The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
The arrest of a man for openly carrying a gun at a Norfolk festival did not violate the U.S. Constitution but the police officer who asked for the man's Social Security number might have violated his civil rights, a federal judge ruled this week.
Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. of Yorktown sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest, held annually at Town Point Park.
Szymecki, a gun rights advocate, has challenged handgun bans in the past. During his arrest, Szymecki claims police pushed him and that when he complained that the handcuffs were on too tight, an officer made them tighter.
During his arrest and later, when he was released from custody, police asked him for his Social Security number. He initially balked, but gave it to the officers to avoid being detained longer, he says in his suit.
The charge was later thrown out after city officials learned that it violated a state law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms.
Szymecki sued in federal court claiming multiple constitutional violations, including the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures.
U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. ruled Thursday that Szymecki cannot sue claiming constitutional violations under state or local law. Morgan ruled earlier this year that the city did not violate the Second Amendment for the same reason.
"It is well settled law in this circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Morgan wrote in dismissing Szymecki's constitutional claims. "Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
However, Morgan ruled that the police demand for Szymecki's Social Security number - if the allegation is true - would have violated the federal Privacy Act.
Morgan will allow the case to go to trial on that issue alone. The trial has been set for Dec. 16.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
twomiler2
No, I would be happy if the LEO's (and the former ones) would get off of their holier than thou high horse and be police officers and obey the law that is written like everyone else, rather than be some hotshot with an ego the size of The Grand Canyon. I have lost respect for law enforcement because of attitudes like yours. You LEO's (and former LEO's) think the rest of society can't think for themselves or should have the right to protect themselves. I have no beef with the National Guard. At least not yet. Those officers of the NPD and The Sheriff's department in the Szymecki case have proven themselves unfit to serve in law enforcement and should be fired immediately. You know I'm right and you can't make a case that I am wrong.
You'd Be Happy
if there were no police, city state or federal & no military or national guard. Just let Joe Schmoes carry any type of guns he wishes. Let a bunch of them protect the nation, & leave all responsibility for public safety in their hands. Let them be the paramedics & firemen & women. The constitution doesn't mention them. So, you shouldn't want or need their help either. Your world, if you could ever have it, would scare a reasonable person.
twomiler2
OK twomiler2, so what IF Colorado HAD laws as to the enforcement of restraining orders? Then what? Her kids are still dead. What would have the difference been if it had been an intruder? It wouldn't matter anyway. No LEO or city would be held liable there or anywhere else. A restraining order isn't worth the paper it's written on whether city, state, or federal. Contrary to your formerly LEO belief, if a person wants to kill you, it makes no difference to them what SCOTUS or any court has said. Tell ya what. If civilians can't carry guns, then neither can LEO's, former LEO's, judges, prosecutors, or the feds. That way, no one will have them and everybody will be safe. And I will sell you the HRBT for one dollar.
Keith
only in Colorado. That's the only place to which that ruling applied. Period. You can't dance around that fact. Martial arts are used for self-defence. Guns are used to kill.
twomiler2 and Gertz
Twomiler.. the point is that SCOTUS has in all reality said that police do not have the responsiblilty or are held liable to any person to protect them from criminals, preditors, or the like. Yet Police will arrest and charge an individual if he/she has to use deadly to defend his/herself, their families, or their property. Unless of course you are a LEO. In those circumstanses you would be released on your own recognizance while a civilian would be locked up. It isn't right. That's my argument.
Gertz, the agenda from what I can see is that she wanted evidence that her husband was being arrested for NOT breaking the law. It would appear that if one is innocent (these days) one has to prove it. Read her complaint. He was perfectly within his his rights that day and did nothing to violate the law. He just violated the ego of a few LEO's and was made a poster boy for it. That is my humble opinion.
Keith,
you left out, in your info on the Gonzales case, that Colorado, at that time, didn't have state laws as to enforcement of restraining orders. As you are aware, city, county & state police are separate entities. If that situation occurred in a state with laws as to enforcement of restraining orders, the judgement of the court wouldn't have been the same. If the restraining order had been issued by a federal court, there wouldn't be any questions as to enforcement. Sometimes, events occur that makes local & state officials reexamine their policies on varying subjects. You're the 1 who wrote to me that it was irrelevant to use policies other states in these posts. I guess it not so for you.
keiith
I swore I would not get back into this debate, but what was the agenda of the Ms's filming the arrst of her husband?
Gertz
Google Szymecki v. City of Norfolk & Szymecki v. Houch. Read the complaints. Mrs. Szymecki sued Sherriff's Deputy Ashley Houch for threatening her with jail if she filmed her husbands arrest with her cell phone. I would call that harrassment. Would she have arrested a news reporter?
FYI twomiler2
U. S. Supreme Court No. 04-278
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Proof enough?
I
don't know where some get the inane idea that police officers, who are by definition public servants, have no responsibility to protect that public. Wacko ideas such as these reinforce the reality of the unfitness of the holder.