Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms...

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by RadiomanATL, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,944
    Thanks Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,836
    Thread alternately titled: "Retarded cops and judges".


    Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier


     
  2. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    Yes, indeed he was being harassed for exercising his Constitutional right to bear arms and to protect his life. The Northeastern states are hostile to that right, and they will find any pretext to harass the individual.

    But the 1st COA stated in its opinion:

    Second Amendment Claim

    [42] Schubert also argues that the officer's stop violated Schubert's Second Amendment right to bear arms. He cites to the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), to support his assertion that because the right to bear arms is a "fundamental individual right," Officer Stern had "absolutely no reason to interfere with the lawful exercise of this right."

    [43] Schubert did not assert a violation of his Second Amendment right in his original complaint. Nor did he file an amended complaint to alert the court and the other parties to such a claim. He also did not raise the claim in his written opposition to summary judgment. The issue was first raised by Schubert at oral argument on the motion for summary judgment. Having reviewed the transcript, we conclude that his counsel's references to a Second Amendment issue were extremely brief and were unsupported by citations to specific case law. In addition, counsel did not frame his comments on the issue as providing an additional, specific ground for liability against Stern and the City.

    [44] We thus conclude that Schubert failed properly to raise a Second Amendment claim in the court below, and we therefore decline to entertain his appellate argument on this issue. See, e.g., In re Ruah, 119 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 1997); McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991)
    ("Overburdened trial judges cannot be expected to be mind readers. If claims are merely insinuated rather than actually articulated in the trial court, we will ordinarily refuse to deem them preserved for appellate review."). Our conclusion is not altered by the fact that the district court chose briefly to address Schubert's assertions regarding the Second Amendment in a short footnote to its summary judgment memorandum.

    Schubert v. City of Springfield, No. 09-1370 (1st Cir. 12/23/2009)

    So , if you file a complaint , make sure that all elements are included or the issue is considered waives, especially by a Judiciary which is hostile to the right.

    .
     

Share This Page