Constitutional Law

Ruling protecting open carry

Story here. The district judge ruled as a matter of law (i.e., no need for it to go to a jury) the officers had violated the carrier's constitutional rights and that they had no qualified immunity (meaning the rights violated were clearly established at the time of violation -- qualified immunity protects against suit for damages where a right may have been violated, but it was not clearly established at the time).

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on September 13, 2009 (boomark / email).