Posted on 08/08/2014 6:38:39 PM PDT by marktwain
In a case that brought shock-waves to the judicial establishment, an Arizona appeals court ruled that an officer could stop and disarm someone merely because they were armed.
Now the Arizona Supreme Court has reversed that ruling in a unanimous decision. From azcapitoltimes.com:
Police cannot frisk someone they stop and question absent some “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.While this ruling applies only to Arizona,it was the United States Constitution and the fourth amendment that was cited, not the Arizona Constitution. In a related event in Wisconsin, an open carry activist was instrumental in the repeal of a county ordinance which did not comply with state law. The activist, William Polster, was legally carrying in a county park. The local ordinance, which was clearly invalid by state law, was given as the reason for a deputy pointing a loaded rifle at Polster. Polster recorded the entire event, and the county board said that they would repeal the ordinance and cease enforcement the next day.
“When officers consensually engage citizens on the street without having any evidence of wrongdoing, the mere presence of a weapon does not afford officers constitutional permission to search weapons-carrying individuals,” she said. “To conclude otherwise would potentially subject countless law-abiding persons solely for exercising their right to carry a firearm.”In the case of State of Arizona v. Johnathon Bernard Serna, the court makes it clear that two criteria must be met for a forced stop and frisk. First, the officer must have a reasonably articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Then, they must also have reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous. Both conditions must be met. Officers may ask people to consent to be disarmed; but the stop is not consensual if a reasonable person would believe that they would be allowed to leave the scene.
The framers of the Constitution would roll over in their graves if they knew that an amendment so simple to understand as the 2nd amendment would cause such controversy.
It has taken a war between the states, the freeing of the slaves, and a hundred years of anti-constitutional “progressivism” to do it.
The real issue is that for liberals, even reality is malleable and plastic. Their god is their own ideology and its agenda.
Well, it looks like out constant activism is finally sinking in. To think that we actually need activism and debate about something as simple as the Second Amendment. Shameful. We cannot rest, especially now that things are starting to turn for the better.
Wow! It’s like some of these judges are actually following the law instead of rewriting it.
This case would never have seen the light of day in Arizona 50 years ago because no cop would have bothered stopping anyone just because they had a sidearm or a rifle.
It would have been incomprehensible then.
And I know that for a fact because as a teenager I routinely carried both with friends headed to the desert to hunt the dreaded varmints.
Pima county sheriffs used to blast right by us. On their way to arrest real criminals.
It was a safe state then.
Yes, but other than King George, there were no Progressives back there then.
And the hope of the founders was that there would no progressives in the future.
...”the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
Good ruling.
Not really. Their god is a liar and a cheat who will abandon you at the soonest opportunity. Liberals only seem confused and conflicted because their god stands for chaos, mayhem and destruction. They serve consciously or unconsciously, but it’s the same master.
You put half a dozen blacks armed with rifles on the courthouse steps and in no time you have gun control.
I think it was one of the most successful bits of Alynski tactics ever done by the Black Panthers.
California is one of only six states that has not state constitutional protection for the second amendment.
California gun laws, right from the beginning, were designed to keep minorities (Mexicans and Chinese) disarmed.
That’s stupid. Why would you frisk the guy you KNOW has a gun?? (Unless of course you’re just TRYING to have a chilling effect) Normally a frisk is to find out if someone has a hidden weapon. Of what interest is it to find out if someone has a hidden weapon when you already know for a fact that he’s armed??
(Unless of course you’re just TRYING to have a chilling effect)
I think you nailed it first try.
Don't get too excited, it's Arizona, a state with some of the most Constitutional gun laws in the nation, including Constitutional carry as well as passing the Firearms Freedom Act (repudiating federal regulation of intrastate guns). When a MD or MA or RI court makes this ruling, THEN you can post that.
I used to sling my rifle, load a brick of ammo and a canteen on the bicycle, and pedal out on the highway to some dry dusty wash for soda can and beer bottle destruction. One day I heard sirens and pulled over to watch a high-speed chase of liquor store robbers zoom past. Maricopa County never paid any attention to me.
I did have an unpleasant experience at the hands of the DPS when I tried to deposit money in the bank so I could buy the rifle (they wouldn't take cash from a sixteen-year-old at the sporting goods store). The bank teller mistook my ignorance of proper deposit slip etiquette as attempted bank robbery....
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.