glorious job that they are doing. There are good cops but how do you separate um’, I just avoid them, they all get into “cop think” so I avoid them. Sheriffs and their deputies are generally not as bad in my experience, a Sheriff has to get elected. Most of us are ‘farm dogs’, cops often are ‘pit bulls’ a little different animal and they tend to lump the rest of us dogs together. A low profile works for me.

        • Paul Smith

          A LEO should treat EVERY person with whom he makes contact as a possible threat since any person out there may be armed and dangerous. That does NOT mean s/he should brace and frisk without probable cause or treat a visibly armed citizen any differently than anybody else. . .perps don’t walk around with guns on their belts.

        • JimMT

          My NAME is MY property. Also, I have NO duty to “serve the ends of government”. In fact, government has a duty to serve ends for us. THEY work for US. I do NOT work for THEM. I owe the government nothing. THEY, who work in “peace keeping” (I will NOT refer to them as “law enforcement”), are obligated by THEIR sworn oaths to do what they swore they’d do. NOWHERE in that oath is a “duty to harass citizens”, “ask our names”, etc etc etc. You have swallowed the pill.

        • sc

          if you owe the government nothing then just try not filling the IRS forms on time without getting permission to file late.

        • Paul Smith

          More of us should do precisely that, SC, just as this gentleman insisted on his rights. Yes, many patriots would likely get fined/jailed but overloading the system is the only way to get needed changes. Teach juries that nullification is the law of the land and we’d change it more quickly and when people get arrested and convicted of jury tampering for passing out fija.org flyers, that should go to the SCOTUS as well.

        • Moonlight Gambler

          @Bob Duffy, Lucid and informative. Thank you. Florida retired Marine w/CCW.

        • Paul Smith

          The SCOTUS has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to ALL jurisdictions and not just federal. EVERY law that infringes on your right to “keep and bear arms” from special taxes on guns/ammo/parts/etc. to carry permits to outright bans are illegal and always disproportionally affect the poor.

        • sc

          well you may say so but if you try to exercise your rights then you should expect to be seeing the inside of a jail because that is just what is going to happen.

        • C Proescher

          No, Bob, the ORC does not require one to carry identification. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

      • bungicord

        There is no law that says to look both ways before stepping of the curb but if you don’t want to lose a fight with a speeding pickup you do it anyway.

      • ARMYOF69

        Correct…we are a FREE NATION…..

      • dmr2701

        Actually, immigrants are required to carry identification, but not legal citizens.

        • Gus Mueller

          That’s right, immigrants are, in the form of a green card, which has been red for some time now. Illegal invaders, on the other hand, are not required to carry ID.

      • George Huff

        You are stupid. Georgia, which is where this happened, requires all persons over the age of 16 have picture I.D.

        • Gus Mueller

          So Georgia time-traveled back to the 1970s, split off from the US and joined South Africa? How do they tell if you’re over 16 if’n yall don’t got no AH-DEE?

      • Glenn H

        You sure as hell don’t need one to vote cause that’s discrimination!

    • disqus_1cfcom3TDh

      Interesting concept. But, one that is believable in a disinformation strategy. Good call!

    • George Winslow

      Welcome to 1984. You are a prime example of why Americans have lost all their rights. You refuse to fight for your God given rights instead fighting against the Constitution. You sir are the dumb ass.

    • Not_in_Denial

      So, are you in agreement with the ‘stop and frisk’ law that NY has had so much publicity over? The problem is that we do not have ‘community policing’ anymore. Instead of approaching the man as a citizen, cops are prone to approaching citizens as the enemy and at a lower status than themselves. As a citizen, I have rights enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution. If I have violated no law, the cops have no right to invent a charge for the sake of punishing me. They do that literally all the time. So, you go to court and it’s thrown out, but in the process you’ve been jailed with some of the dregs of society for who knows how long, paid to get a bond, upset family, hired a lawyer, taken out your time to go to court, lawyer meetings, etc., and you may as well have just burned the money in the fireplace. Cops cause this scenario without penalty depending on their attitude, mood, etc. Now, that said, law enforcement is necessary, no question, but we are not subjects that need to be kept in line, we are the citizens whose taxes pay their salaries, and are fellow citizens that should be viewed as equals, not as potential ‘perps’.

      • Gus Mueller

        Stop and frisk is good because it puts more coloreds and beaners in jail, as it was intended to do.

    • Don Talenti

      So, USN, you believe that even if you have done nothing wrong that you should be required to give any information to the police that they demand? He was carrying his Georgia Carry Permit as required in that state. That is all the identification required. Or perhaps I’m not in America anymore, and I need photo ID to walk down the street. Speaking of which, perhaps if the police don’t like the way the color of my garments match, that is suspicious, and grounds for a search.

      Our Founders would be shocked, dismayed, and disbelieving of the craven sheep we’ve become. A nation of pussies, each trying to outdo the other in bending over for “the authorities”. My God, when I was growing up, I never would have believed I’d ever hear so many Americans spewing such anti-American tripe. More laws, more regulations, do as your told, never question. Wow. If you assert your Constitutional rights, there’s something wrong with you. I’m still in shock when I see comments like yours. Unreal.

      Oh, one other question – since you believe it’s fine to call cops based on an appearance similar to a minority of people with that same appearance being involved in crime, (never mind the idiocy of that statement, given that all the mass shooters in recent years DID NOT wear camo, save the Muslim at Fort Hood) I suppose you believe the police can stop a black man and demand to know what he’s doing and demand ID, even though he has done nothing wrong?

      No, USN, this man did nothing illegal, and it was the POLICE who instigated something. And before you hop on with the statement that the police told him to leave and he did not, well, no citizen is required to follow an UNLAWFUL order by a policeman. So the question is, was he on private property, was asked to leave by the owner, and did not. That would be a different story.

      But soon it will all be simplified, as I can see the time coming where it will be a recognized crime to not be properly subservient to the police. Now they have to make up charges when they’re pissed at you because you didn’t scrape low enough when they passed.

      • bill

        Didn’t the Nazi’s used to say endlessly: “Papers please”….

      • Dave B

        Well said, Don.

        Too many LEOs are operating as if we’re a police state. The tactics of the TSAs serve to embolden the cops.

        A large percentage of police are recruited because they are ex-military. The mission of the US military has been eroding to a “meals on wheels” policeman/social worker status. When I served in the Army, we were told that we’re not policemen. We’re there to kill people and break things. I think that many of the cops I see today have their roles confused with that of soldiers.

        Stop and frisk. Confiscation. “Where are your papers?” It’s heating up.

      • HOFFHACK

        Come on! This guy was asking for trouble, and he got it! He is lucky he was in Georgia!!! If this had happened in NY he would probably be dead!!!!!!!!!!

      • Phil McMorrow

        Right on!!!!!

      • gw111

        As for photo id, most conservatives believe it a good idea to require this when voting. I don’t think the cops were asking for anything more then id. A Georgia state permit could have belong to someone else (perhaps stolen) Let’s make sure it belongs to this man. The man wasn’t searched, but talked too, and not for the color of his pants, but because he had an open gun. I think the founding fathers were the most courageous people on the planet at the time, and they all signed a document with their true name identifying them as ones who oppose the tyrants in England. I think they would be glad to have photo id proving they were citizens of our republic. As for being craven sheep, I am not so sure showing your id makes you sheep. I hear all the time how democrats don’t want ideas and because those ids identify them as legal American citizens. No I am brave enough to state who I am and what I stand for. And since I have id to prove who I am then you better watch out who you are harassing because I have proven my citizenship. If ids are a bad idea then why is it important that we require Obama to have a real birth certificate.
        And finally with your last statement I am not scraping low to show I am a citizen, I wish we could make all the illegals prove their citizenship. I am proud I can prove who I am. Being an American should be a badge of honor. If when I prove that I am a citizen I will claim all the rights guaranteed to me by the constitution. And yes carrying a gun is my right. And yes to the cop now that you know I am a citizen leave me alone.

        • JimMT

          “Voting” is NOT a US Constitutionally “secured” right. It is up to each state how to handle the votes and ID the voters. The Feds have usurped powers over voting that are NOT constitutional. Tenth amendment reserves to the states the power to require voter ID cards. It is not a Federal power. Period. Read the US Constitution people!! WAKE UP.

        • Gus Mueller

          The supreme court says otherwise based on the 14th amendment. I was just as surprised as you would be to find out about it. You are still a dumbass.

        • Don Talenti

          “I am brave enough to state who I am and what I stand for.” says the person posting under other than a real name. Wow. Delicious irony.

          Open carry is legal in Georgia with the permit that the man had. Period. There is no law that says you have to show photo ID to the police, as much as left wing totalitarians wish it were so. As for the jibe at Conservatives that you need an ID to vote, I wonder what you think of needing ID to get Obamacare – or even to buy cigarettes, or rent a car or hotel room. Is not voting a bit more important to get right? BTW, there hasn’t been a recorded case of phony ID on an a carry permit of which I am aware. The Dems, however have an enormous track record of fake voting. Just saying’. And no, I’m not a Republican.

      • JimMT

        USN probably believes the Patriot Act’s provision for indefinite incarceration without attorney and without notifying one’s next of kin of one’s whereabouts is “okay too”. People need to stop letting government tell them what to do, and start telling government what to do – and NOT do. Otherwise, stay in your house after work and do nothing but look at your navels.

      • MarMac2768

        Don Talenti,

        Among other things, you said, “Our Founders would be shocked, dismayed, and disbelieving of the craven . . . .”
        There are many reasons that the Founders would be “shocked, dismayed, and disbelieving” than what happened here. Of course, they would be “shocked, dismayed and disbelieving” at the crimes that are going on today. Teenagers going into schools and gunning down other children, people walking into movie theatres and randomly shooting, and people blowing up bombs on streets killing people. Now, I know that perhaps nothing could have stopped these incidents from happening, but perhaps an officer asking some questions might have prevented at least one of these terrible things from happening. Can’t we just understand that things have changed over the past 200+ years and we must adapt to some of those changes. Not by giving up our Second Amendment rights, but by answering a few questions of a well meaning police officer. But, by provoking an officer to make a “political statement” by entrapment, is not something that should be done and is not being honest. That is something that would cause the Founders to be “shocked, dismayed, and disbelieving of the craven” dishonesty of those who THINK they are defenders of our Constitution. Dishonesty is not a Constitutional right.

        • Don Talenti

          Another without their facts or history correct. Gun violence is half of what it was a few decades ago. The first mass school killing was using dynamite, not a gun. Mass killings have occurred throughout history, and are now rather uncommon compared with colonial and certainly compared with earlier times.

          Also, you are showing your naiveté with the phrase “well meaning police officer”. They do not mean well. When you are stopped, they intend to find something on which to infringe your liberty. Get that through your head. They did not stop you to ask about the weather.

          I’m not sure if anyone “provoked” the officer. Apparently, walking in a public area doing nothing wrong is now considered “provocation”? Wow. But I’m sure you mean not explaining himself to the officer was “provocation”, right? You are an incredible sheep. Just because a cop asks what you are doing does not mean you are under any obligation to do so.

        • bill

          You seem to overlook that all the incidents you referred to they occurred in gun-free zones with some of them within the confines of the some of the strictest gun laws. Perhaps if EVERYONE that is legally entitled to OC, we’d not see the rash of incidents you referenced.

    • asoro

      you could be right. but we won’t know…. He should have had ID true and produced it right away when ask. today cops can be a little jumpy, not saying that gives them any reason to harass anyone but both sides need to learn more how to handle it. In my home town the police had to take an extra course on how to deal with someone that is open carrying his gun, There has been a lot of things like this happen here, And they really almost got sued bad, So now they follow procedures if they want to ask anyone that is open carrying a handgun.

    • HOFFHACK

      Agreed! At some point some common sense must prevail. The judge is a jerk, but I think the plaintiff bears some of the blame. I did not know you could open carry in Georgia. And why on earth doesn’t the Permit or license have a picture on it! (come on, when was the last time anyone of us went out with nothing but our CCL as ID???) Nobody supports the second Amendment more than I do, but the old west style open carry is never going to be tolerated folks, it just ain’t gonna happen! I suspect he was just trying to piss the cops off!!! And he did!!! Was he technically right? Yes! Was he technically being an idiot? I don’t know, but if my kid was over in that park, I think I might mosie over there to see what this dude was up to!!! And my hand would be on my Glock the whole time!

      There is no law against being stupid, but he just proved that you can get arrested for being a “Dumbass!!!

      • Don Talenti

        And, with your hand on your Glock, when this man was merely walking around, YOU would be the threat, and have committed the crime of brandishing your weapon. Yet another one here who should not be claiming to be a Second Amendment defender as you first of all don’t understand it, and secondly, frankly, you are embarrassing.

        BTW, if you think being arrested for being dumb, but having broken no law is fine, I suggest you go move to some totalitarian police state country. Or, just wait a few years, and the U.S> will be more to your liking. You know, without all that freedom, and rights and things that frighten the sheep.

        • HOFFHACK

          Who said anything about brandishing my Glock??? But this guy was not exhibiting normal behavior! And I would have watched him like a Hawk! And if you had a kid playing in that park, or your wife or Daughter was jogging in that park, so would have you! So stop your Holier than thou BS!

        • Don Talenti

          No, I would not, as I realize that the mere carrying of a holstered firearm is not a crime, nor a threat. Sorry, Hoff, people who wet their panties at the mere sight of a firearm, and shriek for the police irk the hell out of me. As for brandishing, that would refer to your hand on your weapon, as you stated.

        • HOFFHACK

          You are right! 100%……..now I think I will go out side and and argue with my Palm Tree!

        • Don Talenti

          From what I can see of your reasoning and logic, the palm tree might win.

        • HOFFHACK

          Did you look brandishing up? Obviously not! You are questioning my “Reason!” Look the word up! your last post was redundant! You do whatever you want, I am still going to keep an eye on a guy like that, or is there a law against that?

    • MarMac2768

      I agree with USN. I have several guns and am a big defender of the 2nd Amendment, but having RIGHTS also entail responsibility. There is nothing wrong with a law enforcement officer to try to find out why he is carrying a deadly weapon in the open? And, for him to be uncooperative is absolutely ridiculous! If an officer asks me for ID, I will give it to him. An investigation is not an arrest, it is simply asking questions that any law abiding citizen will answer. All I know is this; we have seen a large number of people who have walked into crowds of people, produced a weapon and killed innocent people. We expect our policemen to INVESTIGATE and, if they had done so in those cases, maybe lives would have been saved. IT IS a double edged sword!

      • Don Talenti

        You’re a “big defender” of 2A rights? Hahahaha. I smell a troll. Or someone who doesn’t understand what a right entails.

        You, sir, are a sheep. Just because you can choose to speak with law enforcement, you do not have to. In America, we are not required to show ID to a cop, nor explain our actions, as long as we have done something illegal. BTW, he did have ID – he had his carry permit. If Georgia doesn’t like the fact that their permit has no photo – then put one on it! As for the ridiculous statement “an investigation is not an arrest”, if you are not free to go, this “investigation” is most certainly an arrest.

        Also, this was open carry. He did not “produce” a concealed weapon, nor did he open fire. You are the type of shallow thinker who likes DUI checkpoints too, since drunk drivers use cars, so let’s “investigate” everyone who is driving one. Throw away privacy, freedom, liberty and constitutional rights while bleating for more security. Ben Franklin had your type pegged. Disgusting. And please, DON’T identify yourself as a 2A “defender”. You are nothing of the sort, nor, apparently, do you understand the reason the Second Amendment is there in the first place.

        • bill

          Don T.. I can only give ya ONE thumbs up!

        • MarMac2768

          No Troll here. I have 7 guns, 4 pistols, 2 rifles and a twelve gauge shotgun. I am concerned about the possibility of abuse of our rights, but I don’t look at police officers as “jack booted thugs” like people like you do. I trust the police, but I do arm myself just in case I need it. You are probably one of those conspiracy theorists who think that Kennedy was shot by UFOs from Area 51. And, that Hitler really didn’t die, his brain is implanted in Harry Reid. And he is ready to start his next “thousand year reich” with Pelosi and Obama as Goerring and Himmler. You really need to quit reading the Globe and Weekly World News.

        • Don Talenti

          When folks have nothing with which to counter arguments, they often make up straw men out of their imaginations.

          Perhaps not a troll, sir, but most certainly a sheep.

      • JimMT

        And, you NEED the police to make and keep YOU responsible? That’s grown up alrighty!

    • Phil McMorrow

      He did produce ID. The fact that is was not a photographic ID is not relevant. What is pertinent, I believe, is the fact that there is no Requirtment under the Constitution to carry a Passprt or other photographic forms of ID. Screw you, Judge..

    • Jerry

      Amen brother. I am also a gun owner (not weapon; a screwdriver can also become a weapon in the hands of an idiot) but the guy should have exercised better judgment with what he was wearing, where he was wearing it, and his purpose for doing so. I agree. Could have been a staged event for purposes of the press and the dirty “O” in the WH in DC.

