TLP General Counsel wins 2nd amendment case!

Attorney Stephen Merrill won his case representing Dan Moore against the City of Norfolk. A Norfolk police officer asked Dan Moore to leave Norfolk’s Waterside simply because he was openly carrying a pistol. Moore was arrested for trespassing for refusing.

State laws permit openly carrying firearms in public places. City officials put forward that eventhough Waterside was built with public funds, the property was leased to a private entity and thus not subject to that law. Merrill proved through use of FOIA that no private funds were spent managing the property and thus the property was public. Well, follow the links for more on this:
Pilot Story

Until they update to another story, more info can be found at Virginia News Source: VirginiaNewsSource.Com

Stephen Merrill also happens to be General Counsel for the Tidewater Libertarian Party.
It wouldn’t be the first time that Merrill has used his chosen profession to defend individual liberties. On behalf of the Tidewater Libertarian Party, Merrill filed an Amicus Brief with the US Supreme Court during the infamous Kelo vs. New London eminent domain case. Unfortunately the court ruled against our rights but, when Judge Clarence Thomas wrote his dissenting opinion he virtually mirrored the brief that Merrill submitted.

The victory for “open carry” was a giant local win for the 2nd amendment. Dan Moore excercised his rights and Judge James Matthews ruled in favor of freedom. As a fellow American and freedom loving Libertarian, I couldn’t be more proud. Thanks again Steve!


4 Responses to TLP General Counsel wins 2nd amendment case!

  1. KBCraig says:

    It wasn’t just that Dan was “asked to leave and refused”: he was ordered to leave by the police, not the alleged “property owners” (which pretty much shot down the idea that it was private property). And when he questioned the order instead of complying immediately, he was arrested.

    He, the sole person “of color” in the group of (paler) people who were openly carrying that day.

    He, the only one in that group who had just won a $10,000 judgement against the city for falsely arresting him over an open carry incident.

    He, the only one who had a standing complaint against the city for a second hassle over open carry, which occurred before the first had been settled.

    Add some zeroes, Norfolk.

  2. Don Tabor says:

    In many ways, this is a lot more than a 2nd Amendment case. It is about the Rule of Law.

    It is the basis for our system of government that the government and the citizens are equally restrained by the law. The harm that can be done by a criminal who will not accept the limits of law is limited, but a government which holds itself to be above the law can to enormous evil.

    Norfolk’s city council has clearly demonstrated that it views the law as a mere impediment to carrying out its rule. On issues of the right to keep and bear arms as well as on issues of eminent domain, the city routinely ignores the law and substitutes its own prejudices and avarice for the limits of State law and our State and US Constitutions.

    Virginia’s preemption on gun laws is quite clear, but repeatedly Norfolk has chosen to ignore that law. It is expensive and risky to fight City Hall in court, so we should be appreciative when someone stands on principle to rein them in.

  3. supercat says:

    Virginia’s preemption on gun laws is quite clear, but repeatedly Norfolk has chosen to ignore that law. It is expensive and risky to fight City Hall in court, so we should be appreciative when someone stands on principle to rein them in.

    I wish states would have the courage to recognize that a cop who arrests someone without a reasonable belief that he may legitimately do so is a kidnapper. A cop who breaks into a dwelling in a fashion that typical people would find patently unreasonable is a burglar. A cop who conducts such a break-in with the purpose of assaulting an occupant of the dwelling is a robber; if anyone dies during such a robbery, the cop is a murderer as well.

    If police who violate the law were routinely prosecuted, I don’t think such prosecutions would be needed very often. A lot of cops might quit if they could no longer smash into harmless people’s homes, but I would regard the departure of such cops as a good thing.

    As to how state governments can be persuaded to deal with the totalitarian anarchists in local government (or in their own midst, for that matter) I have no idea. Until they do, however, the situation will continue to get worse.

  4. VaMarine22 says:

    Hey Doc thanks for the update on this case. ITs nice to see that justice was served and the law upheld in these situations.

    Being in Afghanistan its a little difficult to catch the local news and happened to pop in to see what the talk on the street was about the frederick case.. Didnt expect to see this one as well but glad it turned out the way it should have…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: