I can't believe I'm bothering with this again, but here goes:
11th v montague and the constitution findlaw link refer to Terry stops. As all good libertarian's know a Terry stop require the LEO to be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime. The 11th goes on to say:
The Fourth Amendment, however, does not prohibit a police officer from seizing a suspect for a brief, investigatory stop where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in, or is about to be involved in, criminal activity.
(bolding mine)
indeed your same link points out that:
On the other hand, if a state views the absence of a permit as an element of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm or concealed weapon, then questions arise as to whether mere possession of a firearm, without some other articulable manifestations of criminal conduct, will justify an investigatory detention.
The Federal judge in the MARTA case said:
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 is why the LEO in question (Who saw the defendant conceal a weapon) was justified to detain him and the weapon. Basicly the RAS was "I saaw him concealing a weapon, that's a crime" to which the CCW'r had do answer "with, yep, but here's my permit".
None of all those rapidfire links applies here because:
(everyone say it with me now)
OPEN CARRY OF A LONG GUN IS LEGAL IN TEXAS.
The LEO's in this case can not articulate (or at least haven't bothered to) suspicion of any crime. So the Terry stop was not legal. And since the stop itself was not legal none of those wonderful
officer safety caveats allow them to take his stuff. They were investigating a non-crime. This severely limits their [legal] powers both to detain the MSG, and to confiscate, however briefly, his crap.
Since open carry is legal this is the exact same thing as a cop stopping and frisking a black guy in a nice 'hood. Harassing a citizen because they don't approve of his legal behavior. And that particular case law has been settled for some time.
So, AGAIN I ask you: What *crime* do you think this MSG was committing prior to the police stopping him*. Because without that original RAS it doesn't matter how much of an ass he was after they stopped him, they shouldn't have even stopped him.
*I remind you that several courts have already confirmed that if openly possessing a firearm is otherwise legal where someone is simply MWAG doesn't rise to the level of a Terry stop.