    • ARMYOF69

      Betcha , you’re a cop.

    • apf2

      He should not be required to have more identification than that which is required to vote!!!

    • notanobamaliar

      Your papers are not in order comrade. We of the secret police must detain you for an indefinite period of time for further questioning. Just because the law doesn’t require you carry identification papers and correctly answer every question posed to you that doesn’t give you the right to exercise constitutional rights whenever you choose.

    • Al Dailey

      THIS IS WHAT THE WHOLE STORY IS ABOUT MORON, OPEN CARRYING OF A SIDEARM. Had he not been wearing a side arm and been stopped………would you have been so insulted. WOULDN’T HAVE HAD THIS STORY IF THIS WERE THE CASE. DUH. .with the nuts around that seem to kill innocents in camouflage and black boots. NAME ONE SPECIFIC STORY THAT THIS STATEMENT PERTAINS TO. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN NOT WEAR IF WE DECIDE TO OPEN CARRY. GUESS IS HE HAD A SUIT AND TIE ON WITH HIS ADDED ACCESSORY OF A FIREARM YOU WOULDN’ T BE SO CONCERNED. GET REAL, THE DAMN COPS JUST SHOWING THEIR EGOTISTICAL POWER AND THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. HE HAD ID BUT THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT. ASS WIPE COPS NEED TAKEN DOWN A NOTCH OR TWO. AND THE JUDGE, SEEMS TO BE A LIBTARD DEMOCRASS THAT DOESN’T KNOW NOR ABIDE BY THE LAW.

    • remajohn

      I don’t think it was staged for the simple reason they were not recorded nor were there an witnesses to testify for the carrier. Dumb for not cooperating with the officers. He should have been taken in for refusing to identify himself, gun or no gun.

    • SpudPicker

      If a suspicious charactor like this is seen, seems the thing for the police to do is to monitor from a distance ans see what the guy is up to. Having a gun is not a crime (yet!!) but using it for some unlawful activity is.

      So, until the “suspicious character” does something wrong, leave him alone. It seems to me that when law enforcement is harassing someone that is not breaking any law, the lawman is committing a crime. Violation of the man’s rights!

    • cpovet

      FUK’in Libturd!

  • bryan76016

    The Sugar Hill Judge has demonstrated initial stages of mental illness. He should remove himself from the bench until such time as his unreasonable fear of guns has been conquered.

  • TheSunDidIt

    The problem with this is there’s not another place even close to the US for freedom to which to go and live. So, we have to fight the insanity here because there’s NO WHERE ELSE to go.

    • George Winslow

      Switzerland has much more individual freedom than the USSR…I mean U.S.A.

  • Señor Cruz

    If her were black with a hoodie, you guys would be applauding. The dude did not answer questions. He looked like a terrorist, sans hoodie. He was probably white. Cop was probably black.

    • oleinwi

      I know it’s a stretch for your limited IQ, but no one is compelled to answer a question by a police officer. Black, white or otherwise.

      • George Winslow

        Exactly. Thank you for knowing your rights!

      • axmickl

        Its called common sense. Why would you want to ignite suspicion if you had nothing to hide. Unless you were racing home for a nooner you probably would not be in such a hurry you couldn’t open your wallet and flash your drivers license. If you don’t want to be viewed with suspicion and have the cops called to check you out, don’t open carry and let the 2nd get you in trouble.

    • John Cherish

      you make a lot of assumptions thus your comment has no substance, but to incite without posting any facts “probably white, probably black” why say anything when you don’t know and the report doesn’t say

    • Jgahring

      I can agree with you on him not aswering questions, but “He looked like a terrorist”? Wearing camouflage in Georgia, during deer season?

      • George Winslow

        Haven’t you read the Bill of Rights? Ever heard of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments? If you don’t exercise your rights, you don’t have any.

        • Jgahring

          Yes, I’ve read the Bill of Rights and fully understand and support them. I am not supporting the officers or the judge in their actions as they obviously violated this man’s rights. It sounds as if he could have easily diffused the situation by working with the officers rather than against them, but I wasn’t there and don’t know all of the details, so I won’t make a judgement here. My response was to Senor Cruz’s statement that he looked like a terrorist, indicating he has sipped the government kool aid thinking that white American citizens are the terrorist to be feared.

    • George Winslow

      You are an idiot.

      • MIKE6080

        no he is a progressive troll that surfaces time to time , probably down to moms basement after she gives him his milk and cookies

  • astrojohn

    Frankly, open carry is a rather stupid thing to do, but since when do the REAL bad-guys open carry? Unless they are nutz (like the perp in NJ and virtually every other shooter), a gun on the hip is generally not a good reason to arrest the guy. Stop and check him out OK, maybe even harass him a bit to cover it up (as my CCW LEO said).

    • George Winslow

      Why is open carry stupid? Cops do it all day every day and it’s OK. Do the people that pay the police salaries have LESS rights than the police who they pay to “protect them” (which is also UNTRUE). Open carry is the only truly legal way to Constitutionally carry a firearm. He was exercising his rights. You don’t want to open carry then don’t but don’t condemn those that do want to exercise their rights!

  • DJ_Fisher

    So temp us to commit the crime of shooting a judge, you asshole.

  • a_browning

    The judge is clearly incompetant or a democrat. Being a democrat means one is clearly incompetant anyway, so I guess he is unexcuseably incompetant. Strip him of his robes and gavel and throw his butt out on the street.

    • Michaellaborde

      He is both , incompetent and a liberal / socialist /democrat.

    • http://twitter.com/itsmesteph11 itsmesteph11

      One and the same

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Federal judge so he must be impeached.

  • http://wahrheitmacher.blogspot.com/ Most Rev. Gregori

    It is time for us to exercise our right to throw off this tyrannical government.

    • JimMT

      When do WE get to shoot first, and let the coroner sort it out???

      • cpovet

        YES! and WE get to win this time!!
        War Vet

  • EDWARD

    must have been anointed (not a mistake in spelling) by Odama or the liberal DOJ master…………if Georgia has an open carry – what did he do wrong???

    • gw111

      He didn’t identify himself positively with the police. How can the police be sure he isn’t an escape from the local asylum. We, as 2nd amendment believers, know that every time there is a mass shooting and probably any murder there is reason to think the person shooting has the gun without a permit. Proving he has a permit and who he is tells the police “hey this guy is ok, he is just exercising his 2nd amendment right. If the police then infringe on his right then they have a problem and I for one would back the man carrying the gun.

      • Phil McMorrow

        The cops are to be inconvenieced for trampling over the “per’p’s constitution rights? Tough Sh**t, officer

        • gw111

          I have read the article several times and it appears the only thing he was arrested for was not proving he was a citizen. Isn’t that what we ask of all illegals. If he proves he is a citizen then has grounds to claim all rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. Even our President has to prove he is a citizen, oops I may have stumbled on something.

    • George Winslow

      Exactly. He did nothing wrong.

    • Not_in_Denial

      Open carry IS legal in Georgia with an open carry permit. If the guy had one, it seems like wrongful arrest to me and the judge is full of it.

  • bdcorvette

    The guy set himself up for what happened. I carry everywhere, but not open. I still am able to protect myself in the event of a “diversity” attack but try not to draw attention to my armed status. I would have called the cops too. The guy had the opportunity to produce a driver’s license to back up his carry permit (mine has no picture also), but he did not. I suspect that he is either relatively young and dumb or a bit red around the neck.

    • George Winslow

      Open carry is the only legal way to carry in many states unless you have a government sponsored and paid for “privilege card” to carry concealed. This guy was exercising his rights while you hide your gun under your coat. Which of you is exercising a right? Not you. You are bowing down to the system and paying for the ability to carry concealed when the government tells you you can. Stand up and be a man (or woman) and fight for your rights. Stop being brainwashed by the government and media goons. If you don’t exercise your rights you don’t have any!

    • Not_in_Denial

      Oh, so he was a redneck? I carry too, and unfortunately open carry has not been declared legal here. Why would you have called the cops? I don’t get that. I might have told the guy that open carry isn’t legal in whatever state, if in fact open carry isn’t legal there. But if it was, then unless he had been witnessed committing some violation of the law why does that make it just ok to get rousted by LEOs just for being there? There are too many people that don’t mind being pushed around by those employed to enforce laws, not treat them like peon subjects.

      • gw111

        Travon Martin looked suspicious and had not committed a crime. The cops were called on him. Using your logic the first injustices was the calling of the cops. Never mind what Travon did after George Zimmerman went back to his car. Of course it is absurd to say George Zimmerman should not have called, but the reason he did were no more valid then the watch man. At the point when the cops arrived all the man had to do was prove his citizenship and that he had the right to carry. His citizenship is more important to me then his permit. I believe the 2nd amendment gives us the right to carry if and only if we are citizens. In court the judge side with the police, not because he had a gun in so much as he refused to prove he is a citizen. Now if we could only get our president to prove he is a citizen.

        • Not_in_Denial

          Comparing this to Martin is a non sequitur, Martin was at night in a high crime area and was acting in a suspicious manner. This guy was just walking. My ‘logic’ is that in this country a citizen has an expectation of not being rousted by cops to produce his papers on demand. Using your logic…..he could be hassled for ‘walking while hispanic’, since Mexico is so close by. Allowing this type of behavior gives law enforcement way too much power and if you think the power doesn’t affect their judgment you give them more credit than any human deserves. Power corrupts, and I’ve known too many in law enforcement that essentially do as they please because the citizenry are the subjects of the state and rank below them. In your scale of importance every cop in every city needs to demand production of ID showing citizenship. Do I need to explain why this isn’t sanctioned by the right or the left?
          Oh, and just so you see we have common ground I for one don’t believe for a minute that Barry should be in office instead of jail cell. Further, since he appears untouchable now, I would pray that one day someone prosecutes him for fraud and puts him where he belongs.

    • axmickl

      Florida puts your picture on your carry permit. Why wouldn’t every state do it?

    • HOFFHACK

      “BING FLIPPIN O!!!!”

  • LroF5LFjiB

    Stay the hell out of the free state of Mississippi!

  • gw111

    Our rights under the constitution should always be maintained. I question, however, why, the individual who has the gun, feel the need to be secretive with his own identity. Yes it is his right to carry, and he has a right to be in the park, but as a law abiding citizen isn’t he also concerned with identifying those who may be carrying an illegal gun, or who has a history of mental illness? This is not meant to be a statement in favor of the court, but rather a question as to why would legal gun owners not want to identify themselves. If it is ok to expect a person who is illegal to have proper identification should that mean people who are legal have to have the same requirement so we can know who is legal or who isn’t? I am just learning more about the importance of being able to carry a gun, but I would not want to restrict the police from questioning a person who maybe illegal. If the judge ruled differently would that not mean that police would have to avoid questioning those who may be here illegally.

    • George Winslow

      At what point is enough enough? Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for cops to stop and frisk anyone or everyone they see in public? If not, why not? Wouldn’t that stop a lot of crime and take a lot of illegal weapons off the streets? Either we have ALL our rights or we have none. You can’t have it both ways. A right not exercise is a right lost. Did you know that in N.Y.C. until a few weeks ago cops were stopping and searching anyone they met in public? Oh yea, it was loved by the Sheeple since it “kept them safe”. So thousands and thousands of people had their rights violated so the sheeple could “feel safe”. A few weeks ago the N.Y. Supreme Court ruled that police practice was unconstitutional which it was.

      • gw111

        What gives you the right to carry! Isn’t it your citizenship! The signers of the Declaration of Independence all identified themselves by signing it. They were proud to sign it and they never denied it. Their citizenship was a badge of honor.
        Now once that is established then you should do as you suggested and not give away any of your rights. The bases for my argument is one thing and one thing only. The rights we have are based on us being citizens period. If your not willing to prove that then how can we expect a President to prove his citizenship.

        • bill

          Ummm.. cuz I’m not running for public office? What a moronic statement!

  • oleinwi

    I believe a case of this nature has already been through the supreme court in the past and open carry was upheld by the Supreme Court. A similar case happened in Madison, WI and they sued the city and got a significant settlement for harassment by the police. This judges’ finding in direct conflict of a previous Supreme Court ruling, he might want to go back to law school for a refresher in 2nd amendment case law.

    • George Winslow

      Wisconsin has had several “police events” of this nature and the police have lost in court every time. The big reason the cops lost is because the cops broke the laws, not the open carriers and the open carry people record every interaction with criminal cops.

      • Joseph Felder

        As it should be

    • Phil McMorrow

      Didn’t you hear? Ass sucking judges don’t have to follow the rules of law.

      • Paul Smith

        Actually, they do and if the case goes to a higher court, the judge could find his gavel hiding where the sun don’t shine.

        • fort9erdon

          “IF” …? Appeal, and lawsuit should be a no brainer, and try to sue the police officers and the judge individually, also!

        • Chris Foltz

          old way is much better… drag them out of their houses in the black of night & give them a good hot tar & feathering…

        • Wayne

          Would that then make them a game hen of some sort? I wonder if they would be in season immediately or if they would have to wait to get a hunting permit first?

        • Chris Foltz

          sh*tbird season is in full swing unless their migratory… boys in Virginia are going to have a special season with no limits on sh*tbirds because of the Governors Election being stolen by migratory sh*tbirds being bused to the polls resulting voter fraud… got to eliminate as many illegal invasive sh*tbirds as possible to take back OUR COUNTRY!

        • Linda Snodgrass

          OMG, don’t forget that hunting permit…lol

        • remajohn

          you can have a judges ruling reversed or thrown out by a higher court but they are ex3mpt from being sued.

        • Ronald Peterson
        • whitemanzen

          If you truly believe that the Appellate Court will rule against the cops on this case, you are all delusional.

        • vet

          This is what happens to states that don’t pursue the constitution.

          Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute

        • supergun

          Read recently where gun owners are most likely racist. Of course the article was written by a liberal. Most likely this pin head judge is a liberal. You can’t make this stuff up.

        • Minigunone

          From your lips to Gods ear!

      • Chris Foltz

        Oh Really ?

    • Chris Foltz

      screw sending him back to some liberal law school… needs his neck stretched several inches on the end of a rope… :x

    • Not_in_Denial

      I checked http://www.opencarry.org and they say that you can open carry in Georgia, where this was, with a permit. Seems odd, I have to have permit to concealed carry, but personally I think open carry ought to be legal everywhere, if a person chooses to. If this guy had an open carry permit, why did the cops take it any further? Because we are the subjects and they are allowed. We are by increments becoming a police state.

      • Paul Smith

        Carrying a weapon whether concealed or not should not be illegal nor should it be licensed said licensing being discriminatory against the poor. Improper use of the weapon is certainly illegal and that is the ONLY time an officer of the law should involve himself.

        • Carl Stevenson

          The US Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, as follows:
          (Page [319 U.S. 105, 113]) “The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.”

        • George Huff

          Agreed, but a certain amount of common sense should come into play when carrying. If questioned identify yourself and allow the Police Officer to verify you are an American Citizen and not a convicted felon or mentally certified as to not have a weapon. We don’t want certain people running around with firearms unchecked. Simply put, common sense.

        • Paul Smith

          You don’t get it, George. He was not trying to use common sense – he was trying to get arrested to make the point that a LEO can’t infringe on our constitutional rights.

          The problem with laws preventing criminals and idiots from carrying weapons is that their constitutional rights must be violated in order for the law to be effective. In other words, if a LEO spots a convicted felon on the street with a weapon, he has probable cause to arrest him. If, on the other hand, the felon’s weapon is concealed, then the LEO has no right to search the felon unless he is breaking the law – otherwise his 4th Amendment freedom is infringed.

        • Jeff Fowler

          Anything you say or do can be used against you. Do not say anything at all and let the police decide based only on what they observed if they can justify arresting you. If they do they are wrong and should be disciplined. I work for the local sheriff’s office and carry concealed daily. Opened carry does attract the eye and concern of police and civilians but it is 100% legal here in NC. Concealed carry is much better because I want the first clue a criminal has that I am carrying to be the penetration of my bullets to his chest. Opened carry may actually attract criminals who will try to get your gun.

        • Glenn H

          Paul the problem with your thinking is that you group law abiding people with felons.

          Here in Alabama we have open carry and we also have concealed carry by permit, I choose open carry because I’m a very big guy that can’t conceal with the clothing that is normally available to me.
          I’ve held a concealed carry permit since 1976 and will as long as I’m alive but although I own several guns I have never harmed anyone and never plan to do so!
          When our state law gives us permission to do something why should our tax payer funded law enforcement be harassing us for practicing the very law that we are practicing?
          Just who is breaking the law here?

    • Joseph Felder

      I believe you are referring to two cases: Brown v Texas, which states there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime before demanding an I.D. Also, US v DeBerry, which states that the presence of a firearm, where legal to possess, cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    • supergun

      We have doctors who sometimes kills his patients. Not his fault, he just doesn’t know what the hell he is doing sometimes. Now, a judge – there should not be any excuse.

