King of the Streets cop decides you can’t have your legally obtained gun on his beat

I am no fan of the Second Amendment and the right for civilians to carry firearms around with them, or to stash them at home. I believe that much saner and stricter laws, such as in Canada (to use my country in a good example for once), would have the effect of reducing the number of guns that land in the hands of nuts who shouldn’t have one, and homicides (and variants thereof) would plummet shortly. Just look at the vast discrepancy in crime rates, especially the violent types, between the U.S. and its northern neighbor.

However, Americans do have the right to carry concealed weapons when issued the proper permits and such; therefore, even though I disagree with this being a good idea, I do agree that once they’ve earned their right, then they, well, have the right to carry a concealed firearm, a right given unto them by the law. Anyone who would try to interfere with them carrying a concealed gun in a perfectly lawful manner would be the one at fault.

Unless, of course, they’re a pretentious cop. Such as in this story, below:

The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." [Original emphasis]

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

It’s just another one of those stories that make you wonder, “Who the fuck do these arrogant pricks think they are?”. Here, we have a man walking in the streets with a firearm that he is perfectly entitled and permitted to own and carry – and yet, just because the cop didn’t like the idea of other people having guns on the streets during his beat, he harassed the man and took away his his gun – his private property, which he was more than allowed to have on him at the time. You know, given that he had a “‘facially valid’ license”.

Then, of course, the cop just leaves him there, dressed in a suit in a high-crime area, without his weapon to defend himself with should the need arise. Excellent judgment, there. Truly marvelous.

Naturally, the lawyer sued, as he rightfully should. He also should have won – but then, expecting a civilian who was bullied by a cop to win in court is always several miles on the side of optimism bordering on naïve. Not only did he lose a battle that by all measures was his, but the defensive arguments used for the cop’s behavior and actions were pure bullshit:

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

Seriously?

Did that judge really declare that “the proper way” to deal with people who have valid concealed pistols licenses is to stop them, lecture them with sanctimonious bullshit, steal their weapon, and just leave them to bite the dust? And what the hell kind of a moronic judge could actually reason that the cop did what he did “to ensure his own safety”? Did Schubert pose any threat to Stern? Did the lawyer ever give any shadow of a hint of a sign that he intended to attack the cop in any way, shape or form? All the reports consistently state that Stern merely caught a glimpse of Schubert’s concealed weapon, then immediately bolted out to harass him. There were no threats, no menace, no offensive. Just a twitchy, jackass cop with an apparent inferiority complex who decided it was his right to frisk a guy simply for carrying a weapon. (That he had the right to have, in case this hadn’t been pointed out yet.)

I’m really not surprised at cops being let off the legal hook no matter how big their fuck-ups these days; it’s just par for the course in a system as pathetic and corrupt as the one we’re stuck with. But the courts could at least try to appear a little less full of shit and nonsense. It makes the pathetic corrupt pill go down easier, see.

Of course, the next thing I expect to see is cops stopping, frisking and harassing themselves for carrying pistols on each other’s beats. After all, there can only be one King of the Streets, right? It’s only fair.

(via The Agitator)