Article about recent 4th circuit ruling.

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
21,352
Likes
25,259
Location
Back from Motherland
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
12,211
Likes
6,825
I see no basis — nor does the majority opinion provide any — for limiting our conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms are categorically dangerous to the Terry frisk inquiry. Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.

WTF? So now case law says you can legally be restricted to only exercising one civil right at a time?
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
19,756
Likes
17,557
Location
Southern NH
You mean you actually still get 5th amendment protections in this state? I thought they just tortured you with pictures of Liawatha until you cooperated.

No. You don't in any state. Rob would have been more accurate saying you are only allowed to choose between one of the two that they will pretend to respect.

Basically gun owners lose rights when carrying due to the "danger" they pose.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights

Correct. Well, actually the ruling is even worse. EVERYONE loses rights so long as a cop merely thinks you might have a firearm. Facts not relevant.


It is literally an ends justify the means decision in order to infringe on people's rights while directly ignoring the 4th Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and the SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio.

The court additionally created a brand new definition for the word 'dangerous' based on no facts or logic.



Second, he fails to recognize that traffic stops alone are inherently dangerous for policeofficers.

Third, he also fails to recognize that traffic stops of persons who are armed, whether legally or illegally, pose yet a greater safety risk to police officers.

And fourth, he argues illogically that when a person forcefully stopped may be legally permitted to possess a firearm, any risk of danger to police officers posed by the firearm is eliminated.

I could quote a ton from the decision.

I love how they claim one argument is "illogical" only to justify their claim with equally if not substantially more illogical arguments.

Illogical argument one: Because traffic stops can be dangerous, that alone means that a reasonable belief that the person stopped is dangerous exists.

Now they did say:

To be clear, the general risk that is inherent during atraffic stop does not, without more, justify a frisk of theautomobile’s occupants.

But they were anything but clear by further saying:

But the risk inherent in all trafficstops is heightened exponentially when the person who has beenstopped -- a person whose propensities are unknown -- is “armedwith a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be usedagainst” the officer in a matter of seconds. As such, when the officer reasonably suspects that theperson he has stopped is armed, the officer is “warranted in thebelief that his safety . . . [is] in danger,”

Yeah, always a "but".

Illogical argument two: Being legally armed immediately means you are more dangerous than anyone, including violent criminals and murder suspects, purely on the basis you are armed and they are not.

Illogical argument three: Stating that someone who is legally armed doesn't mean they are dangerous means that you are also stating it eliminates all danger, despite never stating or even suggesting that.

And apparently these are valid legal positions to hold. More evidence our system is nothing less than a kangaroo court.

Theconcern -- i.e., the danger -- was thus found in the presence ofa weapon during a forced police encounter.

Of course they didn't mention that nearly without exception, police are armed with a weapon, and thus the person stopped has a greater concern or in their made up definition, is in danger. Double standards and hypocrisy abounds.


The decision did make one thing very clear. They think there is NO merit in having carry licenses or permits. Apparently, they are meaningless and having one and legally carrying is literally no different than not having one and carrying illegally, in regards to your propensity for violence. Sounds like a good argument for true constitutional carry. Of course I'm sure they'd use that argument for a total ban on all carry. Tyrants.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s statements, Robinson’sposition also fails as a matter of logic to recognize that therisk inherent in a forced stop of a person who is armed existseven when the firearm is legally possessed. The presumptivelawfulness of an individual’s gun possession in a particularState does next to nothing to negate the reasonable concern anofficer has for his own safety when forcing an encounter with anindividual who is armed with a gun and whose propensities areunknown.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,996
Likes
4,374
Location
WNW of MHT

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,507
Likes
5,494
Location
NOLA
WTF? So now case law says you can legally be restricted to only exercising one civil right at a time?

Godfrey v. Wellesley in MA allows you choose between the 2nd and the 5th, but not both.

That is absurd on it's face! So, if you are speaking your mind, you can be forced to quarter the King's soldiers? What in the world are these courts thinking? I guess my 2nd sig line below gives us the answer, doesn't it?!
 
Top Bottom