  • Dirty Daug

    I have nothing against people carrying a side arm in the open other than it just don’t look good in some places that they may be at. I have carried in some places like in Arizona when riding a motorcycle or quad on the trails mostly because you never know who or what you might come up against. I’ve came across illegals that might harm people without a sidearm, but with the illegals just seeing the gun was protection.

  • drbhelthi

    The events as stated suggest that it was a staged event. The plaintiff and the police did not engage in an overt act of hostility. The charges were dropped, and the judge tossed out a case against the police crew. The military-type clothing, black boots, packing a pistol and walking in the park would certainly attract attention. Not carrying even a Georgia drivers license, only his carry permit, and declining to identify himself is certainly provocative. My question would be a resounding, WHO STAGED THE EVENT ?

    • George Winslow

      My question would be “Who cares?” The guy was minding his own business breaking no laws. I guess it would have been OK if he was black with a hoodie, a bag of Skittles and Arizona Tea?

      • drbhelthi

        For one person, I care. If Obamaites set it up in order to make a legal carrier appear to be a villain, and if the man in subject was an actor in the event, I would like to know. Sugar Hill is in the vicinity of Kennesaw. Kennesaw has the city ordinance requiring home owners to own a gun, and which has a very low crime rate. I would like to be aware if the Obama crew has begun to pick on gun owners in the greater Atlanta area, in hopes of sabotaging the marvelous reputation of Kennesaw and its very low crime rate due to the requirement of home owners to be armed.

  • munkybiznus

    I don’t leave the house without my weapon and ID. and have been asked by cops many times for ID——never had a problem… But then, I’m not argumentive and uncooperative. BOTH sides need more “savvy juice”

  • Hammer

    OMDB…is what I say..My guns are mine and I open carry everyday in my home state and almost every state I visit and will continue to do so…I do carry deep when necessary but I carry open most of the time….OH by the way….OMDB..Over My Dead Body….

    • George Winslow

      I too open carry all day every day and have done so in many states. I know my rights and I would not have answered any questions either. Exercise ALL of your rights or you don’t have any. I also carry a video and audio recorder with me at all times to protect against criminal cops and rogue anti-rights people.

      • Hammer

        If the truth be known most cops these days are criminals….If your a female and offer some additional services you will not get that ticket…know of that happening over and over….the bigger problem is it never ends once it starts…so ladies TAKE the ticket and remember that they know where you live and once you cave in,before long you will be servicing the whole department….

      • gw111

        Not all cops are criminal, that being said I think it wise to protect yourself with video of any circumstance you find yourself.
        I would like to ask one question though. What is it that gives you that right, but your citizenship. Why then isn’t something you would want to wear like a badge. Remember the Declaration of Independence, Everyone there signed it identifying who they were in the best way possible in those days. What they were declaring was that they were citizens of a new country which guarantees them rights as citizens of this new country. When a cop questions you be proud to show your citizen ship and then claim your rights. Only citizen has them.

    • axmickl

      You open carry in Florida and they will have a parade with you in a cage. Your big shot talk will melt fast in front of a swat team. I live here, I hate the police and cannot stand the gun grabbers but I am not going to go around begging for a fight with the blue suit bullies just because I am bad.

      • Hammer

        Never said I open carried in every state….I’ve been intimidated
        by the best and haven’t caved yet…I’m not real sure if you know what bass ass
        is but I do…Never said I was one or that I was a big shot…but I WILL tell
        you I can back up what ever I say, always have and always will…I’m still here
        and haven’t been in any cages lately and for sure no parades even when I came
        home after fighting my ass off for the likes of you…but not to worry I’m
        still capable of a good fight and fight I will when it comes to my
        liberties….HOW ABOUT YOU ??????….Oh and by the way I have been to Florida
        many times have a sister there and a brother there also, and have a lot of BAD
        ASS brothers all over the world…..

      • Hammer

        Never said I open carried in every state….I’ve been intimidated
        by the best and haven’t caved yet…I’m not real sure if you know what bass a** is but I do…Never said I was one or that I was a big shot…but I WILL tell you I can back up what ever I say, always have and always will…I’m still here and haven’t been in any cages lately and for sure no parades even when I came home after fighting my ass off for the likes of you…but not to worry I’m still capable of a good fight and fight I will when it comes to my liberties….HOW ABOUT YOU ??????….Oh and by the way I have been to Florida many times have a sister there and a brother there also, and have a lot of BAD
        A** brothers all over the world…..

        • axmickl

          Tell you what leg, you obviously don’t recognize a Special Forces crest when you see one so I suspect you haven’t been too close to the fire. I do know what a bad ass is, I served with a whole bunch of them and we never pick a fight we can’t win. You said you open carried in nearly every state and seemed to think you weren’t worried about the consequences in florida. We are one of six states that do not allow open carry and the law here loves guys like you who give them an excuse to be the bullies they love to be. All your bad ass buddies from all over the world won’t help you here if you act stupid. As far as fighting your ass off for the likes of me, I was probably busy keeping the rag heads off your “BAD” ass while you were busy digging holes in the hard dirt.

        • Hammer

          I recognize the crest all right….no towel heads where I fought but lots of jungle and rivers…again never started a fight I didn’t have to and never walked away from one either. Never dug holes in hard dirt but did spend a lot of time in small caves and tunnels and under water….never meant to insult you or your force..spent enough time with you guys back in the day to respect all branches…..I check all the laws in the states I go to and adhere to their laws as best I can but will never go unarmed in some manner…..been a lot closer to the fire than you might imagine and way to many firefights and
          did some time in cells that no one on this earth should have to…but those days are way behind me and I never talk about that so I will leave it here with I paid my dues and I would bet you have to……best to you and yours……

        • axmickl

          I’m glad we are on the same page. I have great respect for my brothers in arms and nobody who hasn’t walked in our shoes would understand. I also was captured and tortured for a short while until they made a fatal mistake. God speed and who knows, we may yet fight on the same side again.

        • Hammer

          Of one thing I can be sure of my brother WE will ALWAYS be on the same side. No matter how hard they try they will NEVER break us of that I’m sure and that includes domestics in washington. We are for sure on the same page stay safe my friend and your right we once again might be back to back…..

        • gw111

          What gives you the right to carry. It is your citizenship. If we are going to claim that right and I do then I feel I am first compelled to show I am a citizen. What if every illegal felt he wanted to carry. He could claim the same thing a citizen does if he doesn’t have to prove it.

  • bfit58

    I wonder if he got his gun back?

  • PAGNOLINROME

    Dollars to donuts this judge is a progressive liberal democrat if not appointed by someone in this administration.

  • cdl123

    As opposed to conceal and carry? Many politicians conceal and carry. Many being the same ones trying to take guns away from everyone else. Sometimes one cannot but help wonder how some people manage to survive in todays society let alone become a judge. This man certainly lacks common sense. His opinion is likely more in line with a political agenda then reality.

  • matjoe76

    I am sorry but on this one I have to go along with The Judge. I have no problem with him carrying a weapon that he is licensed to, but I also want him to have on his Person Both his Permit and proof of who he is. They did have a complaint and it was close to an area with children. As long as they did not use force to take away his Weapons and asked him fir his ID I cannot see his rights being abused. We have Plenty of reason to be angry about loosing our rights but I do not se this as one of them. I believe everyone should have a ID with his or her Picture,, Even when they Have to Vote.

    • gw111

      It would be nice if we could make the president prove his identity. I am not a birther, but so many want our president to prove his citizenship isn’t that all the cops were doing of this man?

  • Silas DoGood

    For every day that passes, we let the asshole in the White House erode the freedoms of this Republic. Make no mistake, this is NOT a DEMOCRACY!! Read the Constitution, the Bill or Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

    I am a gun owner. I am a proud
    advocate of the unalienable civil right to keep and bear arms.

    I am a gun owner. I will not be vilified, demonized, or marginalized by those
    who would seek to disarm me and leave me defenseless against violent criminals
    and tyrannical governments.

    I am a gun owner. I advocate individual responsibility. I realize my life is
    ultimately my own, and that neither the police nor any other party is likely to
    save me if I’m attacked by a rapist, murderer, or other criminal. I refuse to
    be a victim. I will not leave my family unprotected.

    I am a gun owner. I realize that guns are inanimate objects, which can be used
    for good or for ill. But disarmament laws affect mostly honest, law-abiding
    citizens, not the criminals. I will look the purveyors of pseudo-scientific
    statistical lies in the eye when I defend my rights. I will not cower before
    those who harbor bigotry against me.

    I am a gun owner. No, I don’t believe the world should operate by the “law
    of the jungle,” nor do I harbor suspicions that every person might be a
    criminal. Those are just stereotypes in which some take comfort as they seek to
    discriminate against me. Nor am I a utopian. I don’t believe the world will be
    safe from criminals just because the anti-gun lobby passes legislation
    declaring “Gun Free Zones” and the like. Not only do disarmament laws
    not achieve their desired results, but they lead to unintended bad consequences
    of making honest people more prone to criminal attack. The more people exercise
    their right to keep and bear arms, the safer is society and the more we can
    forget about crime and get on with the business of living our lives.

    I am a gun owner. I will not let those who would strip me of my rights forget
    that I keep them safer, too, because criminals don’t know which person might be
    armed.

    I am a gun owner. I will stand tall and defend the American heritage of freedom
    for which our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
    honor.

    Guns do not kill, people kill.

    Patriots be armed, be prepared as Obama is DIVIDING the Country and will draw first blood in the next civil war.

    • gw111

      I don’t believe anyone tried to strip him from his rights to carry. They just wanted to make sure he had a permit and he was who he said he was and not an illegal or mental patient.

      • TBI

        Illegal would not have mattered, they probably would show him the way to the welfare office or the next La Raza demonstration.

      • bill

        so you’re saying he has to prove his innocence otherwise guilty? Have you done ANY research on our Constitution, the history of this country or the history of ANY country that willingly gave up their rights? GOD help this country when we have the number of SHEEPLE willing to board the box-cars for a short train ride to the camps.

        • gw111

          His guilt or innocents wasn’t being questioned when asked if he had id. Once he refused to show he was a citizen then questions arrive. If we follow the approach that a cop can’t ask for id then we have no way of knowing if the man is a citizen. (though I can see how knowing he is illegal would of got him more rights then if he were legal) Being a citizen is the only thing that grants him the right to carry. They go hand in hand unless you think it is ok for illegals to carry.

        • bill

          GW.. that is where you and I part ways. By being asked for ID when he’d committed NO CRIME, the cop was presuming guilt. Of something!

        • gw111

          Bill, conservatives have for some reason bicker between themselves, no I don’t believe asking for you to identify yourself is suggesting you are presuming guilt. In fact it might be a way of saying only citizens have the right to carry, Your identity is proof that you have the rights as a citizen, of which is the right to carry, not an admission of guilt. If it is an admission of guilt then the signers of the Declaration of Independence were admitting guilt. They identified themselves as new citizens of a new country and felt their new citizenship was a badge of honor, or else they would not have signed the declaration of independence. I feel when confronted by a cop and asked am I carrying I can say yes because I am a citizen and here is proof, now back off! In this world only Americans can carry in their own country. We have so many who can’t prove their citizenship I say to us citizens, be prepared to show you are a citizen till the we can secure our borders and run all those out of this country that don’t belong.

  • kenhowes

    Think about it. This happens, and gets the approval of a judge, in GEORGIA. What is the state of our liberties in, say, Massachusetts or New York? I still remember in 1977, when I returned from Europe from military service there, coming into the Boston airport. When I went through customs, I reported that I had, packed in a suitcase, a pistol (a Colt .38 Super). In the box with the pistol, which was not loaded nor was there ammunition anywhere in my effects, were the Maryland gun registration–I had registered the gun in Maryland at the time I bought it–the United States Army, Europe, gun registration, and the German Waffenschein (weapon permit). They took the gun and told me that they could have arrested me for bringing this gun into Massachusetts without a Massachusetts permit. I would be able to get it back if I applied for and got a Massachusetts gun permit. Well, I was going to be in Massachusetts for exactly three days, visiting my parents, before heading on to Indiana, where I would be going to college after getting out of the Army. I wasn’t going to be bothered with that, so I just left the gun there; I haven’t owned a gun since.

    • Jim_Macklin

      The anti-gun laws of Massachusetts, NY, NJ, DE, and MD have had their desired effect, you decided to not file a lawsuit to get your property returned and have surrendered your rights, even in Indiana. MA has the Bartley-Fox law [I don't recall whether it was in effect in 1977] and it makes any unlicensed possession a 1 year mandatory prison sentence. If you had gotten your gun returned, you might have robbed 1,000 banks and murdered 10,000 people, in 1977 your Colt 1911A1 38 Super was under $200, today it is over $1,000 but the state depends on the cost of a lawyer to sue for you is at least 5 times that. It is a racket, a speed trap, designed to make the politician feel like they have done something, even if it does nothing to actually reduce crime or increase public safety.

  • 63Marine

    ALL present judges need to be replaced by judges that will follow the law and constitution as written and not try to re-write or challenge the law as written.

  • downs1

    Proescher himself is a bit of a problem! He wasn’t forthright, he got snotty, and by his actions and dress called attention to himself. While he had done nothing wrong, he is obviously one who likes to push the envelope a tad. Now he wants to sue because he feels he was “wronged.” If I were the cops, I would have challenged him also. As it stands, he was released, no charges were placed against him and no one got hurt. Oh yeah, and if you have a license to open carry, make sure your photo is on it! Most people who have carry permits never give evidence they are armed. They don’t feel the need to advertise!

    • greekdish

      Maybe thats the way he always dresses? Who are you to declare what is proper attire?

      And he has every right to sue, whether he did this as a stunt or not…law enforcement needs to know the law, and lawsuits are one way to force them to obey the Constitution.

      • downs1

        No argument there, but there are two sides to the story. Sometimes we jump on the wagon and we don’t know where it’s going. I said he had done nothing wrong, but with the country so “antsy” about weapons you don’t go out and flaunt a sidearm, especially around a school yard! Had the cops done nothing and he was up to no good, then we would be giving them grief for doing nothing! Gimme a break!

  • Busdriver Bill

    Liberty is dead. We are, albeit unknowingly, slaves to the Authoritarian Government. As a retiree, I have to pay tribute in order to withdraw my own money from my investment portfolio. Were I to wish to carry a weapon to a firing range, a friend’s house, of on a hunting trip, I must go through a lengthy checklist of “no-nos” in order to keep from being considered a criminal for doing what the Constitution guarantees is legal and just. Napoleon’s legality runs the roost. We ARE guilty, until we prove our innocence – if we can.

    The changes which are necessary to restore liberty are so huge, it seems insurmountable. A Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t hurt, for a starter. But the huge bureaucracy, with all its regulations must be dismantled. The Constitution must be used as a measuring stick for all law. Study the thing, and you find that three quarters of the executive branch is unlawful – with all their subsidiary bureaus, each issuing regulations carrying the weight and force of law. Then, there is that “Oath-of Office” which they all quote with their fingers crossed. It should be a 20 year felony to go against it, at the least, with the death penalty looming for major infractions. Think of how many of our elected and appointed servants would fail that test. (I took that oath in November of 1956, when they pinned on the gold bars of Second Lieutenant, USAF, and I’ve obeyed it ever since – even to leaving the service when I discovered they wished me to obey unlawful orders, IMO). We’d lose more than half the Supreme Court, were they held to the oath. Only a few in the House, and a couple in the Senate would remain. The entire Executive should be behind bars. Oh Lord, where is that asteroid, when we need it?
    [No virtual animals, humans or critters from space were harmed in the making of this rant. And, I wish it to be known, that I do not wish any harm to real creatures, either; only education and rehabilitation, from my fingertips to God's eyes.]

  • Sharron Benson

    But I bet he has one!!!!! Sorry BA*#$%D!!!!

  • Walt

    I realize he had the right to be there and to carry but unless he was stupid he new the outcome of not talking to the police would be his arrest. I have been asked several times why I was carrying or who I was. I found that if you are pleasant, answer their questions and show some ID; they usually say thank you for your cooperation and leave.

  • axmickl

    Could this whole thing have been avoided if the citizen had simply answered the reasonable questions? There is nothing wrong with a cop checking to see if you are a sane person who is simply exercising his 2nd amendment rights. What is wrong is that the police believe they are obligated to harass anybody who is the subject of a phone call from anybody questioning someone’s status. The article didn’t say if the police approached the man with an aggressive attitude but I would be tempted to bet they did. That is probably what turned the citizen off and created the whole fiasco. God protect us from bullies in uniform before we have to start doing it ourselves.

  • A_Nobody

    Man, we keep finding village idiots everywhere. Is something getting into the country’s water??? Like DHS dropping drugs into it???

  • Spanabama

    Just because you are doing nothing wrong does not mean you can disrespect authority and not cooperate with the police. This man brought this on himself by not cooperating. All he had to do was answer a couple questions, show an ID, and he’s home free. Instead he decided to act like a democrat. If it were up to me I would suspend his open carry license for acting in this manner especially in an area with numerous children playing. This was NOT unreasable for the police to stop and question him. If the police did nothing and he opened fire on the children in the park, then all you democrats would be screaming that the police did nothing. There is no winning with whiners like you.

