Warning: Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

federal-court-rules-practicing-2nd-amendment-right-is-a-reason-for-detainmentGrand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.

The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.

Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.

The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.

The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.

The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminalbackground check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.

Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”

Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.

In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someone’s behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.

The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.

It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.

Sound off in the comments!

Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!

Read the decision below.

Johann Deffert court documents


Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardentopponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org. You can follow him on Twitter@sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.

Courtesy of The Free Thought Project.

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06/21/warning-federal-court-rules...

Views: 1071

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

TIME TO STAND UP NOW

AMERICA IS ON A HORRID TIPPING POINT AND WE MUST SAVE HER .  TIME FOR A HUGE CONSERVATIVE OCCUPY MOVEMENT SPREAD OUR WORD

I agree 100% officer need to get a ******* handle on how they deal with situations and quit taking the law into thier own hands. They are gonna hate it when we take law into our own hands.

It is obvious that GESTAPO LAW ENFORCEMENT TACTICS are alive and well in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  You may have the Second Amendment right to "open carry", however if you dare to exercise that right, you become subject to overly close scrutiny by law enforcement.  The right to "open carry" in Michigan is being discouraged and surpressed by a GESTAPO MENTALITY

if he was a diaperhead they would have ignored him!!!!!

I don't open carry because I don't want criminals and communists to know I am prepared for them.

Bob, you make a good point.  Many years ago helmet laws were in almost every state in the union, requiring everyone to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.  I had a brother-in-law that was really involved with getting them repealed.  After the law was repealed he continued to ride with a helmet.  I ask him "Fred, why did you fight so hard to get this law repealed and then keep wearing a helmet."  He replied "We should have the choice ourselves to wear a helmet or not, if we start letting the government tell us we have to do something, where will it end."  He was right back in the seventies and he would be right today.

.eal tired of government over stepping their bounds. Sounds like a liberal judge doesn't like this law. Get over it Janet Neff. We do need to stand up and fight back. This is sooo ridiculous. Par for the course, they're always forcing their will on us (Liberals). This needs to be fought to the bitter end. Thankfully we have the NRA>

there is only one way to put a stop to this tyranny!!!!!

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/07/declaration-of-indepen...

More bribery. When's it going to start?

  Time To Stand Up Was Yesterday, Or The Un- Countable Days, Months, Years Before It!!! I Will Never Stand Idly By And Let Our Rights Be Taken From Us. VOTE, WRITE LETTERS TO OUR CONGRESSMAN-WOMEN OF OUR DISGUST AT THIS ATTACK ON OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS!!! Be Ready To Back Our Words Up With Action. Any Attempt To Challenge The Existing Wordage, Or Change To Our Constitution, Must Be Met With Swift Action On OUR Parts. For To Begin To Change Something Many Of Us Have Died And Fought For, Or Just Fought For, Says That The Constitution Means NOTHING To Those That Have No Idea What It's Ideals Mean To The Rest Of Us!!!

That's why I stated before, Don't Open The Constitution with these people in Power. If we do, go buy your self some Razor Blades, so you can cut your own wrist!    

I believe they DO KNOW....but they disagree and want it their way.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

CONFUSION:   Pelosi Says Constitution Spells Out ‘Two Co-Equal Branches’ Of Government

No Nancy. No.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be taking night classes at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Government.

Pelosi, the 79-year-old third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, was speaking to the Center for American Progress today when she mistakenly said there are “two co-equal branches” of government, before correcting herself to say there are three.

Watch:

“First of all, let me just say, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“Democrats take that oath seriously, and we are committed to honoring our oath of office. I’m not sure that our Republican colleagues share that commitment, and I’m not sure that the president of the United States does, too,” she claimed.

“So, in light of the fact that the beauty of the Constitution is a system of checks and balances— two co-equal branches— three co-equal branches of government,” she corrected with a laugh.

“A check and balance on each other,” she continued. “Con— Constitution spells out the pri— pa, uh, the duties of Congress and one of them is oversight of the president of the United States, another one of them is to impeach the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

In November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied supporters on Facebook to pitch in and help Democrats take back “all three chambers of Congress.”

“…the Progressive movement works and it wins in all districts…If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress– three chambers of government…,” she said during the virtual appearance.

She clarified that she meant the “presidency, the Senate and the House.”

According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are the legislative, executive and judicial.

Below: Nancy Pelosi is continuing to promote the false narrative that President Trump is involved in a cover-up and therefore may be guilty of an impeachable offense. Millie Weaver joins Alex to break down the propaganda being used to overturn the democratic election of 2016 

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service