Some People Are Just Evil

When I was 20 or 21 years old, I was sitting in one of my Criminal Justice classes at the small university in Eastern Washington State which I attended. We were in the midst of a discussion of criminal intent and why people commit crime when after several politically correct answers from the pre-law folks, my no-nonsense professor exclaimed "Some people are just $%#&*+@ evil!" At the time it seemed to be a fairly obvious declaration. But as the years have passed I have begun to think that perhaps it was more profound than I first realized.

I had seen this phenomena before, but in late November and early December of 2009 when the headlines were filled with stories of the heinous, calculated murder of 4 Lakewood, WA Police Officers by Maurice Clemmons, a violent career felon, I noticed something. None of the mainstream media, including my beloved Fox News, were characterizing Clemmons as an evil man. They were all interviewing psychologists who professed to be able to describe and diagnose his mental ailments. They all spoke of how this could have possibly been avoided if Clemmons had received proper treatment and maybe the pharmaceutical of the week. Not one mention of the philosophy of my former Criminal Justice Professor that postulated that "Some people are just #$%&*!@ evil!"

During my tenure as a Reserve Police Officer and especially as an Armed Security Officer at the Seattle Field Division of the FBI, I had many occasions to come into contact with those who were violent because they were evil and those who were violent because they were mentally ill. There is a world of difference and I believe that due to the cold, precalulated manner in which Clemmons assassinated Mark Renninger, Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold and Greg Richards, that Clemmons is indeed an evil man and knew exactly what he was doing.

The truely evil act in a cold and calculated manner. They plan their attack and carefully choose their victim. The mentally ill on the other hand are irrational, impulsive and unpredictable. You may have dealt with this person 100 times before and never had a problem with them other that hoping that they would stop talking about the satellites that were tracking them so that you could go get a cup of coffee, then the next moment they grab your partner and try to drag him into the street. After one notable melee in the lobby of the FBI office, I actually ended up having to draw my firearm, reholster and then deploy pepperfoam. After the altercation when the suspect had been subdued, he told us that if we would have only taken the microchips out of his skull, none of this would have been necessary.

It is my belief that society is beginning to characterize all violent criminals as mentally ill for political reasons. If the person is mentally ill, the act wasn't really his fault. The logic would follow that just as you can't blame a person for having cancer, you can't blame a person for having paranoid schizophrenia with aural and visual hallucinations. It's all part of the new mentality that people are not responsible for their own actions.

That lecture still sticks with me, some people are just evil.

This is why I choose to carry a firearm for the protection of myself and my family. This is why I train and practice with my firearm of choice. This is why I follow the Cooper Color Codes of Situational Awareness when I am in public.

You may have heard the phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." This may sound like rhetoric, but it is true as is demonstrated in this audio clip of an incident in which a woman was forced to shoot a stalker who had broken into her home. At one point, you hear the woman desperately pleading for assistance from the police. The dispatcher tells the woman "Ma'am, it's only been two minutes, they're on their way." I shudder to think of what would have happened to that woman if she had not taken the initiative to be responsible for her own self defense.


In 2005 the US Supreme Court Ruled that the police have no Constitutional duty to protect individual citizens. The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

This case proves the rhetorical statement that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

Great Article on Holsters by Patrick Sweeney

I thought this was a great article on the need for a good holster by Patrick Sweeney, Staff Writer for Guns & Ammo.

Rigged for Wear
CCW sense: Think holsters are unnecessary, inconvenient or uncool? Think again.

By Patrick Sweeney 11-17-09


A firearm for self-defense is not a magic talisman, nor some esoteric piece of anti-virus software. It's a tool, and like any tool, you have to have it on your person in order for it to be at all useful in an emergency. And then, of course, you have to be able to get to it to actually use it. Here are a few instances, a few mental images, to get you in the mood:

Detroit, mid-1980s: A man walks up to the counter at a fast-food restaurant, and on the last step, as he's lifting his hand to point and speak his order, a handgun slings out of his pants cuff, hits the floor, skids to the counter and stops with a clunk. He quickly picks it up, and as he's stuffing it back in his belt, he mumbles a "sorry" and hurries out.

