If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
the court ruled that after a lawful traffic stop, the police may frisk any person who they believe may possess a firearm, regardless of whether that person possesses a concealed-carry permit.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights
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.
Godfrey v. Wellesley in MA allows you choose between the 2nd and the 5th, but not both.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.
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.
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.
Basically gun owners lose rights when carrying due to the "danger" they pose.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights
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.
To be clear, the general risk that is inherent during atraffic stop does not, without more, justify a frisk of theautomobile’s occupants.
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,”
Theconcern -- i.e., the danger -- was thus found in the presence ofa weapon during a forced police encounter.
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.
Basically gun owners lose rights when carrying due to the "danger" they pose.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights
That is laughable, MASS is a ****ing messGodfrey v. Wellesley in MA allows you choose between the 2nd and the 5th, but not both.
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.