| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
UPDATES: News Report at http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19768981&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=614635&rfi=6
See also http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19770867&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=590572&rfi=8
- "Open Carry Group’s lawsuit names Dickson City cops"
--
Four gun owners have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in United States Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and punitive damages for violations of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by the Borough of Dickson City and members of the Dickson City Police Department.
The law suit arises from the actions of Dickson City police officers responding to a call about a group of people peaceably eating dinner, some of whom were openly carrying holstered handguns, at the Old Country Buffet on Commerce Avenue in Dickson City, PA on May 9, 2008. The plaintiffs, one of whom was arrested for not providing identification, were doing nothing illegal or suspicious under Pennsylvania law and the police had no reason or authority to detain and search them, or confiscate their guns.
Press reports on the Dickson Dozen police roundup: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10896.html
Police report: http://paopencarry.org/policereport.pdf
Complaint: http://paopencarry.org/complaint.pdf
Last edited on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 10:49 am by Mike
|
imperialism2024
Supporting Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 02:52 am |
|
pwned!
Finally, some good news...
|
HyDef
Supporting Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there, looks good though.
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 04:08 am |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: pwned!
Finally, some good news...
+1
|
asforme
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 04:26 am |
|
Two interesting things to play out in this case.
The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate.
The major win for the Dozen though is that the police report admits many times that they are checking who the gun is "registered" to. I would love to see a big can of worms opened to discover what kind of illegal registry is being kept.
|
Aran
Banned
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 05:50 am |
|
Kick some ass, everyone.
|
dougwg
Supporting Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:21 am |
|
This is pretty cool.
|
whiskaz_55
Activist Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Yuma, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:55 am |
|
Hell Ya!!!
|
jaredbelch
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 07:26 am |
|
| Sweet I'm very excited to hear the outcome of this.
|
ne1
Supporting Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 442 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 08:52 am |
|
I actually wouldn't mind volunteering for jury duty on this one.
|
Statkowski
Supporting Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 10:20 am |
|
The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate.
Richard Banks identified himself verbally. Pennsylvania has no law requiring proof of identification (ID card, etc.). He was not required to show his LTCF for the BUG since Section 6122 of the UFA states the lawful command of an LEO is required for such. With the entire roust being unlawful to begin with, the so-called police report speedbump becomes nonexistent.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 10:40 am |
|
asforme wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate.
The police are lying - Rich did provide his License to Carry Fierarms at time of arrest, as required by PA statute if the hyolder wishes to "at the time of arrest . . . [to rebut the] presumption of nonlicensure," 18 Pa.C.S § 6122, and the police did run said LTCF thru police verification - hence, they let him go after his "time out" in cuffs in the back of the squad car. had he had no LTCF, he no doubt would have been charged with the crime of carrying concealed without a license.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 10:41 am |
|
Statkowski wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate.
Richard Banks identified himself verbally.
Not that he had a duty to do so by law - Rich is just a nice guy.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 10:44 am |
|
HyDef wrote: I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there
Not equired in the complaint - that will come later in the motions battel - the City will likley move for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a complaint upon which relief can be granted and or assert a qualified immunity defense, and then move for summary judgement in their favor as a matter of law , and then, as the city will likley lose these motions motions, they will either settle or go to trial.
|
Wynder
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Jul 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bear, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1241 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 11:55 am |
|
Mike wrote: HyDef wrote: I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there
Not equired in the complaint - that will come later in the motions battel - the City will likley move for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a complaint upon which relief can be granted and or assert a qualified immunity defense, and then move for summary judgement in their favor as a matter of law , and then, as the city will likley lose these motions motions, they will either settle or go to trial.
I really hope they don't settle.
|
asforme
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
Statkowski wrote: The police report claims Richard Banks did not provide ID or a CHL even though he had a BUG concealed on his ankle. That may be a speedbump if it's accurate.
Richard Banks identified himself verbally. Pennsylvania has no law requiring proof of identification (ID card, etc.). He was not required to show his LTCF for the BUG since Section 6122 of the UFA states the lawful command of an LEO is required for such. With the entire roust being unlawful to begin with, the so-called police report speedbump becomes nonexistent.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I really hope this goes to court. I really want to know more about this "registered owner" nonsense. I would love to see all hell break loose when the details of an illegal database are revealed.
|
Wynder
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Jul 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bear, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1241 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 12:21 pm |
|
I wonder if they could subpoena the contents of the database since it was used as part of the officer's determination in how they proceded.
|
warlockmatized
Supporting Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 12:25 pm |
|
HELL YEAH, you go boys!
|
Deanimator
Supporting Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 874 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 01:15 pm |
|
Wynder wrote: Mike wrote: HyDef wrote: I think the lawyer should have cited some of the relavent case law in there
Not equired in the complaint - that will come later in the motions battel - the City will likley move for the lawsuit to be dismissed for failure to state a complaint upon which relief can be granted and or assert a qualified immunity defense, and then move for summary judgement in their favor as a matter of law , and then, as the city will likley lose these motions motions, they will either settle or go to trial.
I really hope they don't settle.
+10,000
Settlements usually include nondisclosure clauses. Somebody violates my rights in various ways, then wants to violate my 1st Amendment rights TOO??? Hardie's will sell edible food before I'd agree to THAT.
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 01:16 pm |
|
Complaint is being read on WILK (Sue Henry) radio show now:
http://www.wilknetwork.com/
|
Current time is 07:03 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
