Comments on: Judge Issues Order in MARTA Case

By: Jesse

Jesse — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:22:36 +0000

@last_stand_for_liberty
I’m with you — why did this ever go to a Federal Court in the first place? That is akin to begging for violations of liberty to be validated and cemented into case law.

This should be handled through the Georgia General Assembly and Georgia courts. Avoid the Feds altogether.

By: mark5019

mark5019 — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:52:05 +0000

so just seeing his weapon is legal? so then if they see you driving your car in a high crime rate area, they can pull you over on a whim?

wheres reasonable cause go to?

By: norbel718

norbel718 — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:12:18 +0000

Being a card carrying member of GCO – I sometimes believe our member make too big of a deal over a issue that should go unreported. My thoughts. If u are seen carrying a weapon in a high crime area, I expect the local authorties to investigate and treat me the same as any other citizen.

Merely presenting a GFL does not entitled one to go merrily on their way. Seeing how easy it is to forge documents these days & the possibility the document could have been revolked.

I fully expect and appreciate that the local authorities completed a thorough investigation, making sure the GFL documents were in order before allowing an armed person to move freely within a supposedly high crime area.

Please understand, as GFL holders we are granted the privilege of 24/7 armed self defense, we are not granted immunity from common sense law enforcement.

By: shanewebb

shanewebb — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:30:32 +0000

I ride MARTA weekly, carry while doing so, and will continue to do so. That being said, I do agree with some of the MARTA LEO’s actions, while vehemently disagreeing with others. There is no question that Raissi was within his legal rights to carry, and MARTA LEO ultimately acknowledged that, as he was not arrested. He was, however, inexcusably harassed. I break down the event below, per my understanding from reading the accompanying documents.

Raissi produced his pistol in plain view of the public when placing it on his hip, then concealed it. This was a mistake and provided the observing LEO cause to investigate that Raissi had a valid GFL. Had Raissi armed himself inside his vehicle then exited it to enter the station this event would have never happened. That is the reality of the situation. Whether that ’should be’ the case or not is a different subject

MARTA is openly acknowledged as dangerous, both by MARTA itself and the public, which is why Raissi wants to carry while riding MARTA in the first place. It is the responsibility of the MARTA police to ensure a person is legally bearing a firearm once they have been made aware of its presence (again, MARTA is dangerous). The officers have no reason to assume a person is licensed, nor would I want them to if my safety is potentially in question.

Raissi was not acting in a threatening or questionable manner. The officers, while acting proactively in the interest of their own safety, disarmed him at the ticket machines. This caused a public confrontation that was not warranted based on Raissi’s non-threatening behavior. This is judgement call territory, but from my review of the documents, disarming him was not warranted and caused Raissi, who was completely within his legal rights and presenting no overt threat, to be publicly treated as a criminal.

Once Raissi presented his valid GFL his firearm should have been returned immediately and he allowed to go about his business. The detention, and resulting background check, were not warranted in any way and his rights were firmly violated.

The heart of this matter is the ‘concealed’ part of concealed carry. Keep the firearm out of view. Displaying a pistol in public, then concealing it, while traveling in a known dangerous area demands a response from any LEO. In this case the MARTA LEO’s response was flatly mishandled.

By: jrhaesa

jrhaesa — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:36:32 +0000

I think what the judge said is that given it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on the train and that seeing what appears to be a crime it is not the leo’s responsibility to pursue the issue of an affirmative defense, but rather that the issue is a matter to bring before the court. That does make me feel a little uneasy, but I have to assume that a reasonable leo would save themselves and the court a lot of trouble by making that question, “do you have a firearms license?” an early part of any investigative stop. The judge did seem to say that carrying a firearm openly would be different in that carrying openly would not provide a reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to be committed and had that been the case his ruling might have been different. The real solution remains straightening out the convoluted laws of where and how you can carry in Georgia.

By: Federal Judge Rules Concealed Carry is Cause for Detention | America Watches Obama

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:08:00 +0000

[...] within the law, that should not be grounds for being detained at length. ??Nevertheless, in the ruling the judge declared that Raissi’s license was only an “affirmative defense to, not an [...]

By: last_stand_for_liberty

last_stand_for_liberty — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:17:12 +0000

Forgive my ignorance when it comes to legal matters, but how did this case end up in a FEDERAL district court?

By: Federal Judge Rules Concealed Carry is Grounds for Detainment « Guns, Germs and Blogs

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:59:17 +0000

[...] in the ruling the judge declared that Raissi’s license was only an “affirmative defense to, not an [...]

By: ArmedCitizen

ArmedCitizen — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:44:58 +0000

The judge is defending the illegal actions of some unqualified police officers. They couldn’t detect a potential criminal if their life depended on it. These losers saw an easy target to harass and did so. A dozen armed gangbangers past by them and since they were afraid to stop them, they cringed away and wasted valuable time with this injustice to an honest citizen.
As far as the judge’s ruling … it’s wrong, wrong, wrong and this judge’s ruling is breaking the law. Therefore the judge is a lawbreaker.
Judge’s ruling says that a citizen may be detained, questioned, and threatened with arrest although no crime has been committed.
Communism plain and simple.

By: Vir Quisque Vir

Vir Quisque Vir — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:48:47 +0000

Does this mean that if you are in Wal-Mart and an off duty officer sees a bulge in your jacket that he can disarm and detain you, and assume you are there to rob the Wal-Mart? Conversely, does that mean that if you carry openly instead, that there is no probable cause there to take your weapon and they might ask you if you have a GFL? This is bad judgment, and should be settled in the legislature. Now if we could get rid of the PG, we would be in great shape. One step at a time.