  • ChristCrusader

    What does this mean for open carry/po po encounters in the future?

    • paraducks

      Shoot first ask questions later ?
      Reminds me of that line Archie Bunker used back in the day…”Ya walk ya get mugged. Ya run the cops get ya. Ain’t figured out which is worse…”

  • Adam L.

    I thought that there were multiple cases that have proven that open carry is NOT suspicion of a crime.

    • paraducks

      Liberals NEVER let common sense, precedent, tradition or morality stand in the way of their latest “urges” and “feelings”….
      I don’t advocate a “French Revolution” answer but I suspect that since “reason” does not apply to these folks someone is going to bring us an attempt at one. The result will probably be slavery for everyone… Of course slavery is what the elite liberals have in mind for us peons anyway.

  • nhjim1

    The Judge needs to be disbarred, thrown off the bench (into a padded room). The cop needs to receive training and a lot of common sense which he obviously doesn’t have.

    • paraducks

      Problem is that most of the judges we have today graduated from our degenerate progressive sausage mills. Their professors are folks that were raising money for Ho Chi Minh and spitting on returning American G.I.s back in the 60s.
      Don’t see anyway out comrade…

  • racefish

    Well, it is a Democrat controlled state.

  • A_Nobody

    I’ll do this again. We seem to have found another village idiot in this judge. There seems to be more every day. Is DHS dumping something in the water supply??

  • Jed54

    Goes to show you can be pretty damn dumb to hold a judges seat…

  • doctorbob

    Well, I went to Church last Sunday, as protected by the First Amendment. I bought a newspaper, also as protected by the First Amendment. I also expressed my political opinion over breakfast at the coffee shop, also as per my First Amendment rights. I also posted a sign by my front door, “no soldiers permitted to be quartered here,” as per my 3rd Amendment rights. And I would never permit a search of my home or property without a court order. I guess that makes me a mental patient, and probably a criminal… right? Or am I just a patriotic, law-abiding American? Wonder which the police would consider me to be?

    • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

      Be careful when the knock on your door comes! ;<(

  • nhjim1

    The judges are acting in concert with law enforcement to help bring about the new Police state and New World Order. Now where did I leave my tin hat?

  • Arizona_Don

    After reading this it seems the mistake he made is carrying openly and not coroperating with law enforcement. I used to live in Georgia and love it there if it were not so damn humid. However, we have always been able to carry open in Arizona and for some years now can carry concealed without a permit, the second amendment is our permit. That’s the way it should be.

    Being former law enforcement I do not understand why he refused to identify himself with a drivers license or some other picture ID. Seems he was looking for trouble and found it. I realize he may not have to provide that info but logically he should to avoid problems, which happened. Fighting city hall is usually a losing proposition. Consequently, unless a point is being made why cause problems for yourself and law enforcement?

    Perhaps he should take a course in diplomacy. By the sound of his outfit and attitude the correct conclusion may have been reached. However, it is impossible to reach a correct conclusion with only the info in this story.

    On the other hand I have seen many cases of abuse of officers who should not be law enforcement because they seem to be afraid of civilians carrying firearms. They must not have much self confidence. I never was afraid. Of course perhaps they were not trained properly.

    • CrustyOldGeezer

      I fully and completely understand why he refused to ‘cooperate’ with the Unconstitutional interrogation of a Citizen, operating completely within his RIGHTS.

      You claimed ‘former law enforcement’, but have you ever READ the Constitution. Bill Of RIGHTS, the Federalist Papers, the Magna Carta or Poor Richards almanac?

      If not, then perhaps you should begin your education on your own since you skipped that whole “paying attention” in school.

      • gw111

        I have read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Poor Richard. It seems to me the only thing the cops were trying to do was prove he was a citizen. He should of been proud to prove that, ( the reason he has those rights is because he is a citizen.) now if he shows his picture idea, (wish we could make it so illegals without one could be deported) then he has grounds to stand on his constitutional rights. Any further interrogation by the cops would be grounds to sue. You know the founding fathers signed the constitution or at least the declaration of independence because they were proud to be called Citizens of a new country based on the equality of men under the law. When they put their name on that document they identified themselves and they knew they could be hanged for it.
        I am always glad to show I am a citizen, isn’t that what we ask of our President. (the Magna Carta, though a great document makes good reading for the British, but our rights are spelled out under the constitution. and Yes I know much of what our founding fathers believed came from that document.)

        • CrustyOldGeezer

          So far they have shown no probable cause.

          What they offered was “suspicious looking” for the sole reason that he had a gun, in a holster, on his hip, with no outward indication that he had sinister motives.

          The issue arose when a rent-a-cop, wet his pants because somebody had a gun and he could see it and he was frightened, and his diaper was all wet, an…..

          Were I employed in that jurisdiction, and on patrol in the vicinity, and my noisy thing started telling me that a rentacawp was skeered, I would have investigated and observed.

          Inconspicuously and from a distance to see if there was ‘suspicious activity’.

          If there was none, I would not have intervened.

          THAT is the difference between Law Enforcement and ABUSE of the Law under the color of law.

        • gw111

          I think the reason he was arrested was not because he had a gun, but that he didn’t want to show an id. This is a dammed if you do and damned if you don’t situation. No arrest was suggested before the man decided not to show he was a citizen. Showing yourself a citizen is not self incriminating. In fact it should be a warning to any law enforcement officer that he is dealing with his boss. Our president doesn’t care to prove his citizenship yet we harp on him that he doesn’t. The law says a president has to be a naturalized, what law is that, the constitution. The constitution also says CITIZENS have the right to carry. Therefore citizens should be able to prove they are citizens. I for one am glad to show I am citizen, it is a badge of honor. Just because our president does not want to show he is a citizen doesn’t mean I don’t. Anytime a cop takes exception to my citizenship he better be prepared. I am tired of having cops not distinguishing between citizens and non citizens.

        • CrustyOldGeezer

          Still no “PROBABLE CAUSE” for the officer to even approach the Citizen and ask for anything.

          You really do not know and understand the Constitutional republic system do you?

        • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

          And just how the hell does one “prove” they are a citizen? Drivers License? No… Many states provide those to illegals now… SSN? They tell you not to carry those these days as they can be stolen and your identity with it (mine was, and I never got a replacement because my old one said “Not for Identification Purposes” and the new ones don’t!) Don’t have a passport….
          So, do you carry your birth certificate?
          I think the best way to show that you are a citizen, is to know your rights, and exercise them to their fullest! Carry your weapon openly (2nd Amendment), don’t say shit to a cop (5th Amendment), and don’t let `em into your house (or car) without a warrant.

      • Arizona_Don

        Read the second paragraph again and try to pay attention this time.

        • CrustyOldGeezer

          Yep, I reread it.

          And you are still a fascist, if that is your position.

          Please reread the Constitution, the Bill of RIGHTS and do try to pay attention this time.

    • sanman99

      I agree with you. The only thing I would add is our Government primarily Democrats have left us law abiding citizens (and retired LEO’s) suspicious, afraid and unprotected!.

  • veryconcerned12

    ‘….when Bell arrived at the Park, did have a visible weapon, and who evaded Bell’s questions and requests for identification bearing a photograph, provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain Plaintiff.’

    Where in the constitution does it say everyone must identify themselves AND provide identification providing a photograph?

    • CrustyOldGeezer

      That would be 1939 germany.

      “SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!”, refuse and you may be shot on the spot, per adolf hitlers orders.

    • gw111

      How could you ever arrest an illegal if he could claim to be a citizen and doesn’t want to show proof he is?

      • veryconcerned12

        Are YOU a citizen to a fictitious entity called government? Are fictions the supreme power or are living men and women the supreme power? A citizen is a subject that is subject to a higher power than they are.

        I’m not a citizen, but the fictitious Name created by a Birth Certificate is a citizen and that citizen is just personal property that is held by the State.

  • tsmiths

    The idiot was arrested, not for carrying a gun, but because of his behavior toward the police. The judge has more sense than his critics on this blog and the fool who wrote the above.

    • CrustyOldGeezer

      You short on education in this subject?

      Or are you just stupid?

  • Jim_Macklin

    The law on identification vary from state to state and depending on what you’re dong. The FAA requires that a pilot present a pilot certificate if asked by an FAA Inspector or law enforcement officer. The current FAA certificate does not have a picture, but for many years, the FAA has required pilots to carry a valid picture ID along with their pilot certificate.
    I have seen many of these on-line videos of a police stop of an armed man. Most seem to be deliberately confrontational. Even a captive soldier is required to give name, rank and serial number.
    It is unfortunate that the mere sight of a gun alarms some people. If people are alarmed or uncomfortable seeing a gun in a place they do not expect to see a gun, on a person not in uniform, that emotional response provides the police with an excuse to make an arrest.
    In Germany 1935-45, having an armed person, in uniform come to your door was not a good thing, the SS Uniform was alarming, even without the gun.
    Yes, the SCOUS has said a person is not required to present ID. But most of what these staged confrontations do is create a confrontation and often create bad case law.

  • Doc

    U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. is a left wing commie marxist police statist obama supporter who needs to be removed from the bench for violation of his oath of office and the Constitution. Cops need to understand that open carry is a God given right and a Constitutional right. ANY judge who makes a ruling that is not in accordance with the Constitution should be removed from the bench.

    • SpudPicker

      The only time I would get suspicious of someone with an open carry gun would be if he pulled it and aimed it without reason.
      Might just be a good way to keep kooks with guns and grudges from trying to commit mayhem.
      The more liberal-progressive this country gets the more kooks and crimes we seem to get.

  • Amfer Ferg

    Just where do judges like this come from and more importantly, how do they get appointed or elected? Like the Scales of Justice, they must not make judgement based on their foibles, beliefs, or prejudices.

    • TBI

      They come from our finest progressive institutions, just ask them.

  • jime1

    I’m as pro gun rights as possible, but this character was asking for trouble, that’s as plain as the nose on your face, and he got plenty. What he did was just plain dumb! There were things he COULD have done to prevent the entire incident, he chose not to. Why?? Y’all know why !

    If I saw a similar situation and the police didn’t come, or just drove by and waved at the fool, frankly I’d be pretty pi$$ed. Hardly a week passes any more that we don’t read about, hear about or see film/pictures of some nut job or lunatic going off the deep end.
    Why is this even considered a “NEWS” story? This isn’t news it’s nonsense, and the entire thing was probably staged from the onset !!! Shame on Proescher and the fool who wrote the article, and double shame on this web site for posting crap like this !!

  • JimMT

    So, now the precedent is sealed: it is a crime to walk around in a PUBLIC park IF the police and a judge “say so”. “Criminal trespass” on the public’s land!? What bull crap. What next? Can’t stand still on a public sidewalk for more than 10 seconds – “move along” “loitering is a crime”…??? ASH HOLES.

    • TBI

      You can only be there if you are a leftist demonstrator screaming for more Government.

      • JimMT

        Or an invader from Mexico demanding rights that do not exist! The only “right” such a fool has is deportation to his place of origin. The same should be done to and for Obama – if he wants, he can take his spouse and Al Queda bait with him…

      • JimMT

        Also, you would be exempt from the “loiter” charge, if you were standing reverently while military and police state personnel were marching down the street, jackbooted and following the local tanks and armored personnel carriers. Then it would be “okay” to stand at attention and not move about, for that might elicit “fear” in the police that you were up to some nefarious business that they had not authorized. What a cretin-ish nation we have become. Where the cops can tell us what are our rights, and judges comply with the cops, ignoring the Constitution!

  • Phil McMorrow

    The suspect should have immediately taken refuge under his Fifth Amendment rights . That would have blown up the whole state issue of Nonresponsivness. Hello, Cradker Cops. Neither you nor I owe any answer to an ignorant authority who obviously doesn’t know his arse from the rear end of a donkey.

  • Mort Leith

    Being a liberal is reasonable suspicion of ignoran*ce and insani/ty….
    and should be sterilized and deported asap

  • SpudPicker

    Open carry is “reasonable suspicion…..?” Hard to believe. Usually if someone has a gun and plans on committing a crime they conceal it until ready to use it. Some states allow open carry. All states should. Has to do with that little “shall not be infringed” statement in the Bill of Rights. Probably a little hard for some judges to understand!

  • DerangedTuna

    If you force a confrontation with police in this political environment, you will not win. At the extreme, you could be right — dead right. You can talk all you want about your rights, but be prepared for the handcuffs. That’s just the way it is.

    • Mort Leith

      That liberal logic does NOT apply to North Georgia in the Blue Ridge Mountains,, i GUARANTEE you…. cops will LOSE 90% of the time…
      You are obviously a future prisoner as you are too liberal/ignor*ant to stand up for your God-given rights…

      • DerangedTuna

        That’s not “liberal logic,” that’s just the way it is. I am no liberal and I carry — concealed. But I don’t want to end up in jail. Fortunately, police in my semi-rural community aren’t likely to act like that, but in most places the public loses.

  • Whitebird

    Cops open carry guns to protect
    #1 pedestrians
    #2 store keepers
    #3 pregnant women
    #4 old people
    #5 themselves
    ANSWER ______________

    • Mort Leith

      Themselves…

      • Guest

        Duh.

      • Whitebird

        Right! And don’t forget it. You see, the govt. gives them the right to carry a fire arm but the 2nd amendment gives us that same privilege. When that same govt. Tries to confiscate those guns , THEY are breaking the law, so is our govt. Above the law?

  • higgy01

    The judge was appointed by some PC nut case as is the judge himself. He should be pulled off the bench for not operating with a rational mind. The cops should also be suspended and then made to take a course in being a cop and what a carry permit means.

  • Jeff Brodhead

    So if you dare to “offend”, or “scare”… you are guilty of a crime?

  • Libertarian58

    Another fine example of the abuse of statutory law. “Criminal trespass” can be morphed into anything they want it to be, just so they can drag him through the system, no victim, no injury, no damage, no nothing. All in the name of “protecting” us. The road to the police state is paved with statutory law and EVERY politician, lawyer, court, judge and LEO upholds it.

  • AZtejas

    in some states you have the right to open carry without a gun permit. However, it is never ok, to disrespect the law. This individual appeared to have absolutely no respect for law enforcement. They have a right to stop and question you, if they think there is anything suspicious about your actions. To open carry and not carry identification is simply asking for trouble. In this case the judge was probably right, but I would have to read his “complete” judgement and not a sound bite to hopefully understand the Judge’s intent. Our right to carry guns is not absolute, but it is a right which should not be denied as long as we use sound judgement. We do have some nuts out there that seem to think they have absolute rights to do whatever they want.

    • Mort Leith

      It IS ok, to disrespect the law, when the law is either UnConstitutional or Liberal oriented…

    • BigUgly666

      No, they DO NOT “HAVE A RIGHT TO STOP AND QUESTION YOU” … not unless they are able to articulate a “reasonable suspicion of a crime” …. and you have no duty to identify yourself unless said “reasonable suspicion” has been articulated.

    • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

      I live in an open carry state, and I do on occasion carry openly. I go to the store, go to the bank, go where ever the hell I want, and I’ve never been questioned about it. I don’t understand why the mere act of carrying a weapon openly is thought of as “aggressive”. Personally, I think hiding the weapon is more indicative of “criminal intent”.

  • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

    This is just one more arena of ilk that needs to be purged and put into prison for lawlessness… can’t wait for the spark. He just needs to take it to the appeals court, supreme court, or U.S. Supreme Court. Cases exist that support him…

  • Valor

    As a former LEO there is fault on the part of Mr. Proescher, he should have been more forth coming. However, I suspect the officers involved were more confrontational than they should have been which may have gotten Proscher’s back up. Don’t know, wasn’t there so it is foolish to armchair quarterback, but I would like to think I would have handled the situation differently. With the present trend toward police state mentality in many law enforcement communities this sort of situation is likely to become more common place. Glad I no longer wear a badge.

  • KittyKittyKit

    I am “suspicious” of ALL P.I.G.S. (People In Government Service).

    I talk to a lot of cops, and the majority of them are very nice guys / gals, but when you ask them about what “laws” they are upholding or standing on when it comes to certain situations that they are called to, they LITERALLY do NOT know the law and say, “well, I’d have to look that one up, I’m not sure, or if I don’t know, I just go ahead and arrest you and you sort it out in court.”……..how LAME is that???

    If YOU are a “law enforcement” officer, WE THE PEOPLE pay you to KNOW what laws you are supposedly “enforcing” in your efforts and responsibility to “support and protect” your State Constitution, AND the U.S. Constitution.

    That is the ONLY thing, WE THE PEOPLE, by way of the U.S. Constitution, DEMAND that you do BEFORE being allowed to enter into the office you’ve been hired by US, (the”private” sector), to do.

    When you, as a law enforcement officer, DO NOT KNOW when you are being asked to enforce an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the “clearly” is in BREACH of the State or Nation’s Constitutional law, then YOU make yourself a TRAITOR and are knowingly, or unknowingly committing an ACT OF TREASON by actively engaging in the OVERTHROW of the “constitutional” laws.

