Court Rules that Firearm Possession Forfeits Fourth Amendment rights

Guns America ^ | January 30, 2017 | Jordan Michaels

[boatbums]

You’re at a traffic stop.

The officer asks to see your license and registration, and, like a responsible concealed handgun permit holder, you offer your CHL along with your driver’s license. Immediately upon seeing your handgun license, the officer forces you from your vehicle, frisks you, and removes your handgun from its holster.

Despite this clear violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, you keep your cool. Neither before, during, nor after the incident have you acted strangely, suspiciously, or aggressively.

When you ask why you’re being treated this way, the officer responds, “I had reason to believe you had a handgun. Your possessing a handgun makes the situation inherently dangerous, both for you, me, and other people.”

Crazy, right?

Unfortunately, no. After the Fourth Circuit Court’s recent decision, that situation is not out of the realm of possibility—or legality.

The Fourth Circuit recently 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.

[boatbums]

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the Court’s opinion, word for word:

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 detainee’s possession of a firearm poses a categorical “danger” to the officers.

The case, U.S. v. Robinson, arose after police stopped and searched a West Virginia man named Shaquille Robinson. Robinson, who had been seen earlier that day with a loaded gun, challenged the stop and frisk on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. He said that, while the officer had good reason to believe he had a gun, his possession of a gun did not give the officer grounds to believe that he was dangerous. The search, therefore, was unconstitutional.

The Court, predictably, ate this line of reasoning for lunch. It’s not that Robinson is wrong—but anti-gun judges were no doubt salivating over the prospect of enshrining in law the logic that guns = dangerous.

Read more at https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/court-rules-firearm-possession-forfeits-fourth-amendment-rights/

[Lurkinanloomin]

Courts get it wrong again.

[enduserindy]

So where are the blm riots?

[norton]

Followed the law - don’t shoot!(?)

[Elderberry]

" because a detainee’s Policeman's possession of a firearm poses a categorical “danger” to the officers civilians."

There, fixed it.

[vladimir998]

In some states you have to inform the officer that you have an permit and that you are (or are not) carrying the weapon at that moment. You might also have to hand the weapon to the officer. He might keep it in some situations whereupon he will issue you a “receipt” for your weapon.

[SkyDancer]

Or should you wait until they ask if you are carrying?

[hardspunned]

I wonder what Mr. Gorsuch’s opinion on this ruling would be? I have not heard how strongly he has supported the 2nd amendment in the past.

[Reno89519]

individuals who carry firearms — lawfully .... — pose a risk of danger to themselves

Seriously?! I'm not sure how to react. Would the supreme court overturn this?

[jazminerose]

It’s worse than you think. If the court can get the ‘inherently dangerous’ idiocy to stick, it opens gun owners and manufacturers up for strict liability; that is, liability without a showing of fault. The law recognizes certain activities as so inherently dangerous, there is no way to make them safe. Thus, whomever is engaged in such activities is automatically liable for any injuries or damage without a showing of any negligence or misconduct.

Open the floodgates.

The gun grabbers have wanted this language for a long, long time. Thank God we have President Trump and he’s going to appoint sound justices.

[BenLurkin]

Carrying puts the carrier at risk?

I’ll bite. How?

[WildHighlander57]

To what areas of the country does this apply?

[samadams2000]

INALLIENABLE

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (in case citations, 4th Cir.) is a federal court located in Richmond, Virginia, with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: District of Maryland. Eastern District of North Carolina. Middle District of North Carolina.”

[Lurkinanloomin]

We hope.

As Roberts has illustrated, it’s always a crap shoot.

[G Larry]

Take it on up to the USSC....now that we have the nominee enroute.

[LegendHasIt]

A better title:

"Leftist Judges in Fourth Federal Circuit Court decide that using your Second Amendment Rights voids your Fourth Amendment Rights."

I hope the Supreme Court overturns this first thing after Trump's replacement for Scalia is approved.

[opus1]

Good question!

[boatbums]

If stopped by Law Enforcement in Florida, we are supposed to inform the officer that we have a concealed handgun permit and produce the CCL along with DL and registration when requested. We also inform the officer where the gun is located in the vehicle.

[TBP]

The court is wrong.