ARSONIST!!
Posted on 02/07/2017 12:36:12 PM PST by PROCON
A ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit finds that carrying a gun—even lawfully—is justification for police to treat you as suspect until evidence proves otherwise. This turns the normal approach to policing on its head, limiting Fourth Amendment protections normally in place for those considered innocent until proven guilty.
In fact, Ammoland reported that Judge James A. Wynn opined, “Individuals who carry firearms—lawfully or unlawfully—pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers, in particular.” Wynn added, “Individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”
The 4th Circuit ruling was issued in United States v. Robinson, a case brought by Shaquille Montel Robinson after he believed himself unconstitutionally targeted for search and seizure—and ultimately arrested—because he was carrying a gun.
Robinson’s saga began on March 24, 2014, when an unidentified caller notified the Ranson, W.V., Police Department that they had seen “an African-American male” load a handgun, conceal it in his pocket and climb into the passenger side of a Toyota Camry “driven by a white female.”
Officer Kendall Hudson spotted the car minutes after the call was placed, and pulled the vehicle over after noting that Robinson and the driver were not wearing seat belts.
According to court documents:
(Excerpt) Read more at americas1stfreedom.org ...
OF COURSE NOT! What a terrible thing to say. It simply makes a suspect. I get the point, Kid. A good illustration. This ruling means engaging in Constitutionally protected behavior under 2A reduces one's protection under 4A. The conclusion is that 2A is, then, not protected since it automatically creates a suspicion of potential criminality. The court is a mad dog.
Good point and analogy. Stupid judges should be removed right away. In fact any judge who identifies as a leftist should be barred from practicing law or sitting on the bench.
I don’t think this is anything new. A Terry stop, or brief detention, already allows a search for weapons.
yeah, for the most part
(...just KIDDING - but ducking for cover anyway...)
the JG
Then, according to the logic of this ruling, since police all carry guns, they are all suspicious, and I have every reason to flee from them, or takes steps to defend myself against them, right?
Holding a spoon makes you fat.
No, not quite- Terry ruled that the mere presence of a firearm is NOT cause to search or etc. It rules that the officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime, was is or will be committed. So this ruling is nothing like Terry.
It is a wholesale assault on the right to arms and the right to be free from unreasonable search/seizure etc.
The suspect in his case was a known felon, was reasonably known to have an (illegal) weapon) and therefore the officer had cause to and search. Good cop, bad judge.
ARSONIST!!
The suspect in his case was a known felon, was reasonably known to have an (illegal) weapon) and therefore the officer had cause to and search. Good cop, bad judge.
...
I don’t get this decision being anti 2A then, especially when it appears that the liberal judges were in dissent.
The battle was lost many moons ago.
Made worse by the fallacy of ‘compelling State\govt interest’ over Constitutional Right(s).
The posit of Constitutional law has taken a back-seat to ‘precedence’...as if unlawful\illogical rulings had any weight to begin.
Course, back when we had a Republic...
>
Exercising your Second Amendment rights abridges your Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your possessions, and your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble?
>
Why, just the idea of exercising your 1st A. Rights to assemble and petition vs. grievances by exercising your 2nd A. Rights sure scares the bejeezus outta those would seek to oppress We the People.
>
The ruling itself, that the gun can be admitted as evidence, in my opinion is not bad.
The guy is convicted felon and should be put away for a long time.
The problem is with the idiotic statements by the judge that anyone carrying a gun is dangerous.
I’m not really sure where the danger to the 2nd amendment comes from the ruling in this case.
>
1) As evidence of....?
2) An ex-felon = Free Citizen. We don’t have a caste system here. Only those in prisons have some of their Rights suspended, rightfully so.
3) Yes, but the bigger problem is this ‘judge’ won’t be taken OUT of office for his activism.
4) That’s easy. The ‘danger’ is a well-armed populace thwarting the Socialist takeover or being able to take care of ones’ self\family\friends\community.
Just curious; do you own a doughnut shop or have other financial interests in perpetuating a multi-class caste system in America?
“settled law”? Why should we require citizens to commit suicide by exercising a natural law right to self defense?
From: http://krisannehall.com/yes-i-am-an-attorney/
Yes I am an attorney. But, do not quote to me “the law” to justify your position. If your justification for your position is “the supreme Court says so,” then you have no position.
Just because it is the law doesn’t make it lawful. Just because it is the law, doesn’t make it reasonable or logical. Just because it is the law doesn’t make it moral. Just because it is the law doesn’t make it just. Just because it is law doesn’t make it Constitutional. Just because the court issues an opinion doesn’t make it legal, moral, or Constitutional.
“But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.
The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others.
It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.