Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009

[68mustang]

Does it come under the 1st?

I don't know does it?

 

[frankos72]

BZZZZZZZZZZ. everyone knows that a 7.62 is much much bigger than a .45

.45 goes into 7.62 about 16.9 times so really a 7.62 is like 17x bigger than a .45 Holy crap think about the hole that will make! and that's why the guns that shoot them are called assault rifles

LOL. But seriouslly I was thinking in terms of the case size, powder contents, fps, energy etc... But as pointed out, caliber is the diameter of the bullet and nothing more. From MW

2
a : the diameter of a bullet or other projectile
b : the diameter of a bore of a gun usually expressed in hundredths or thousandths of an inch and typically written as a decimal fraction <.32 caliber>

So, I guess that puts and end to my thought process on caliber. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MLRyan]

Horse semen?
I won't speculate on the reason you brought that up, since I personally have no firsthand experience in horse semen consumption.

How about this - yes the guy may be a #$%%, but why should LE ASSUME he's breaking some law. Shouldn't they ASSUME that he's a free citizen, unrestricted by the guvmint....oh wait, that'd be LIBERTY.

LE assumed he was breaking the law because 99.99% of people that carry don't use a Draco. I would say something to him too. Yes it is our right to carry, but some common sense should be used too. Shock therapy isn't the best remedy for a population already terrified of us. Just because something is a Constitutional right, doesn't mean it should done. You have a Constitutional right to drink a gallon of horse semen if you want to, but should you?

 

[doctorjj]

I'm wondering about the caliber more than the barrel length. I know the OK Law says .45 caliber and isn't 7.62x39 a much bigger bullet than .45 caliber? I'm not sure of the actual diameter of either. Far as that goes, a .223 bullet might be considered "larger" if the whole thing were taken to court. Guess that one would depend on the judge.

 

[caojyn]

I don't get the whole painting the tip orange. What use, other than attention, is that used for?

 

[Glocktogo]

The guy was a *********. The guy was exercising his rights, poorly. The cop was ignorant of the law. As a cop, he's allowed to be somewhat ignorant (qualified immunity), at least more so than the average non-LE citizen. I see no reason to outwardly support this guy's poor use of his rights. He forgot to assume the responsibility that goes along with it. He wanted the attention and he got exactly what he wanted. I hope he understands what his actions did to the community's views of gun toters, but considering he's a *********, I doubt it. I hope he wins, because it's his right. I hope everyone understands that he's a ********* as he's winning. Were I to be forced into either supporting his action or opposing it, I'd support it. I'd be sure to temper my support by mentioning that he's a *********, oh, about every other sentence. However, I see no reason to outwardly support his claim. He knew he didn't have the support of his fellow AK forum members when he trolled them and he knew he wouldn't have it when he trolled the park. Since he's a walking one man 1st & 2nd Amendment defender, he shouldn't have any trouble fulfilling his dreams of righting all those wrongs solo either. JMO, YMMV

 

[doctorjj]

Jerry,
I understand the concept of qualified immunity as protecting officers from liability in cases where law has not been clearly established or decided by the courts. It doesn't protect them from simply being ignorant of the law. Is this not correct?

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I honestly don't understand the outrage toward the citizen when the cops are the only ones who did anything wrong. I really wouldn't carry a Draco but I support his right to do so, and I expect law enforcement to know the law before drawing their weapons, TSA'ing a person, cuffing him, and detaining him. Why are we blaming the victim?

 

[Glocktogo]

Jerry,
I understand the concept of qualified immunity as protecting officers from liability in cases where law has not been clearly established or decided by the courts. It doesn't protect them from simply being ignorant of the law. Is this not correct?

Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.

Simply put, there was no clearly established law that says an officer must not appproach an individual openly displaying a firearm not in common use for the situation at hand with extreme caution. More simply put, the officer was exercising reasonable caution for a situation never before encountered and not commonly established in law (openly carrying a Draco with an orange painted tip in a park setting). Therefore qualified immunity would be appropriate to assert. It would be up to the court to set case precedent by either granting or disallowing qualified immunity in this case.

I honestly don't understand the outrage toward the citizen when the cops are the only ones who did anything wrong. I really wouldn't carry a Draco but I support his right to do so, and I expect law enforcement to know the law before drawing their weapons, TSA'ing a person, cuffing him, and detaining him. Why are we blaming the victim?

I hope that's not directed at me, because outrage and blame would be far too strong to describe how I feel about his actions (or him). Dismissive might be the best way to describe my opinion. As for the officer, I find him foolish for being baited into the situation. I'm not saying you should approach every contact with a gun as "Officer Friendly, but unless someone is in emminent danger a circumspect approach is a good idea. Said officer should be required to issue a written apology and undergo additional training, which should also be pushed down to the entire force. Said officer should not be found guilty of a civil rights violation, based on the aforementioned qualified immunity. As for the agency, they have a duty to train. I wouldn't be firm on whether the agency should or shouldn't be held civilly liable. Since civil liability is a preponderance of evidence, I'd probably find for the plaintiff and award $1 in damages, were I on the jury (which I would never be selected

 

[338Shooter]

I guess I just don't understand what makes the guy a douche bag.