"Any contrary holding 'would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals' by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid."
the court held that the handcuffing and detention violated the Fourth Amendment, assuming the facts were as the plaintiff alleged:
The court also held that the law was clear enough that the police officer didn't have qualified immunity from the claim. And it likewise held as to the follow-up search of the car:
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."