Near Chicago, early 2000s: An off-duty police officer is in the freshly refurbished departmental ready room when his pistol slips. He grabs at it, hits the trigger and fires a shot into the newly carpeted floor.

A couple of years later, New York: A celebrity club-goer feels his pistol slipping, grabs at it, and it discharges; he's wounded in the leg.

Within the last year: An experienced gun owner bends over; his handgun falls, hits the floor and discharges, striking him.

I watched the first incident, was a few hours away from the second and was time zones away from the latter two. Injuries? In the first incident, the gun owner left before he could be arrested.

The second? The officer received a letter of reprimand in his file and had to pay for the reweave repair on the carpeting. The third incident cost the owner his freedom for a number of years and cut short a multi-million dollar career. In the last one the owner died.

What did all these situations have in common? Simple. None of them--not one--involved a holster.

Why is the 2nd Amendment Any Less Important Than The 1st?

This is an amazing editorial that I found in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I've made this very arguement on a number of occassions. Although, I will admit that Mr. Root is much more eloquent about the issue than I have been.

Laboratories of Repression

We don't let the states "experiment" on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?

By DAMON W. ROOT

In 1932, progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis penned one of the most famous passages in American jurisprudence. "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system," Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, "that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Since then, Brandeis' famous words have been quoted or referenced countless times, appearing everywhere from legal documents to campaign speeches. Most recently, they surfaced in the arguments leading up to the landmark Second Amendment case McDonald v. Chicago, which the Supreme Court is set to hear in early March 2010.

At issue in the case is Chicago's draconian handgun ban, a restriction that largely mirrors the gun control law struck down last year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The key difference is that Heller only decided whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right against infringement by the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). McDonald will settle whether the amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies against state and local governments as well.

That's where Brandeis comes in. In Chicago's view, the Second Amendment should have no impact on its vast gun control regime. As the city has argued to the Court, "Firearms regulation is a quintessential issue on which state and local governments can 'serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.'" Thus, Chicago claims it should enjoy "the greatest flexibility to create and enforce firearms policy."

That certainly sounds like a classic case for federalism and the states as laboratories of democratic experimentation. But look a little closer and Brandeis' celebrated words start to lose some of their shine. The issue that confronted the Supreme Court in New State Ice Co. was a 1925 Oklahoma law granting a handful of companies the exclusive authority to manufacture, sell, and distribute ice. Under the law, anyone that wanted to enter the ice business had to first justify their plans by providing "competent testimony and proof showing the necessity for the manufacture, sale or distribution of ice" at all proposed locations. In other words, upstart ice vendors faced the nearly impossible task of securing the state's permission to compete against a state-sanctioned ice monopoly.

That's the "courageous" experiment Brandeis got so misty about. What precisely was so "novel" about a business currying favor with the government in order to suppress competition? That's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Besides, as the great classical liberal Justice George Sutherland declared in his majority opinion striking down the Oklahoma ice monopoly, "in our constitutional system...there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interests of experiments."

Quite so. In fact, Brandeis himself occasionally shared this skeptical view of state power—at least when it came to state "experiments" on the First Amendment. Just one year earlier, in the case of Near v. Minnesota, Brandeis joined the Court in striking down that state's defamation law as a violation of the freedom of the press. So much for allowing a "courageous" state the free rein to experiment.

It was Sutherland's majority opinion in New State Ice Co.—not Brandeis' famous dissent—that got it right. "In [Near v. Minnesota] the theory of experimentation in censorship was not permitted to interfere with the fundamental doctrine of the freedom of the press," Sutherland wrote. "The opportunity to apply one's labor and skill in an ordinary occupation with proper regard for all reasonable regulations is no less entitled to protection."