    YOU make yourself a CRIMINAL of the HIGHEST and most DANGEROUS and UN-TRUSTWORTHY order, one who would flush EVERYONE in the nation down the sewer while throwing your responsibility to the wind just to keep your cushy job, salary and union retirement package.

    YOU reserve to yourself and your fellow P.I.G.S. the RIGHTS that are FORBIDDEN, by the Constitution, to those exercising governmental authority, and FORCIBLY take at GUNPOINT, the RIGHTS THAT ARE RESERVED TO THE “CITIZENS” OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    That, sir, is PURE TREASON, and anyone “supporting” or advancing such conduct is an ACCESSORY to the CRIME OF TREASON.

  • J Bryan Jensen

    Open carry reasonable suspicion of a crime? What a crock of crap spewing forth from this dishonorable so called judge’s mouth. My six year old grand daughter would do better on that bench than that judge. Another example of a milignant tumor on the body of America.

  • rog363

    Is he telling everyone that all police that have a gun strapped on and not concealed, are to be thought to be guilty of a crime because they are carrying an unconcealed weapon? If someone is legally carrying why pray tell should they be stopped and questioned? If you are driving a car, the police aren’t allowed to pull you over for no reason, are they?

  • http://nbcfund.com/ slcraig

    Well, I’m sorry……….BUT………..Mr. Proescher is an IDIOT ….. say I am armed and completely within my rights and a couple of men in uniforms and sidearms walk up to me and asks what’s going on…………I say, “Good day Officers, my name is XXX and I’m here on private business but I have my weapons permit and ID in my back pocket, if you would like I’ll take them out of my wallet so you can verify what I’ve said is correct….”

    No one should be out looking to become a “test case” on Gun Regulations vs the 2nd Amendment ………. We PAY the Police to protect and to serve and OWE them respect for doing a dangerous job in our cities, towns and near our homes….Don’t be a dick, but by ALL MEANS be a responsible gun owner……..

    • undergraduate

      You need to read the story again. Maybe a couple of times.

      • gw111

        What part of the story did Slcraig miss.

      • http://nbcfund.com/ slcraig

        ” …When police arrived, they tried questioning the man. Not having committed any crime, the man was not forthright about identifying himself or answering questions about why he was there and why he had a gun.

        They arrested him for criminal trespass. They had apparently asked him to leave the park, and he didn’t comply. The police had the blessing of the magistrate judge who told them that they had sufficient probable cause for an arrest….”

        So, you are thinking what…?

        Mr. Proescher is an IDIOT ……….. and MADE himself out to be suspicious by his own actions and refusal to identify himself …….. and by his own actions put ALL gun owners at risk of being deemed suspicious,……. which the Judge was FORCED by Mr. Proescher’s actions to consider a safe and prudent practice WHEN gun owners ACT OUT as Mr. Proescher did…..

  • TPM

    I’ve got mixed emotions on this. I’m an advocate of our 2nd Amendment rights.
    BUT … I’m not always an advocate for open carry. Put yourself in the position of the LEO who collared the open carry guy, in a park, near a playground. Consider the parents who were with their kids at the playground. If the cop ignores this pistol toting guy and he heads for the playground and does some damage … who wouldn’t be critical of the cop’s lack of caution?
    I cherish my 2nd amendment rights. BUT, there are far too many nuts walking around, off their meds, for me to be comfortable seeing open carry in crowded venues.

    • undergraduate

      You lie when you say you are an advocate of 2nd Amendment rights.

      • TPM

        Undergad … You clearly don’t have young kids. When you do, I think you’ll feel different …

        You can be an advocate of our 2nd amendment, without being an idiot. This guy wouldn’t answer questions or show ID. I don’t want someone like that around my kids at a park.
        There are too many unhinged idiots walking around, today. It’s people like this who put our 2nd amendment rights at (greater) risk. I’ll wager that 95% of people would be nervous, seeing an open carry guy, in tactical garb, wandering around in a park or at a playground.

        • Mark Lewis

          I do have young kids, a 5 year old son. We have seen folks open carrying while out and about. He has asked me if the man with the gun is a police man and I just told him that he may be one or he may just be a man who wants to carry his gun. He accepts this as the way things are and doesn’t bat an eye at a person with a holstered gun now.

          He wouldn’t answer questions or show ID because they had no right to ask him the questions or for ID. He did nothing wrong. We are not required to produce ID on demand nor state our intentions on demand to law enforcement. Just like if you get pulled over and the officer asks you where you are going, you are in no way obligated to answer. There are clearly defined legal requirements for what and when you are required to provide to police.

          If someone in a public place who is not breaking any laws is making you nervous, then you should take action yourself and go somewhere else. They are not obligated to conform to what makes you comfortable. Period. End of discussion. What if YOU are making them uncomfortable by staring at them because you are “worried” about what they may do? Should you be forced to leave to accommodate their comfort?

          For the record there are LESS “unhinged idiots” walking around today than there were in the past, or at least less of them are committing crimes. Sounds like you are the one with the issues to me.

      • gw111

        He was asked for id that proved he was a citizen. How is anyone to know he is if he can’t prove it. We ask our President to prove he is a citizen and by the responses I have heard here he didn’t need too because his constitutional rights would be circumvented. I am sorry but until we can guarantee that our borders are secure we need some way to prove any individual is a citizen. Lets never give away our rights, but let us always be careful not to give those rights to those who are not citizens. If we are not going to require our citizens to prove their legality then how do we deny illegals the right to vote.

  • Jakebrake

    Another sick leftist socialist judge. If his brain was dynamite there wouldn’t be enough to blow his noise.

  • pysco

    Reasonable Suspicion of what crime, judge (Little j) you forfeited calling you, your honor……..

  • drofelkcahs

    I think common sense should be applied here. The man should not have been confrontational with the police. He should have just answered the questions rationally, and would probably, at least, have been allowed to leave the area voluntarily. Guns in areas where children come to play are suspicious in light of recent incidents which made national news. Having the right to keep and bear arms places some obligation on the bearer to be cooperative with police officers who have genuine concerns about his intentions.

    • undergraduate

      What in the story suggests he was confrontational?

      • drofelkcahs

        When questioned he was not forthright in identifying himself or answering questions about why he had a gun. I read nothing in the article to indicate that the officers were less than courteous in their interrogation, and I think that a reasonable person should have been more willing to provide an explanation. Trying to argue a violation of second amendment rights is stretching the limits of the protection afforded by those rights. The man should have offered some explanation, like he was walking home from an outing in the woods with friends and had brought the gun along because there had been rumors of wild dogs in the area. Just an example of course. There may have been a different outcome if he had just been friendly.

      • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

        There is nothing to suggest the man was confrontational. The security guard and police were the ones confronting the man. The burden of proof was on them to show that they had reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and all that to interrogate him, and they had none. The man didn’t have to say anything to them.

  • Erin Jenkinson

    It’s so interesting reading the comments here, especially those from former law enforcement personnel. What specific law is broken by this person NOT carrying identification bearing a photo or refusing to produce it? None that I know of. Let’s project the same situation in 1913. Police still armed, 2nd Amendment still valid (more valid actually), open carry still legal in Georgia, man wears Army uniform. What ID would he produce on demand? Not likely to have a driver’s license, and it wouldn’t have a picture anyway. No social security card, not invented yet. No credit cards or voter registration with a picture. But fast forward to 2013 and the age of technology and if a person doesn’t have a wallet full of driver’s license, social security card, voter’s registration card, credit cards, debit card, insurance card and God knows what else he/she is automatically targeted as an antisocial weirdo and so many people on this thread have bought into this fallacy BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS EXPECTED IN THE US NOW. This man was arrested simply because he did not conform to what is expected by the police in the 21st century or by many people on this forum; he carried a gun openly – legal. He did not have a picture ID – also legal. BUT he did NOT conform to the police or society’s ideal of what is “normal”. If you don’t have a driver’s license in the US – not normal, if you don’t own a cell phone in the US – not normal, if you don’t have a credit or debit card in the US and only use cash – not normal, if you refuse to have a Social Security card (that’s legal too folks, look up the late John Quade) – not normal, and if you exercise your rights as this man did……I think you get the point.

  • MIKE6080

    more cause for concealed carry, dont get the progressives riled up

  • Centurian2010

    To be honest. I would conceal carry over open carry. That way I have an edge if anything happens. However, judges like this disgust me. They are supposed to be honoring the Constitution and our laws, not their own agenda.

  • undergraduate

    This is not going to end well.

  • PFG

    I think failure to honor their oaths of office & “protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign & domestic” is a crime & reasonably suspicious of a lot of other crimes they intend to commit.

  • silvernotes

    THis so-called judge needs to be taken off the bench immediately.

  • ARMYOF69

    Been saying for years, the police are only there to protect their bosses, and each other, while being paid handsomely by you and I.
    Should still try to sue the individual cop.

  • Popawson

    Four words for any LEO. “AM I BEING DETAINED?” answer any question with that question. LEOs are now the enemy. Do not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

  • garyrose

    Not Right Peroid in America or is this still America?? These rogue cops pulling this Illegal Crap and People wonder why Public dont like Cops?They wont arrest Illegal Trespassers in America will not clear out Gang Infested Areas just some I donts??? They will write Speeding Tickets? Parking Tickets ?Write Citations on Bikes no lights no Tags rideing wrong way all the Serious ONES you know>>>>>>>>>>>>P.S. Seen them turn lights on to go on Coffee Breaks Important Right>>>

  • Michaellaborde

    Thiss judge needs to be placed into a mental institution.

  • KJinWTexas

    Before you jump on me for what I’m about to say, know first that I fully support the second amendment and the right for civilians to open carry. I believe open carry would cut down on a lot of crimes and these rampage shootings, but you have to admit that we’re not used to seeing it. Until gun control became such a hot topic, people didn’t open carry even though they could have. Now people are starting to do this more and more, just to show that they can. It’s going to take some getting used to before seeing civilians with guns is no long startling. Proescher should have stopped while he was ahead. They dropped the charges – he should have seen it from the other side and dropped it too.

    People just need more time to get comfortable with seeing this – right now everyone’s jumpy from all the school shootings, etc., not to mention the run-ins with power happy cops.

    • NiceJoeGreen

      I agree. But people need to be smarter than to panic over the “unusualness” of it. Just because some people are so close-minded that they feel fear, even when someone is not threatening them, is not a reason to deprive ourselves of our liberties.

  • USAVeteran

    He had the right to carry, but by refusing to cooperate with Law Enforcement and then taking this case to court he allowed the Judge to Restrict our Right to Carry even further. He did us a dis-service, and for all we know, he might very well have been a Gun Control Activist trying to cause a situation to throw in front of a Judge. All I can say is how stupid to stir up trouble against the rest of us. If you’re packing, carry ID, because most Police that find a person without ID have the right to take you downtown and fingerprint you to find out who you are. Also maybe the Security Guard should be trained on gun laws, but it said he was near the Playground – maybe he was checking out the little girls and boys – very vague article.

    • NiceJoeGreen

      While I agree with you, you’re also guilty of reading into the story more than there is. If the guy was “abusive” to the cops and actively resisted all attempts to defuse the situation, then he was wrong to behave that way. However, for the judge to rule that openly carrying a firearm represents “just cause” for suspicion is patently unconstitutional. If I were in the judge’s position, I would have ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but awarded him only $1. They guy was legally correct in asserting his rights, but he did not deserve to profit from his actions.

  • porterv

    Cops should not be allowed to have guns.

  • Sgt. York

    no underwear i guess is a sigh you craped in them. remember cops all are open carry so i guess they are comiting sumpin

  • Lloydl333

    This Sugar Hill judge, like so many across the country, need to have their butts removed from office.

    They have violated their oath of office. They don’t believe in the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect.
    The Police that are so gun fearful are also violating their oath. The 2nd amendment means what it says. Their anti gun insanity
    proves that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. The enemy is within.

  • Patriot502003

    Exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest in a lawful and reasonable way.

  • D. Guardian

    people will continue to open carry, so cops better learn to live with it. People have the right as per second amendment, and they will continue to do so, whether the cops approve or not, it is legal, that’s what counts.

  • lotharlevieux

    A District Judge? My guess he was appointed by the emperor himself – Obongo. He obviously didn’t meet the constitutional test.

  • Charlie

    The judge should loose his bench. The cop needs to remember that this is the U.S.A. not only is he allowed to carry a gun but “We the People” are also allowed to carry a gun in our country.

  • CitizenJon

    Cops will kill you. I don’t open carry because cops will kill you and they know that they can get away with it. You twitch, they kill you. Sue, after you are dead….. I give them space. Put my hands where they can see them, provide whatever they ask for and I am polite and don’t twitch. Cops will kill you. Prevent crime? Nine times out of ten they get there in time to record the scene of the crime and pin it on the most likely suspect if they find any suspects. I avoid the cops and trouble as much as possible. Push comes to shove, I know what to do. Just remember, Cops will kill you.

  • JosephG

    How do I put this in a way you fucktards will understand? Criminals do not openly carry a gun. Had this man been a crazy as many of you put it and wanted to go for the kids, I doubt he would have had his firearm out in the open until it was too late. Furthermore, I’m fairly certain if he’d seen the cop and wanted to do harm he probably would have shot him. I’d say that’s pretty straight forward. This is just another case of the government overstepping their bounds and trying to regulate our firearms.

  • Tamra Johnson

    Dear Judge..don’t come to Oklahoma..it’s LEGAL HERE!! You’ll be in the WRONG!

  • GFWSR

    So you are guilty until proven innocent?

  • dntmkmecomoverther

    Hey ‘Judge’…this is pretty straight forward. Either open carry is legal in Georgia or it isn’t…so which is it? I get so friggin tired of stupidity which we are FORCED to pay for with taxes confiscated from us.

  • http://twitter.com/itsmesteph11 itsmesteph11

    So many judges with so little brains.

  • BlackKnight

    Tell the judge he can go straight to….. Maybe it is time to start arresting police officers as they all carry open weapons so I guess they are criminals. What dingbat…

  • http://rspolo.myopenid.com/ rspolo

    bad decision.. and there is a lot of active law on this one (NYC is in a major civil rights battle on a similar subject and the liberal federal judge was just over-ruled and removed from the case by the Court of appeals). The cops have every right to stop and question just about anybody for reasonable cause and carrying a weapon in a park would probably fit the bill for that one. If they can legally stop you, and since there was a complaint officers were within their rights to approach they are allowed by default to search for, and secure any weapons (for both parties safety). If it turns out that no crime is being committed the officers must return the weapon.. This is where local laws really matter. Are you required to carry picture ID (or some other form of ID besides a gun permit) in the local were this stop was made? If yes then the police were in the right. If not, the police and county might get themselves served by a NRA lawyers. Only time will tell..

    • jd1958

      No they don’t this has already been settled at the SCOUS about detaining someone “just cause.” You need a civics lesson. Please read the constitution of the U.S. and it’s amendments and get back to use. Particular attention to the 4, 10 and 14th amendments.

  • Bucky Dee

    The author’s spin has my head dizzy.

    • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

      Are you sure you’re not just drunk?

      • Bucky Dee

        Don’t drink. And to cut you off– don’t do drugs. Are you sure you’re not just a troll?

        • Gene Poole

          Buck, the spin is everything.The purpose of this site and the many others like it – many of them run by the same group of people – is to spin any story that can be spun to reflect a predetermined agenda. In this case, the agenda is undermining gun control. But there is also always a cover message, often “increasing government curtailment of freedoms” as in this case. But in fact the forces who are behind fake-news propaganda sites like this one are all for government – as long as its government they can buy with money they should be paying in taxes.

  • BlueViolets

    Does this open carry of weapons apply to the police too? After some of the nasty things I’ve heard our police departments doing to the citizens of this country the judge may well be correct. At least as far as our “brown shirt” police are concerned.

  • jagans

    I would say that concealed carry, and a balaclava would be much more of an indicator of mal-intent, but then I did not go to law school to get my brain sucked out.

  • disqus_jbiEBRPY4F

    Sitting behind an ornate wood bench with a gavel is reasonable suspicion of diminished capacity.

  • 12345bda

    Being that police open carry, I agree that it is reasonable suspicion of a crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • J Hunt Morgan

    There have been several cases of this in SE Louisiana with the cops on the losing side and costing the taxpayers large sums of money to pay for the illegal actions of the un trained police. Here in Jefferson Parish Louisiana, the sheriff has made it a point to train all deputies on this subject. There are lawyers available that specialize in these types of cases and they have an excellent track record.

  • Steve

    If the judge believes that’s true, then there’s an awful lot of criminals employed by the courts, the local police forces and the mafia federal government. They’re always packing heat. The citizen’s should have the same rights to defend themselves.

  • Earl

    This is what is TERRIBLY wrong in our country. Cops and judges are all powerful and we slaves, just have to take whatever they dish out. WHEN is enough, ENOUGH???

  • RoscoeBonifitucci

    Another Marxist Activist Judge who does NOT understand the Constitution and is interested in destroying America. Fire this numb nuts Judge!

