Ammo For Sale

« « Gettin’ Siggy Wit It | Home | ATF: Fake holes and markings on an 80% lower receiver = machine gun » »

This looks like bad case law to me

I’m not a lawyer. But in a case at the fourth circuit, it was ruled that the police can search anyone with a gun, lawful or otherwise:

In sum, individuals who carry firearms lawfully or unlawfully pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainees possession of a firearm poses a categorical danger to the officers.

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.

So, if the police are coming to your house to investigate something and find that you have a gun permit, they can bust in your door, toss in some flashbangs, and get their ninja on. This is dangerous.

15 Responses to “This looks like bad case law to me”

  1. SPQR Says:

    No, there is a difference between a Terry stop and a search of your home.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    That doesn’t appear to be the logic in the ruling.

  3. Huck Says:

    So according to those assholes in the Fourth Circuit, our other Constitutional rights are null and void just because we own guns? That sounds a lot like a declaration of war on gun owners.

  4. Huck Says:

    I also see this as a brazen attempt to scare gun owners into getting rid of their guns.

  5. Mike V Says:

    I would expect this case to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It appears to use horrible logic.

  6. Tim Says:

    Indeed. No way that shit ‘stands’.

  7. Lyle Says:

    “That sounds a lot like a declaration of war on gun owners.”

    It is exactly that. We don’t need the yellow arm bands either, being that they already have our carry permit records in their databases, presumably along with our gun purchase histories.

    Trump was openly all about “Stop and Frisk” in his campaign, too, holding up Michael Bloomberg in the debates as his model “Law and Order” architect. How many of you remember hearing that?

  8. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    This is utter nonsense, and the phrasing of the ruling is utter nonsense.

    The Bill of Rights is not a Chinese menu, where you get to pick some and skip others. These are rights that American citizens have — and they include the right to bear arms, AND the right to be secure in their homes, AND the right to freedom of speech and assembly, and all the rest.

    The judges who wrote this opinion should be ashamed of themselves.

  9. wizardpc Says:

    The sixth circuit (which you and I live in, unc) ruled the other way, so it’s off to the Supremes eventually.

  10. Fred Says:

    Every stop must be a ‘Terry stop’. That means reasonable suspicion. They can’t stop everybody driving and ask for a license. Guns aren’t illegal. They can’t stop everybody with a gun and ask for a license. Again, carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    From wiki:
    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity

  11. Fred Says:

    Lyle, I remember.

  12. Huck Says:

    “The judges who wrote this opinion should be ashamed of themselves.”

    They need to be locked up for all eternity or strung up. Preferably the latter.

  13. mikee Says:

    Here in Texas, at a traffic stop a CHL holder WHO HAS A FIREARM WITH THEM IN THE CAR must hand their CHL to the police with their driver’s license and declare that they are in possession of a firearm – or risk loss of their CHL. Not to mention some confusion if an odd bulge is noticed.

    If you have no gun with you, there is no requirement to speak up, but it is strongly recommended in CHL classes, just to be open and friendly with Mr. Officer.

    But police already access your CHL status when they run your plate for ID, before they even get out of their cars. I’ve been thanked for supporting the 2nd Amendment (still got a ticket for speeding) and kept waiting for 10 minutes for backup before being approached (no ticket for speeding, just an annoying delay and an annoyed backup officer). So your mileage, as they say, may vary.

    The danger lies in the information the officer sees on their computer. I’ve been stopped and brusquely told to exit my car for investigation, for not having insurance listed – when the license plate was AUTOMATICALLY SCANNED and pinged my car – which was a rental car, self-insured by Enterprise. So be careful and polite at traffic stops.

  14. Deaf Smith Says:

    “Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainees possession of a firearm poses a categorical danger to the officers.”

    Circular logic. You can stop individuals to ‘detain’ them cause of the gun and then frisk them cause the ‘detained’ person is a risk to the officer.

    But if they didn’t stop them there would be no risk, right?

  15. Will Says:

    Last year it was discovered that MD cops were stopping FL vehicles that had owners with CCW’s.
    CA cops know if a local has a UT non-resident CCW. Unknown if they have complete US listing access.

    The takeaway is that if you have a ccw, any cop, anywhere, can probably access that info fairly quickly in a vehicle stop, or simply by scanning your plate.

    Those plate readers start scanning as soon as the vehicle is operating. They read plates in driveways as they pass by. San Jose was supposed to be mounting them on trash trucks, to get full coverage of parked vehicles every week.

    That yellow star doesn’t have to be visible anymore. Isn’t technology wonderful?