We are prima facie criminals

Scrivener

Banned
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
521
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
according to a Federal judge and hoplophobe:

Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

December 15, 1:20 PMAtlanta Gun Rights ExaminerEd Stone

MARTA police harassment of MARTA rider upheld as constitutional.

* MARTA crime rate falls in wake of gun law

Federal judge holds that carrying a firearm concealed justifies detention and disarmament, as does carrying a firearm on MARTA. Attorney for gun carrier opines that opinion may reach into Georgia's restaurants and state parks as well.

Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled today that carrying a firearm on MARTA justifies forcible detention by the police, in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed over the half hour long detention and disarmament of GeorgiaCarry.Org member Christopher Raissi.

Christopher Raissi holds a Georgia firearms license and frequently carries a handgun concealed. On October 14, 2008, he was carrying concealed on MARTA. He did not know that a MARTA police officer observing the parking lot had seen him holstering and concealing his firearm while still at his car. Therefore, he was surprised when he was surrounded by police officers who yelled "Police!" and ordered him to stop. The officers then seized his firearm from his holster and began questioning him, asking, according to the court's written opinion,

[W]hat are you doing with a gun?

After seeing Raissi's firearms license and driver's license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.

In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. He wrote in his opinion that "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."

After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking to toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.

As a result, Judge Thrash concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Raissi was committing two crimes. As a result, the officers were justified in using force to detain him, and the "officers were entitled to take Raissi's handgun because they knew Raissi had concealed it on his person and would have easy access to it while they questioned him." The officers were also entitled to ask him for his social security number and transport him to a locked area out of the public view.

Judge Thrash was reluctant to rule on the issue of carrying firearms openly, rather than concealed, on MARTA, because Raissi was carrying his handgun concealed. Instead, he held that such relief is inappropriate until a GeorgiaCarry.Org member sues for constitutional violations while carrying openly at some future date. Judge Thrash recognized that Georgia opinions in cases involving "the separate and distinct crime of carrying a pistol without a license" observe that "the statutory language requires absence of the firearms license as an element of the crime." This makes carrying a handgun openly different from carrying concealed, as the officers seeing an open handgun bear the burden of having a reasonable suspicion that the person carrying openly does not have a firearms license. Carrying openly on MARTA under this court's ruling, however, would still subject one to detention and disarmament, since boarding the MARTA system requires a license as an "affirmative defense," and not as an "element of the crime."

Judge Thrash held for trial Raissi's Privacy Act claim, based on the demand for Raissi's social security number. He refused to rule on the request that MARTA be enjoined from requesting social security numbers because MARTA stated that it no longer demands social security numbers of those who provide firearms licenses. "It seems very unlikely that members of GeorgiaCarry.Org would carry a Georgia firearms license but then refuse to provide it to MARTA police officers."

John Monroe, Christopher Raissi's attorney, expressed disappointment with the opinion and declared that if the opinion stands its effects will be felt far beyond MARTA:

The decision means everyone see carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to stop, arrest, and prosecution, even if they have a license. Anyone carrying a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a state park is fair game. The same goes for police officers. A police officer carrying a firearm in a restaurant, bar, or school is subject to arrest, including a citizen’s arrest, because being a law enforcement officer is an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime.

Mr. Monroe has not yet decided whether to appeal, but observed that such a decision would probably not be made until the entire case is over, including the trial on the Privacy Act claim.
 
Hard to believe it happened in Ga. I thought everyone carried there. Is the train considered federal property?
 
Last edited:
Until recently, carry on MARTA was illegal even with a permit. The system is apparently still adjusting to the change - which was not doubt not welcomed by all.
 
From the Irony Department: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a like context recently ruled that the fact, by itself, that a person was carrying a concealed firearm is not grounds to believe that a crime is being committed (and, therefore, not grounds for a detention)!
 
Until recently, carry on MARTA was illegal even with a permit. The system is apparently still adjusting to the change - which was not doubt not welcomed by all.

thats what I was confused about from the article - is it actually illegal to carry on the MARTA?
 
Last edited:
From the Irony Department: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a like context recently ruled that the fact, by itself, that a person was carrying a concealed firearm is not grounds to believe that a crime is being committed (and, therefore, not grounds for a detention)!