  • ARNOLD CARL TAPP

    >>> THIS IS A BLATANT SCREAMING EXAMPLE OF ” PREJUDICE ” AND VIOLATION OF RIGHTS BY AN ANTI CONSTITUTION JUDGE , HE MUST BE DISBARRED AND KICKED OUT OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOREVER . <<<

  • Sunshine Kid

    Take away the judge’s car: It is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.
    Take away the judge’s house” It is reasonable suspicion of corruption and payoffs by the mob.
    Take away the judge’s family: It is reasonable suspicion of infidelity.

    This is what a LIBERAL needs to understand: Reasonable suspicion is not simply having on your person or in your possession the tool to create crime; it is reasonable suspicion only if a crime has been committed and you fit somewhat the description or the circumstances of being involved in said crime..

  • Myrtle Linder

    Lying Liberals. 99.9999% of the time it is for protection, for target practice, to show off or to have if needed. For me 100% of the time is for protection. At age 83, along with my many elderly friend,s we cannot physically protect ourselves.

    The liberals are looking for boogers around every corner, they simply cannot understand plain old Americanism.They are living in their minds in Kenya or Iran.

    • Phd Marty

      I’m with you! Every time I leave the house it is my “American Express” card. I never, ever leave home without at least one!

  • Mimi Schmaltz

    Normal people, beware!

  • Pclages

    Another Federal judge who should be removed from the bench.

  • Chris Foltz

    Another Anti-American in public office crying out for removal… worm will turn & all Anti-Americans will pay a heavy price for their arrogance… Sic Semper Tyrannis…

  • Tosheba

    That liberal kool-aid is some pretty potent stuff, it makes a person nuts.

  • J. R. Weems

    This idea is more than a bogus excuse to harass legal firearm owners. Virginia has had ‘open carry’ four over 400 years. Refusing to leave when ask is of course a ‘crime’ ??

    • edodaniel

      But is refusing to leave a PUBLIC PARK actually a crime unless all others in the park are also asked to leave?

      It is also difficult to trespass on public lands that your tax dollars pay to purchase and maintain.

      Let’s not blame the judge too much though as it appears he may have been taught about law by this guy:

  • Difster

    Coproaches and judges need to start losing their jobs over such incidents.

  • SovereignAmerican

    The real problem here is that the “police” are unconstitutional! Only the sheriff, a duly elected official, is the officer in charge. Legislative actions created the PD’s and State Troopers. Another reach into our wallets. Also the sheriff is the “prosecutor” not the DA. Technically we can have the sheriff recall any DC acolyte from our district/state if they are treasonous to the oath of office and tried in a court. Unfortunately this has not happened often or soon enough! Hence, we are where we are at today.
    May God have mercy on us all!

    • Phd Marty

      I know what you say is true as it is the only law enforcement named in our Constitution. Unfortunately when the Secret Service and FBI were formed, the Sheriffs should have made dam sure they let them know THEY are law enforcement! Now, for some reason they are always in charge of a Federal incident. How is that happening?

  • grabella

    More judges need to assume room temperature…by whatever means necessary or convenient. Just don’t use anything that goes “bang”! Thud is fine, crunch is fine…even screech, thump thump can work wonders…nothing noisy.

  • KingofThings

    I suspect then that the ‘dudge’ is an E-jit so arrest him. He’s posing as a competent human.

  • RevG

    If the State allows Open Carry by law the man should sue the crap out of the county.
    I carried openly in Santa Fe New Mexico at the down town Plaza and an officer Thanked Me for openly carrying. They know it reduces the instance of crimes on the plaza. I have a CHL so I could have kept in concealed.
    In NM open carry is legal, You can carry concealed Only with a License to do so.

  • johnhorse

    With all of these questionable acts by the cops and it seems to be happening Nation Wide.There IS going to come a time when a cop is having a difficult time with someone and will need help from a civilian that may happen to be close.That civilian Knowing or hearing about cops giving folks a hard time for NO REASON is going to tell the cop to pound salt.I can’t blame ANY civilian for feeling that way because THAT is why I have come to my decision NOT help a cop if asked.I have had a run in with some cops that I CALLED to a situation, was cuffed treated like a common criminal and had various sections of my Constitutional Rights abused.I Will NEVER CALL A COP AGAIN for ANYTHING.I will do what I have to do and go on from there.

  • johnny b

    With this federal judge, William S. Duffey, Jr. most likely a damn democrat, in mind, the only thought I can come up with is; You can’t fix stupid!!!!

  • Gregg Weber

    The security guard errored on the side of safety in case there was a shooting in the future. Where would s/he be having seen the future shooter and not reporting it? Besides, people are so sissyfied that this must be a dangerous person. Gasp! Look what he has. Having been warned about a “suspicious” person the police also had to investigate. The degree they went to find the truth, and what it took before they could either cover themselves (like defensive medicine) are other questions. Eventually people will not get soo up tight and the problem will disappear. That will be the day when there will be enough armed people about so that if someone starts shooting there will be enought armed (and honorable determined) people to stop it before the police finally arive (and put on their protective gear).

    • Gene Poole

      When everybody walks around armed, somebody WILL start shooting. And when everybody else starts shooting, the result will be a lot of people dead for no reason.

      • Phd Marty

        I beg to differ. Are you aware that law enforcement have an eleven percent average of shooting the WRONG and innocent person when a crime is committed? As a contrast only about two percent of shooting the wrong and innocent person at a crime scene. This is according to the FBI statistics by the way, not some gun rights supporting group. Just as violent crime has actually dropped by fifty percent in the last twenty years even though legal gun ownership is now so high they have no estimate. All they are able to say is there are so many, the NICS can not keep up with new purchasers. So contrary to your thought, the ONLY places in the country that are actually having serious gun crime problems are those places that heavily restrict legal gun ownership. Every anti gun group in the country have been unable to refute these well known true facts, but the lame media outlets continue to spread lies to those who are willing to blindly believe them. Apparently they must have convinced you. Do research on non agenda sites such as the FBI and see for yourself. You will only find out the truth.

      • petroskhan

        Now that’s just plain ignorant. How about you take a look at places that have the sort of draconian gun control you obviously favor, and compare it places without it?

        For example, take Kennesaw, Ga, which passed a law in 1982 requiring the head of every household to own and maintain a firearm (ethical objectors excluded). Their crime statistics: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html

        Now compare that with such gun control paradises like NY, or DC.

        And, most obviously, let me ask you this: If you were a criminal, who “made a living” out of robbing, stealing, etc., where would you choose to ply your trade? A city where everyone was packing, or a city with strict gun control laws? If you can honestly answer that, you’ll be on your way to a true revelation.

        Remember, wolves prey on sheep, not other wolves.

      • Gregg Weber

        “Dead for no reason” is just as dead as one who is dead for a reason. Do people fear tyranny? A tyrant can have a will (desire and determination) and a reason to kill. People need the will and means to overcome if all else fails. Look at history.

  • Wayne

    This judge and these cops need to be in prison. No crime had been committed in the area with a gun, so they had no reason to be looking for a gun carrying criminal. He has every right to carry openly, and just because he didn’t want to identify himself is not a crime.

  • rchguns

    First of all how do these people become judges? They don’t believe in the law and they don’t support the law in fact they do everything within their power to subjugate the law.

    In a sitting judge who openly and blatantly makes any ruling that is against a recognized law should be terminated and removed from the bench. It is not a judges place to make laws they only enforce them and if they can’t do that then they have no place setting in any court in America. In fact when they make these decisions that goes contrary to the letter of the law they themselves should be locked up. Put in maximum security in general population.

    This idiot is from some place called Sugar Hill in his case more than likely he’s had one too many sugar cubes laced with LSD and a scrambled brains after a scrambled the morals and his judgment.

  • Gene Poole

    The cops are proably Commies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_AH-qyk

  • Gene Poole

    Death threats are being posted on this page:

    “More judges need to assume
    room temperature…by whatever means necessary or convenient. Just
    don’t use anything that goes “bang”! Thud is fine, crunch is
    fine…even screech, thump thump can work wonders…nothing noisy.”

  • SpudPicker

    There seems to be a lot of paranoia going around. If the man is not causing a problem or threatening someone, let him be. Monitor him if he seems suspicious, otherwise leave him alone. The man has the unalienable God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as he is not violating someone else’s unalienable rights let him be!

  • Colorado_Patriot60

    I know that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I know that most if not all criminals are most likely to conceal a weapon because they are usually illegal and criminals are very paranoid about being seen.
    Yes, here is the BIG “BUT”. It does us (WE THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION) no good (if and when these Neo Nazi pro-regressive Pubic servants confront us) to antagonize the situation by refusing to shove the constitution down their throats when we can. Show them your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and then tell them to get lost. They can not legally do a thing once they see your permit, period. So why cause a seen and give the communist libretards in dc more fuel for their Burn of the CONSTITUTION and destruction of this once Great Country?

  • danimal

    When I travel, I carry cash… and open carry my pistol. If they want to see my papers, fine, I don’t make the police play 20 questions, people need to use common sense, plain and simple.

  • truthbeknown

    The only thing here that is a crime? The Judge being a Judge. We need these type of people removed from any sort of office. Wake up America the beast is upon you.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      Permits are a Mark of the Beast. They are just the beginning mark, but they are “A MARK.”

  • BarrackHussein

    Obtaining welfare and food stamps are also reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

  • Bill

    This judge must have some kind of mental issue – he must be removed from his position as soon as possible. To quote: Sigmund Freud: – “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and
    emotional maturity.” General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (1920). Time to remove yourself from the bench sir!

  • sovereigntyofone

    With all the ” brainwashing ” (Eric Holders own words ) of the public about guns, it’s no wonder people are paranoid when seeing someone with a gun on their hip under the ” open carry ” law. But like the article said, you see police or LEO (law enforcement officers) open carrying a gun all the time and nothing is said about it. Personally I don’t have a problem seeing someone with a gun openly carried on their person in states that have ” open carry “. And as the article pointed out, you hear troubling stories about LEO’s abusing their positions and killing or harassing innocent people. When is the last time anyone has heard of a law abiding citizen with a gun ” open carry” killing someone or harassing them like some LEO’s do? I would venture to say, had we had more people with guns on their hips ” open carry ” there would be a lot less crime.
    Just my 2 cents worth.

  • f8tule

    Judges are bound by the CONSTITUTION of these United States of America.. While we still have the constitution WE THE PEOPLE need to fight to keep it as the law of the land.. AT ALL COSTS
    Once they take our guns, those that don’t fight will become slaves to the state.. and then slaves to the NWO.. That is what is happening,, Why go door to door when you can say they are mental and unfit to own a gun.. smoke a little pot? have a dui? been to a counselor? wearing black boots and camo.. automatically doing something wrong..

    WE ARE NOT FREE ANYMORE,, our founding fathers had to fight for our freedoms, and we just simply are letting an ILLEGAL-ALIEN BORN IN KENYA who is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT BEST along with a TRAITOROUS congress take our God given rights away.. WE THE PEOPLE are the laughing stock of the world due to this.. I don’t really care what other people think, but in this case, these traitors and the enemy combatant in our white house has declared war on ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS NO MATTER YOUR SKIN COLOR…

    • Zaphod Smith

      Yup.. and yet the Sheeple keep chewing away at the garbage they feed them.. “No.. Look it’s okay the Government says so” , “Obama care is Constitutional… The Supreme Court says so.” Never mind that all of Government is now working as a whole against the American people.. Instead of 3 parts that are suppose to keep each other within the bounds and limits set for it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  • Americans Wake Up

    But you cannot stop a Mexican and ask for ID? This country is upside down. Rights are being taken away daily.

    • MyronJPoltroonian

      Good point. The officers in question “Racially Profiled” this gentleman and determined he was not a Mexican or an “OTM” (Other Than Mexican), so he was not protected by any federal or state anti-descrimination laws, rules or regulations. That’s why they felt free to pursue their line of questioning. He, whether he was within his rights or not, acted like a jerk. Here, in Calipornia, you’re required to carry a photo ID (I wonder how they enforce that one at the beach?) whenever you’re out in public. I’ll bet he doesn’t act in the same manner as he did in this incident if he’s ever pulled over for a vehicle infraction.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      That’s because there are so many, and one does not know if they are here legally, or not. However, that should not be the determinant, and many a true blue American knows that. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and even stranger use of law. And recall that no illegal is covered under the U.S. Constitution. They can only be denied rights we have because of their status, and arrested for doing something against our law(s). Unfortunately, we have a president who refuses to follow the law, and in fact will fight the law if it feels it is wrong (Marriage Act), but will not protect & defend our right to Keep & bear arms (kaba,).

  • fuzznarf

    Then I can rightfully assume that all cops are guilty of a crime.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      No one is perfect, and no one is above the law. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Couldn’t even type that with a straight face. By very fact they are cops, they are very unlikely to be arrested for a criminal act. That is why we should be seeing more lawsuits in our courts against them. Make them tow the line by being sued to do so. Sue their departments, too.

  • Ken LaRive

    Look, I’m a strict constitutionalists. However, in most cases a person’s “uniform” indicates who that person is. We live in scary times. He should have cooperated. He should have had proper picture ID. If he would have had these the officers would not have had probable cause. We should be allowed to open carry. I have a license to carry concealed, and I do. If I am stopped by an officer the first thing I tell him is that I’m carrying. I show him respect, and my ID, and he does the same. I shoot at a range with many officers, from City to State Police, and Sheriffs too. I always, each and every time, mention to them that they have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution. If I were an officer and asked to see the id of a man carrying and he gave me any lip at all, I would arrest him. A person carrying a gun should also have a good attitude. Anger, or any attempt to provoke should be dealt with. Respect for law, and if you don’t like a law, work to get it changed.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      Perhaps he will get this law changed. Our founders didn’t want us to be people who simply kowtowed to the law because they wear a badge & carry a gun. English common law noted a right to resist authority of the authority was thought to be out of line. American jurisprudence is based on English common law to some extent, and in the past the right to resist was commonplace, and well known (see, “The Right to Resist versus the Duty to Submit” online article). Today, or more appropriately, with the advent of the Progressive era, laws were written to deny people the right to resist. The right is not defined, enumerated, but it is a right of English common law, and likely covered under Amendment 9, the little use, but most appropriate amendment that could be used to deny states the right to license people’s cars, or right to travel/drive, etc.

  • Ralph

    Does that mean that if a person is wearing a gun on their hip out in the open, they should be shot on sight because they could be, COULD BE, going to commit a crime? I think that goes against not only the Second Amendment but also the law that allows the open carry of a firearm. If I carried my rifle with me out in the open and had to walk to the fire range, I would carry it loaded, and have spare ammo with me. I guess I would be guilty of breaking no law and then denied the right to receive compensation of my Constitutional Rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment being denied me. Oh well, Obama is in office and I guess we should allow for what is wrong being supported as though it is right. I also carry a picture ID with me but I don’t trust the police as far as I can throw their cars. To many times I’ve seen them break the laws and be bullies with impunity when complaints are made against them. The reason given, they are the police.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      NYS has a PP that is revokable at whim. A sheriff deputy recently took not only the gun, but the permit of an individual whose gun slipped out of his holster when he was seated in a high chair in a restaurant. The restaurant just happened to have an attached bar, which, supposedly, NY’ers are not allowed to carry in, even if they are not drinking. Personally, that is one of the places, if I’m not drinking, where I am most likely to want to carry a gun. I have seen too many incidents (one is enough) where brawls have broken out in these types of establishments over the most mundane things. Better to be armed, and tried by 12 than carried by 6. But, see, here is the conundrum, He has other pistols, and he can neither turn them in, as is the law, because he doesn’t have his permit, and he cannot legally have them because he doesn’t have a permit, which was taken (stolen) by the sheriff deputy (Monroe County, again), here in NY.

      • Ralph

        I’m just a dumb hick so I would say that he should keep them. For if there is a break in, as you said, it is better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. Also if you are going to be tried by 12, make sure that the bastard breaking in doesn’t have a pulse when carried out.

  • StargazerInSavannah

    Has anyone published the home address of the Judge? Address needs to be published on the internet and in local media…Judge is obviously mentally unstable and a threat to the nation!

    • 2BRKnot2B

      Correction, a threat to himself, and others. Direct definition of those the left would like to see disarmed, but any true constitutionalist would find charming. In fact, our founders wished all Americans to have a martial spirit so that they would not be, in the future, disarmed, or kowtowing to those who represent, and work for them. That is exactly what the judge, the constabulary, and our representatives are paid to do. And, let us recall Marbury v. Madison which states any law contrary to the Constitution is as if never penned to paper, null & void, incapable of being supported by anyone, to either arrest, or used in a court to reprimand anyone–take away their freedom (jail them, or fine them).

  • Larry Hood

    He’s not much of a judge. More like a a gun hating Obama minion.

  • EdChoate

    Are we all reading and interpreting the same story? The subject of this story is a jerk not a hero.

    For the first time in my life I have to agree with the cops and the judge.