Which brings us back to the Chicago gun case. The Windy City would like to "serve as a laboratory" with the "flexibility" to ignore the Second Amendment. But there's nothing "novel" about that. It's just another case of the government violating our rights. And since the Supreme Court would never let Chicago ban free speech, establish an official religion, or conduct other "experiments" on the First Amendment, why should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?

It's time for the Supreme Court to give the entire Bill of Rights its due.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Yet Another Attack On A "Gun Free Zone"

The Anti-Gun Lobby tells us that removing guns from society will prevent violent crime. If that is the case, then why do these sort of attacks always occur at "Gun Free Zones"?

Las Vegas Gunman Upset Over Social Security Benefits

A gunman upset over losing his Social Security benefits case, opened fire in the lobby of a federal building in downtown Las Vegas on Monday, killing a court officer and wounding a deputy U.S. marshal before he was shot to death.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to discuss the case, identified the shooter as Johnny Lee Wicks to the Associated Press.

While an investigation is under way, the officials say the early evidence points to the man's anger over his benefits as motive for the shooting.

Court records shoe Wicks sued the Social security Administration in 2008, but the case was thrown out and formally closed in September 2009.

Online AR-15 & 1911 Builder

Do you have a dream AR-15 or 1911 build rattling around in your head that you would like to be able to visualize? There are two online tools that can help you do just that!

Brownell's AR-15 Builder

Sniper World 1911 Builder

Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry

Sometimes I take my level of knowledge of the subject and practice of the shooting sports for granted. This was made evident during one of my recent Utah Concealed Firearm Permit courses when, after espousing my opinion that open carry should not be practiced, one of my students asked "what's open carry". I had taken for granted that everyone knows about the debate between those who advocate openly carrying a handgun versus those of us who advocate assuring that a handgun carried for personal defense be concealed.

I personally advocate the "concealed means concealed" school of thought for a variety of reasons. Living in the State of Washington, there are a great number of people who are either afraid or ignorant of firearms. Open carry could cause these people alarm resulting in them making a public disturbance. Also, if you are in close proximity to an armed bad guy, you have abdicated your tactical advantage.

I take exception with the assertion of the author that many advocate concealed carry over open carry out of a sense of fear or a desire to avoid confrontation with those who have anti-gun views. I don't care to immeadiately surrender my tactical advantage. Perhaps, you have heard the metaphore comparing armed citizens to the noble sheepdog. If you look at this metaphore, the reason that the sheepdog is able to protect the flock from the wolves is that he bears enough resemblance to the sheep to not cause them alarm, while at the same time obscuring himself from the constant surveillance of the wolves. The wolves being unable to distinguish the sheepdog from the sheep at a distance. With open carry, you make yourself look like a wolf to the flock of sheep and to the farmer (police) as well. To the wolves, you just look like the first target that must be dispatched before commencing the attack on the flock.

OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY

Revision 1.20

Written By: Garry E. Harvey
Contributing Editors: OpenCarry.org Members

The purpose of this paper is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.

INTRODUCTION

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been ingrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowly eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thanks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."

Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whoever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.

CONCEALED CARRY

THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.

What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victims favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.

Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.

Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.

Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent, of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage I think and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.

THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY

BEWARE OF DOG/GUN
A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.

The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.

With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.

CONCLUSION

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY
What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are their times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, defiantly? Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.

Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.

We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."

2007, Garry Harvey. This document may be reproduced with the condition that it be kept in it's entirity and cited accordingly.

One of the reasons that "Concealed Means Concelaed"

In my classes, I always try to stress the mantra of "Concealed Means Concealed". There are various points to be made on both sides of "Concealed Carry vs. Open Carry" debate. While this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the overly aggressive behavior of the officer or the decision of the Appeals Court, I think that this one is a big point to the CCW side. For my readers who are newer to the realm of concealed carry I will outline the debate of concealed carry vs. open carry in an upcoming post.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

December 31, 6:49 AM Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed
Stone

It's open season on gun carriers.

A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. 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."

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 Sternreasoned 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.

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."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. Theproblem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."

Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

For more info: Read the full text of the First Circuit opinion by clicking here.