I think the issue in this case was that it was MARTA property. If the same person had been observed doing the same thing somewhere else the ruling would most likely have been different.
 
thats what I was confused about from the article - is it actually illegal to carry on the MARTA.
Without a GA carry permit, or one recognized by that stat yes. With one - no. So, the question becomes what assumption are law officers allowed to make - assume the person is unlicensed until demonstrated otherwise, or assume the person is licensed until proven otherwise.

Apparently Georgia is shall-issue, but essentially forbids carry in any location where people might be present.
That was true until recently. Prior to the change in the law, the GA carry permit was among the most restrictive, and least generally useful, state issued carry licenses.

Until July 1, 2008 it GA had a huge list of "CCW not valid" areas, including public transport. This was changed after lobbying by the Georgia equivalent of GOAL.

What I find most curious about this case is that the encounter did not end immediately after presentation of a valid GA carry permit.
 
Agreed - there has to be something more to this story...

Maybe, just maybe, MARTA cops are still pissed that mere mortals can carry weapons on "their" trains and busses and just want to f-ck with anyone they can.

Sometimes cops are just dicks.
 
So, the question becomes what assumption are law officers allowed to make - assume the person is unlicensed until demonstrated otherwise, or assume the person is licensed until proven otherwise.


The ruling clearly states that the "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."

Which means that as soon as the LEO observes the firearm there is probable cause for violation of that offense. There is no obligation for an LEO to even ask for a CCW.
 
Maybe, just maybe, MARTA cops are still pissed that mere mortals can carry weapons on "their" trains and busses and just want to f-ck with anyone they can.

Sometimes cops are just dicks.

Or, as may be the case, one sassy comment from the gentleman with the concealed weapon brought out that trait.... I know plenty who'd get uppity about being approached by PD...
 
What I find most curious about this case is that the encounter did not end immediately after presentation of a valid GA carry permit.


According to the case he was released without any charges (albeit after 30 minutes). They could have charged him...... they did not.

Just sayin'
 
Or, as may be the case, one sassy comment from the gentleman with the concealed weapon brought out that trait.... I know plenty who'd get uppity about being approached by PD...

Do you find it coincidental that the "test case" was a member of GeorgiaCarry.Org?

Maybe he had a "little Doobie in him".
 
From the Irony Department: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a like context recently ruled that the fact, by itself, that a person was carrying a concealed firearm is not grounds to believe that a crime is being committed (and, therefore, not grounds for a detention)!

[rofl] Beat me to it.
 
The Georgia Legislature needs to address that crap and put that judge in his place. As well as MARTA cops.

Another reason not to use mass [STRIKE]herding[/STRIKE] transit.
 
He did make the mistake of taking out the firearm and holstering it where others could potentially see him concealing it. The article stated that he was "unaware" that he was being watched, that doesnt mean that it wasn't avoidable. (If there is a lesson to be learned here, its that one)


thats what I was confused about from the article - is it actually illegal to carry on the MARTA?

Didn't it used to be? But now that it isn't apparently doing so means that you could potentially be out to commit a crime, and therefore may be detained. [rolleyes]
 
The ruling clearly states that the "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."

Which means that as soon as the LEO observes the firearm there is probable cause for violation of that offense. There is no obligation for an LEO to even ask for a CCW.

But this whole ruling shifts the burden from the prosecutor to the defense as a matter of law. This one will never hold up on appeal. You can't be prima facie presumed guilty for following the law and then be forced to raise a defense to get the charges dismissed.

People in GA love their guns. Look for political backlash from this one.
 
He did make the mistake of taking out the firearm and holstering it where others could potentially see him concealing it. The article stated that he was "unaware" that he was being watched, that doesnt mean that it wasn't avoidable. (If there is a lesson to be learned here, its that one)

Indeed, with or without license you can not show your weapon, period (obviously unless you are defending yourself). That’s why it is called concealed.

Ish.
 
With this Judges line of reasoning, all spouses of people who die should be arrested and charged with murder until such time as it can be determined the deceased died of natural causes... [thinking]
 
Back
Top Bottom