    (My son is a deputy)

    There is nothing wrong carrying the gun on the open.

    Let everyone know you have a gun and they will not mess with you.

    I am all for it. BUT I do not agree with the attitude of the subject.

    Why his macho attitude toward the cops?

    Why not show his drivers licence and not cause more complications for himself?

    Sorry, I believe he was looking for trouble so he could be on the local news.

    “The hero defending the 2nd amendment”. What a jerk.

    The cops where concern with the safety of the citizens of that area.

    A person dressed as he was, carrying a gun is very suspicious.

    They had the duty to stop him and ask questions.

    He was asked for a picture ID to prove who he was and the jerk did not have one.

    Who do not carry their drivers licence with them at all time?

    By the way, all of this could be avoided if Georgia had a gun permit that looked more like a drivers licence with his picture, weight, height, color of eyes, address etc. That way the cops would not have any reason to continue questioning the subject.

    But again I am sure he was looking to promote himself as a hero for the 2nd amendment cause. Carrying a gun with a gun permit with no picture is a sure way to get into trouble. Georgia shame on you, it all your fault.

    • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

      I’m sure he had a bad attitude, as I’m sure the cops did as well. Having a bad attitude or “being a jerk” isn’t illegal. Those things are completely irrelevant to the case.

      At the heart of the case is whether they had legal justification to stop the guy in the first place. Having a gun on your hip is not reasonable suspicion, and it does not in and of itself constitute probable cause.

      If it is reasonable suspicion, as this judge opined, then next time you see a cop walking around your local grocery store with a gun on his hip, call the police, because you never know, he might be about to commit a crime. Or maybe he already has.

      • 2BRKnot2B

        We have a state prison in our area. The constabulary used to carry their pistols into the Walmart across the street all the time, openly, on their hips. All of a sudden, this stopped. First, not every cop even has a permit to carry when off duty. Most prison guards do not, but they were carrying around as if they were immune to the Sullivan law here in NYS. I think this is where the trouble begins, when you have a small class of people who are not truly reliable in the constabulary. Unfortunately, many in those para-military forces, for that is what they truly are, consider themselves above the law. As one former sheriff deputy for Monroe County (now Clarkson judge) told my brother, :I have a gun & a badge. My word is gold in any court of law, even if I’m lying my ass off.” Get that? That’s how many of them think. Your word against mine. I’m a civilian, and the cop will be believed before you in any court of law.

    • petroskhan

      You need to get your thoughts in order, friend.

      First, you state, “There is nothing wrong carrying the gun (in) the open.” THEN, you say, “A person dressed as he was, carrying a gun is very suspicious.” So…since carrying a gun is okay (as you stated), then wearing camo is enough to warrant being stopped and harassed by the police?

      “Why not show his license…”? WHY show your license? In the absence of being accused of a crime, absent probable cause, we have NO requirement to produce “papers” simply to satisfy the belligerence of over-zealous, illegally acting “officers” of the law. It is the duty of the police to KNOW the law, not violate it, which is exactly what they did.

      “They had the duty to stop and ask him questions.” Based on WHAT? His chosen fashion sense, and exercise of a right protected by the highest law of the land? And, even if your point is to be granted (which it is NOT), then what duty does Mr. Proescher have to answer? Last time I checked, citizens are under no compulsion to provide any information to the police.

      “Who do not carry their drivers license with them at all time?” Uhh…me. I carry it when I’m driving. That’s it. If I’m out for a walk, minding or about my own business, I don’t carry my wallet. Why should I? And even if I did have it, why should I produce anything when asked? Does the 5th Amendment no longer apply, just because a cop decides it doesn’t?

      And as for the whole “gun permit” thing…it’s called the 2nd Amendment. THAT is all the “permit” we, as free citizens, need. You DO realize, I’m sure, that the legal definition of a “permit” is permission, granted by a higher authority, to do that which it is otherwise illegal to do. You’re going to agree that we DON’T have the right to “keep and bear arms”? That we need revocable permission from the government to exercise a God-given right to be armed and ready to defend ourselves? Where would that stop? How about a 1st Amendment permit, required to speak your mind, or believe as you choose? Or maybe a 5th Amendment permit, to be safe from self-incrimination?

      Your position holds no water, friend. Just because your son is an officer shouldn’t cloud your ideas as to what is right and wrong. I’m hoping it doesn’t affect his, either. Remember, it’s called “Law Enforcement”…not “Law Evasion”. And the highest law is the Constitution, which they all swear to uphold and defend.

      • Zaphod Smith

        Unfortunately, the government is doing a fine job of driving a wedge between the people and their local law enforcement. The people are afraid of the police, and the police are afraid of the people.. They are doing this because they know if they don’t, local law enforcement and the people would work together against them when the time comes.. We need to stop letting them manipulate us like this.. Both sides.

        • petroskhan

          I agree 100%. I remember as a child thinking of the police as valued friends, protectors of our community.

          Now, they represent a lot of what is bad and wrong with our government. Crossing the line, and viewing the public as enemies, or at the very least as people that are beneath them in authority, is a dangerous path. All too many of them seem bent on following that path, though.

    • EdChoate

      Petrskhan,

      I understand everything you said, and I agree with you, BUT due to the loss of liberty we now have, we that believe in the 2nd amendment have to work harder to keep our rights. But let us be realistic.

      Try carrying a gun (in) the open without a gun permit and see what the results will be.
      Yes, we have the right by the constitution to own a gun, and carry it any way we want BUT WE the people allowed our politicians to rob us of this right.

      Our elected officials, made unconstitutional laws demanding us to register the gun and get a permission to carry it. So, because we, the people accepted this to happen, and did NOTHING to prevent it. are now paying for the consequences of our VOTES.

      Where were the People when this happened? Why didn’t the people started a revolution? Answer: They didn’t give a damn!

      We cry that the government took our rights away BUT we gave our rights away by voting on the wrong guy!

      We were silent, when we should before today have fixed the problem and NOT ALLOWED our elected officials to make unconstitutional laws.

      Its our fault that our politicians are doing what they want in Washington.

      We became a bunch of talkers and not doers. We complain but do nothing about it.
      Its time for us Americans to have the courage and go to Washington with our guns in hand and show them that we the people are in charge.

      I am not saying that we should start a revolution, but that we need to go to Washington armed but without our gun permits and tell them that we want our rights back,so cases like this will not happen again.

      • Zaphod Smith

        Well.. Your off on at least one point.. It’s not that the people didn’t give a damn, it’s that the people were tricked into thinking that the laws would keep them safe.. All the gun laws that are on the books where put there after the general public was sufficiently terrorized into allowing it to happen “for their own safety” And it was all governmental manipulation of the people.. Just about everything in the history of the United States that turned out bad for the people was caused directly or indirectly by the government, or by governmental meddling in things they shouldn’t have been.

    • 2BRKnot2B

      All this could be avoided if Georgia acted in accordance with the Constitution’s Second Amendment, if they had no permits, as Shuttlesworth, v. Birmingham, Staub v. Baxley, and Cantwell v. CT. make plain in those rulings about permits for rights being “unconstitutional censorship, or prior restrain on the individual.” As such, Staub v Baxely states, “…anyone faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the (right) for which the law purports to require a license.” Is that so difficult to understand? Further, Murdock v. PA makes plain that any attempt to license a right by requiring a fee for that right is unConstitutional, as well. As one person above mentioned in regards U.S. v. Miller, it pays to know the law, and past court precedent.

      By the way, I have presented these rulings to NRA VP Wayne LaPierre, and he has yet to use them in a court of law. A NY lawyer running for judge made it known that the way to get these precedents written into NY law was to have a lawyer present them in regards someone they are representing. It is difficult to school a lawyer who really doesn’t care about their client, just the fee he will receive for misrepresenting him/her.

  • jenkem5

    The judge should be disbarred.

  • HAOLEBOY55

    He should take it to civil court and sue not only the state , but officers and judge if possible

  • petroskhan

    Apparently this judge needs to go back to law school.

    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    I’m aware of this, why isn’t he? Seems like Mr. Proescher has firm grounds to file a civil lawsuit against the judge, and the cops, for false arrest, and violation of his rights, and even conspiracy to do so. Shouldn’t be too hard to get a majority of a jury to feel a bit angry about cops harassing a man who’s done nothing. The day of “show your papers” may be coming soon, but it ain’t here yet, and we need to fight tooth and nail to keep it as far in the future as possible.

    • Patriot47

      Watch and learn. They are purposefully pushing the envelope to see just how much we will tolerate, all the while attempting to provoke.

      Catch on people. You have no rights according to them.

      • petroskhan

        Exactly, what they are hoping for is a small, disorganized and violent response, so that they can point to it and say, “See? We TOLD you those gun rights people were wacky and dangerous.”

        We need to be smarter, and take it to the one place they fear: The court room. Sue the crap out of any and every person (judge, DA, cop) who crosses the line. Do it repeatedly, aggressively, and make it personal. Don’t sue them as cops, judges, etc. Sue them as individuals, acting on their own.

        Also, take it to the media. They are liberal-biased as heck, but that’s because they have perceived that that is where the money is. That’s where they perceive their audience base to be. Make more noise, complain louder than any other group, and they WILL start to worry about their paychecks. Nothing speaks louder to these people than the size of their bank accounts.

  • Ronald Peterson

    What the hell kind of lawyer did he have? should have called the NRA. Here is a great response to the police when they try to violate your rights And this is federal law and the police and judicial ” immunity from prosecution ” laws do not apply in violation of rights cases..http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 .. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

    • petroskhan

      Very, very true.

      All Mr. Proescher needed to do was get the cops to state that they would use force against him if he refused, and the cops could be looking at 10 years in prison.

      A couple of cases like that around the country, and then the cops will learn to walk a bit more cautiously around the rights of citizens.

  • Tony Iocca

    This link below is justification why I do not depend on with full trust and confidence with our trained Law Enforcement Officers to protect and serve me with firearms… When the Police deem no longer a need to carry fire arms then the people will also see no need to be armed. When that time comes it must be voluntary.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfLSVIwcxbM

  • John

    Admittedly, the police officers were a little over-zealous in this case. But, this is a civil lawsuit looking to penalize the local government for making the arrest. Section 1983, which provides civil liability for local governments and is the only law that provides this, is an extremely difficult law to sue governments under. Don’t blame the judge, blame the law.

  • Defiant

    Don’t any of you realize that the law doesn’t matter anymore? If the authorities don’t agree with a law, they ignore it. Here in NYS they passed the “NY SAFE ACT” literally overnight. And when I say the “passed” this draconian anti-gun law, I mean Cuomo signed it one night while we slept. There is no such thing as the rule of law or due process anymore.

  • C Proescher

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3DJ7h3BEPHcV2U3cGZ1ZExjNDA/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1 Looks like a rather out of shape, older gentleman in brown shorts and shirt; no camo. (Shorts not entirely unheard of during hot Southern spring and summer weather.)

  • Alex Penn

    Never surrender your right to the 4th Amendment! This video of a man refusing one of those Fruit Nazi checkpoints on the West Coast is fantastic. http://www.ingeniouspress.com/2013/11/06/refusing-the-fruit-nazi-checkpoint-driving-away/

  • C Proescher

    Looks like an older, out of shape gentleman to me. No camouflage clothing, no hoodie, no Skittles or even a watermelon drink. Need some exercise though, that’s true. I hear walking’s good, maybe he should visit a park or sumthin’?

    • Colorado_Patriot60

      That was Arizona Iced Tea, lol.

      • C Proescher

        Arizona Ice Tea brand, Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. The news reported it as “iced tea” because they didn’t want the average person to know it was a prime ingredient for [url=http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-s-skittles-arizona-tea-and-something-called-purple-drank]Purple Drank[/url].

        • Colorado_Patriot60

          I should have figured it had watermelon in it.

    • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

      Is that really what you were wearing that day? But they said you had black socks.

      • C Proescher

        Everything but the socks is exactly the same (I have more than 1 pair of gray hiking socks so while they are the same color they may not be the exact same pair.) The same clothing was produced during sworn deposition and neither Bell nor Dantzler denied that it was the same clothing as at the time of the incident.

        Ofc Adam Garth Bell also claimed I wanted to sing Bohemian Rhapsody while in the back of his patrol truck, it that means anything.

        • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

          Absolutely insane. The whole “suspicious behavior” stuff is ridiculous. Everything is “suspicious” these days.

          So, what’s next for you? Appeal, or are you done?

  • jlp5871

    A CIVIL WAR IS THE ONLY WAY….EMPTY CLIPS UP AND DOWN THE NATION…KILLING YOUR ENEMYS HAS BEEN THE WAY THE U S A HAS DEALT WITH THESE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE….

  • George R Cook

    It a situation like this you are going to lose if you do not be reasonable and answer the questions of the cops. They are in fact violating your constitutional rights but unless you want to get arrested then answer their questions and don’t piss them off. I have a CCW here in Utah and if I ever get accosted by the police I will answer their questions, give them all the ID they want and “THEN” if they still persist in the questioning that is the time to start talking about the Constitution and our rights under it. Any other course of action is going to end bad, espically in today’s “Anti Gun America”.

    • C Proescher

      You do realize that’s exactly what happened, right?
      ID provided; Name and date of birth. License to carry provided. Concise and truthful answers as to “Why do you have a gun?” given.
      Doesn’t do a darn bit of good when the officers are determined to go on a fishing expedition to “teach someone a lesson” and make an arrest based upon No Evidence, No Investigation and only an accusation by the complainant.

      Can you imagine the effect of being, say, a black man walking innocently down the street and having someone point to you and say, “He tried to rape my wife” and then be arrested Solely upon that man’s accusation?

      That’s what occurred in this instance.

  • JimmyC

    Let’s see….I’m a bad guy with a gun…..think I’ll carry it out in the open for all to see.
    Talk about profiling! Well at least they didn’t claim ‘reasonable suspicion of a crime’ because he was black or Hispanic.
    We need to remove these people from their positions of ‘authority’ and remind them who WE THE PEOPLE are.

  • MyronJPoltroonian

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.” ~ Ronald Reagan

  • pete1589

    Hmmm … seems to me that maybe it was all justified. Why the citizen refused to answer questions could easily have been taken to be unwarranted resistance to a reasonable suspicion of a threat toward innocent children. While I concealed carry under legitimate state license, someone who is “bragging” about his right to carry and does so openly may seem more of an unveiled threat against civil peace. I agree that there are 2nd and 4th amendment violations, but with all the school, church, civil meeting and public shootings going on today would certainly have put me (in a role of a policeman) in great skepticism about the peaceful intents of someone resistant to simple questioning. Yes, I agree we should all be permitted to carry, but who is going to be a perp rather than a defense-oriented civilian? One who cooperates, or one who fundamentally resists the questioning of his rights? Hard one to call, but thank God the citizen was just making claim to his rights.

    Also understand that the social chaos which is overarching our society these days is having a harsh effect on our police forces and that is the underlying spiritual and psychological problem they face. Pray for them, and for each other.

  • CaptTurbo

    Corrupt judges are a crime

    • pete1589

      And that all depends upon how a human being defines “corrupt.” Since all have sinned (except for the Blessed Virgin who was withheld from sin in Her Immaculate Conception in order to be the perfect vessel to carry the Lord), then the term corrupt can easily be as variable and chaotic as the landscape of PROTEST-antism is, 59,000+ sects each believing they are the unique “Truth.” And not one suspects how successful satan has been in corrupting Christianity.

  • http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/ Ed Ward, MD

    There was no change. There will be no change. US doesn’t need Regime Change, US needs Regime Removal. http://edwardmd.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/change.jpg

  • lostdutchman

    What about the LEO’s? They’re authorized to carry by law!
    Well, Duh! So am I !

  • gian2012

    The judge has a mail order law degree from Wal Mart.

    • Ralph

      I thought it was from Disney land. Oh well, they both give you the right to be stupid and an asinine Imbecile but not a judge. But I guess the voters wanted an Asinine Imbecile on the bench. I wonder what that state would look like if everyone decided to leave it? I guess it would sink into the 7th level of Hell if everyone who believed in the US Constitution actually left. It couldn’t happen to a nicer state unless it was California.

  • dad666

    He should be removed from the bench forever. He has violated the Constitution and is liable.

  • Mort Leith

    Being a liberal dummycrat is ‘Reasonable Suspicion of Mental Disease and Grounds for Deportation or Incarceration’ ! !

  • VictorLandry

    He should have asked if he was being detained. If they said no he could have left, if they said yes, he should have said, “I want a lawyer.” All of the foolishness would have stopped if they knew a lawyer was coming.

    • C Proescher

      That was actually the very first question addressed to Ofc. Adam Garth Bell of the Gwinnett County Police Department. His reply was, “What?? Yes you’re being detained. Do you have any ID?”

  • vet

    Do you think that cops are there to protect you?Check out this site and see if your state has problems with the police state mentality.

    Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute

  • Whitebird

    Why do cops carry open? Do you suppose it is a statement that says “We’re Bad”?
    Or maybe, “I’m tougher than you”, or maybe “We have the right to”? Look at their
    uniforms. Don’t they intimidate? Of course they do. That’s the intent.

  • Brama

    In reality, it is open suspicion that someone knows and exercises their constitutional right. Nothing more.

  • Scott

    ANOTHER STUPID JUDGE who apparently does not know the meaning of the word “bear” which means to have on you and in regards to the 2nd., IT means you carry your weapon(gun) on your body and in the 1776 world (no different then from NOW) you carry it openly……. THIS JUDGE needs to be replace with one with some common sense and law training!!!!!

  • Doc

    U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. needs to be removed from the bench. Obviously has no clue as to what the Constitution is.

  • John Lubner

    Did they give him his gun back?

  • Gus Mueller

    I will never, ever, help a police officer.

  • Joshua

    Not sure if it’s the same everywhere…but as far as I understand, please correct me if I am wrong…Open carry is legal and police need to back off (oh wait, they are trying to illegally force gun control) but where I think he fucked up was he had the extra magazine and bullet in the chamber…now I could be wrong and as I said correct me if I am, and by correct doesn’t mean verbally attacking etc…but you can carry a gun, loaded magazine, but NO bullet in the chamber.

    • C Proescher

      It would be incorrect.
      There is no need to have an unloaded gun when carrying. And Georgia law doesn’t distinguish between loaded or unloaded when carrying, it’s assumed that any firearm carried is loaded.
      Transporting (inside a box such as when UPS or FedEx deliver a package), it needs to be unloaded.

  • John Jett

    I think the problem is; the Police think they are safe in attacking us. This needs to be reversed.

  • sreynolds

    Well then I guess every police officer is suspect, and should be arrested by citizens. It’s almost time to use the 2nd ammendment for what it was created for. To stymie a tyrranical movement in “our” government. Obama is like I was when I was 10 years old, “if I just deny it, then it didn;t happen” (IE) you can keep your doctors/ plans, this bill will save every American 2500 dollars a year in premiums. I never knew about this, ( Benghazi/fast n furious/irs/,, the list of lies grows every week. I have never seen a more dishonest politition, and that is saying a lot.

  • f8tule

    that judge is guilty of breaking the law, not to mention his oath to the constitution..

    But I digress, and we are not going to do anything about it as a nation.

  • robocop33

    Mr Hodges, Sorry but I disagree with you completely in this case and yes you must determine each case based on it’s own merits. This guy was not engaged in legal hunting AND he was very near to a playground with children, none of whom he was with. He was uncooperative with Police when they asked him why he was there with a weapon and extra ammo and who he was. His ONLY id was a non-photo CWP. There is no way that they could know it was actually him who this permit was issued to. (I believe all CWP’s should have a photo). Additionally this individual was hostile as well as uncooperative. What would YOU do? The trespassing arrest was legal and something the Officers could use to remove him from that area and determine his motives for his highly suspicious behaviour. Would you really think that saying ‘oh well, I believe in the 2nd Amendment so none of my concern’? What if then he opened fire on these children and started killing them and before you could stop him he tallied up a high body count? You later find out that this CWP was stolen and this guy was mentally deranged and should never have this weapon. The CWP as well as the pistol were stolen from the guy that actually had the CWP who was now laying dead in his home after the individual there had broken in and killed him and stolen his guns etc? This is what happened in Conn. at that school, the individual killed his mother who legally had those weapons.
    I am a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment and fully believe that all individuals who are legally allowed to should have a CWP issued to them upon completion of a course that proves they know how and when to use their firearm. Still, I also believe in common sense and these Officers were fully justified in taking THIS guy in in order to determine his motives. It turns out his motive was publicity and the possibility of a big payday by suing the Police Officers, Department, City, etc. etc.

    • C Proescher

      1) What does “hunting” have to do with protecting oneself in an urban area?
      2) Every place is “near” someplace if you define it loosely enough, I’m near Atlanta (an hour away) to someone living in San Francisco. The law doesn’t say anything about “near”. I can be “near” Atlanta International Airport, heck, I can go IN to ATL and have a nice meal in the main terminal and be completely legal.
      3) As I’m sure you know, no State in the union mandates that one carry identification 24/7, only that one carry a license (and occasionally other ID) when performing a licensed activity.
      4) I was neither hostile nor uncooperative until the officers outright lied to me numerous times, and refused to answer the most basic of questions, “What crime do you suspect me of so that I might clear my name?”

      IF my motive was ‘big bucks’ then I would have sued the department, the city, etc. I didn’t. Only Officer’s Adam Garth Bell and Rodney Dantzler were sued, and only as individuals. No big bucks there, not from street cops.

    • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

      The police were also carrying guns. Since you’re asking all these “What ifs,” what if the police starting shooting and they “opened fire on these children and started killing them and before you could stop them, they tallied up a high body count?” What if?

      Perhaps you would respond that there is no reason to believe that the police officers were going to do that. Well, was there any reason for the police to believe that Mr. Proescher was committing a crime, had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime? What was their probable cause? Did they really have “reasonable suspicion?”

      And that was the heart of this case. Is simply having a gun on your hip reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime? The judge opined that it is.

      Since you agree with this ruling, I would encourage you to call the police anytime you see a cop with a gun on his hip walking around in a grocery store. (Kids are at grocery stores too!) Since that’s “reasonable suspicion,” it could mean that the cop is about to commit a crime. Or maybe he already has.

    • Ryan Borger

      What makes you think YOU as a cop have more rights to carry a gun than any other person. The 2nd amendment doesn’t “give us” our right to carry a weapon to defend ourselves.. our natural right to continue to live already give us that right. Your “what if” questions can suck it. No one died at Sandy Hook fyi. You don’t need to be a “detective” to sherlock holmes that one..

      • robocop33

        Nobody died? Tell that to the parents of all those kids and teachers! Idiot! The 2nd Amendment DOES give us the right to possess a firearm. I support everyone who is mentally competent, trained, and a non-felon and over the age of 17 to carry a firearm. Just follow the law. A guy wearing camo and openly carrying who also has extra ammo is reasonable and probable cause to stop and question him. It is reasonable for the average person to think that they may be up to no good. You are either a troll or a complete idiot and either way, you are not worth my time.

  • Shadow_58

    Hey Judge, I open carry all the time. Care to send the COPS after me and have them attempt to take my weapon?

  • Old_Conservative

    Perhaps what we need is an “Open Carry Day” across our nation where everyone with a handgun who lives in a state which permits open carry does so. If 20 million are openly carrying their weapon, how many can they arrest and detain? Maybe on election day 2014?

    • C Proescher

      I hereby nominate the 20th of April, in commemoration of the Great Gary Pirkle Park pirkleing.

      • Ryan Borger

        4/20 is already taken sir. Too many cannabis advocates that support the 2nd amendment. Bad day to pick.

  • v steve

    When people make this kind of statement like that judge did you can bet they are communist, more so if they are a government employee.

    Get it in your heads that police are not your friends or is any other government employed person. What do you think HomeLand security is about, if you think it`s about your safety and the Nations safety you are wrong.

    He should have left the park when ask by the police, He evidently didn`t understand today’s police power. I bet he does now.

    A job should not dictate that you can openly carry a firearm or a concealed firearm. If a Policeman, FBI, CIA, DHLS people etc. can carry a firearm openly or concealed then so should we the people.

    The most scared of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.

    • C Proescher

      “…He should have left the park when ask by the police, He evidently didn’t understand today’s police power. I bet he does now…”

      … I have no police record, it’s being expunged as we speak.
      … I have a nice, shiny new AR custom engraved thanking Ofc. Adam Garth Bell for making it all possible
      … I have a few thousand more in my pocket thanks to the security guard.
      … a year later, a full Dozen people all openly carrying, PLUS two fields filled with children’s athletics, PLUS a child’s birthday party in the same pavilion, PLUS a concerned citizen’s complaint to Gwinnett County PD about armed people in the park……

      Police response? Not a word, even though they were called. Yes, somebody learned something, I suspect.

      • v steve

        You were very lucky. Something just doesn’t sound right. From what I have been hearing for a lawyer to take a firearm violation case is a 10 thousand dollar fee to start with. It sounds like you didn`t hire a lawyer or you know one very well.

        PLUS a concerned citizen’s complaint to Gwinnett County PD about armed people in the park……
        Police response? Not a word, even though they were called.

        How do you know a concerned citizen made a complaint if the police didn`t tell you when the complaint was made?

        • C Proescher

          My lawyer was John R. Monroe, he’s rather well known for wining these sorts of cases.

          How do I know a complaint was made?.. Georgia has a law entitled the Open Records Act; if you contact the [url=http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/dyna/OpenRecordsRequest.jsp]Gwinnett County Police[/url] and request Police Event P13110162 (or for that matter any incident reports concerning Gary Pirlkle Park on 20 April 2013) You’ll see that a Mr. Thomas Hess of Suwanee, Georgia called to say he was “…BOTHERED BY IT AND DOESN’T KNOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE INCIDENT…”
          Mr. Hess’ phone number is available on the report if you really must bother him to confirm.
          or, just download
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3DJ7h3BEPHceVBGUUk1TXFwaGM/edit?usp=sharing

        • v steve

          Mr. Hess’ phone number is available on the report if you really must bother him to confirm.

          No, I don`t want to bother Mr.Hess, I just wanted to know how you knew someone made a complaint without the police telling you.

          Now I know, you went to a site to check to see if anyone complained about you and your friends in that park with firearms that day. Thank you.

    • KDanagger

      OTOH, If we don’t exercise our constitutional rights and liberties we are likely to loose them even faster.
      Chris was willing to put himself in harms way and push back against the growing tyranny of the police state.
      The way he chose to do it might have been defiant and confrontational, but desperate times call for desperate actions.

      • v steve

        Yes we need to exercise constitutional rights and liberties from time to time, but from the sound of his own words he goes to park(s) with or with out his friends open carry then runs back home and gets on computer and pulls up [url=http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/...] to see if anyone has made a complaint about open carry in the park he was in. What the He!! is that all about. No something stinks here.

  • Tom Schwend

    What needs to happen is some law abiding citizens need to have wherewithal to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of of these modern day tyrants that happen to wear badges and laughingly call themselves “law enforcement” while they violate the rights of the citizens they took an oath to protect and serve.

    • KDanagger

      Maybe Thomas Jefferson put it best:

      “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

  • Mark Krieg

    That U.S. District Judge in Georgia must be a democrap.

  • homer1057

    So…do people really think it was a good idea to KICK God and praye and Bible Study and the 10 Commandments out of schools and fed bldgs etc? The INSANITY is runing rampant, and men can’t decide what is right anymore! ONLY, what a judge thinks is right, is right…the law doesn’t even matter! So when a man or woman decides he/she is smarter than God and rejcts “The Truth” they will, and I say, “WILL” loose their minds! This nation is an insane asylum run by the inmates! What was once rotten and wrong is now good! What was once considered perverse and illegal and shameful is now ok, and acceptable…..BUT Not to God! Lastly, IF it were a matter of right or wrong, that would be settled, but, it is a matter of Man rejecting God/Jesus Christ, and “HE” has turned them over to a “REPROBATE:” MIND!! i.e….not able to make a right decision and decision based upon the TRUTH! NO GOD, NO PEACE, NO SENSE, NO truth!!

  • Don August

    I’ve read some of the posts on here and can’t believe some people can be so quick to side with Mr. Proescher! First of all, if you have a CCW and are carrying, you better be carrying your permit and a picture ID in case you are stopped. The mere showing of a permit that lacks a photo means NOTHING as it may have been stolen. This clown didn’t show any common sense whatsoever. All he had to do is produce his permit and a photo ID and he would have been golden, but he thought
    he would be smart and decided to give the cops a hard time. I have been on both sides. I’ve had a permit to carry in three different states and was always prepared to produce it when necessary or legitimately requested. I have also been on the other side and when I asked for identification, if I was given a permit along with a
    photo ID, that was the end of the matter and we both went our separate ways. Given the circumstances in this scenario, however, I would have to side with the cops as they DID receive a complaint and were investigating. What they found was a guy dressed in camo gear wearing boots, which is not in the least bit illegal, IS rather suspicious in a city park near a playground. The police acted appropriately and the guy acted like a jerk and got the hassle he deserved! While he did have the RIGHT to carry the gun, he also had (as we all do) the RESPONSIBILITY to act as an adult and comply with a reasonable request. With every RIGHT goes a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY! The judge should have given him a strong admonition and released him. He did have the authority to pull or suspend his permit, but this story doesn’t mention anything about that.

    • Dan Moore

      - I agree with you Don. Don’t be a dick when approached by the cops. Show your ID and you will probably find the cop to be on your side.

    • C Proescher

      Let’s see now…
      1) Georgia Weapons License carried and presented.
      2) No camo gear
      3) No boots, unless you count high topped hiking shoes.
      4) No requirement to carry photo ID in Georgia.
      5) No complaint of illegality, nor of suspicious activity. Listen for yourself if you like – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUXUHgYn0g “… he’s … just walking.”

      6) Permit produced, Identification given, explanation for actions given
      7) Everywhere is “near” somewhere if you define it loosely enough. I can carry near Atlanta International Airport. Heck, I can carry IN the airport as long as I don’t pass the security gate.
      8) The judge didn’t give a “strong admonition” because the County Solicitor threw out the case as he realized there was no illegality.
      9) No, the judge does not have that authority, at least not in Georgia.

      • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

        Thanks for posting that youtube link.

    • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

      Not that it really makes any difference, but Mr. Proescher wasn’t wearing camo. He was wearing khaki shorts and what looked like a khaki polo shirt. What you find is that the truth just wasn’t all that interesting, so the cops had to embellish it to make it sound super scary.

      I’ve had encounters with police just like this, and they love to make up things to make it sound FAR worse and more interesting than it really is. Many times, they actually have nothing. It’s like a child’s “big fish” story. “I swear, Dad, it was like THIS BIG.”

  • wildman

    I would be much more inclined to trust this man long before trusting a fukin inbred pig w/ a badge

  • kill_joy_lan

    Look up “Terry Stop” laws, which apply in Georgia. Carrying a gun is legal, but it doesn’t matter. “Suspicious Activity” is determined by the officer. I’m sure you’ll learn as this continues it wasn’t just the firearm, but an adult hanging out near a playground that refused to leave when he failed to provide a reason to stay there. Then he attempted to conceal his identity after that refusal. With or without a gun, that’s pretty f***ing suspicious. I’m a pretty laid back guy, but even I think that was suspicious… and Terry Stop allowed him to be detained.

    • C Proescher

      The officer made his Terry stop without any reasonable suspicion that any illegal activity had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur. He admitted he had no reason beyond “you’re wearing a gun” to make the detention.

      Secondly, although there is a playground in the park, it is not alleged by anyone, at any time that I was “hanging out” near one, you’re making an assumption without basis.

      Thirdly, there was not “attempt to conceal identity.” I not only presented my weapons license (which I was not required to), I gave my name (not required to) and date of birth (again, not required to.)

      To put this in sharp (although a rather non-PC) focus, what happened is this.
      Someone (let’s say it was a white guy) saw something he thought was suspicious and called the cops. The cops come and find a black man standing and talking on a cellphone in a white neighborhood. They question the gentleman and find that none of his actions are illegal, and that he’s aware of his rights in the matter. The cops do not like this. They talk with the complainant who makes an allegation of illegality (in this instance let’s say it was “he raped my wife and kissed my dog.” The cops, Without Further Investigation, arrest the black man and take him to jail. Not so much as “did you rape that woman?” or “did you really kiss his dog?” Nothing. The mere accusation by the white man was sufficient for the arrest.

      Should you not believe that was the sequence of events, I invite you to peruse the documents located @ [url]http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237726[/url] You’ll want the transcript of the recording, and special attention is drawn to page #23, specifically where “Kimsey Returns”

      • http://renewthearts.org/projects/music/bands/physick/ Physick

        So, you not only gave them your weapons license, you also gave them your name and date of birth. Providing them your name and date of birth was sufficient for them to look you up to see if you had any outstanding warrants or criminal history. I don’t understand why that wasn’t sufficient. I mean, I know you shouldn’t have had to provide that information, but what you gave them was more than sufficient.

        • C Proescher

          I suspect they were much too “emotionally invested” in finding some misdeed that could be punished, even if that meant abusing their authority as officers. From a reading of the transcript (which would NOT be available had it I not been carrying a recorder), it’s clear that there was absolutely no investigation into the matter, only an arrest based upon an accusation.

  • Patrick Henry

    Whenever 2 or more persons conspire to violate your civil rights they have entered into a conspiracy. That is a FEDERAL offense, press charges and take it to higher court.

  • robert

    we the people,who are the real government.think the police are here to protect you,think again and google{joe lozito}and let me know what you think about it.a guy named joe lozito riding on the new york subway,when he was confronted by a butcher knife weilding thug.and with 2 new york policemen not 15 ft away,watching this fight,joe gets stabbed in the skull,hand and back.anyway the police lawyers say,they have know legal right to protect you.watch the video unbelievable