Posted on 01/30/2017 6:57:00 AM PST by Kaslin
In recent days, news outlets have been reporting that 10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch has now risen to the top of President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. He apparently replaces Judge William Pryor, who was widely reported as previously leading the pack of potential nominees. Judge Pryor faced significant backlash from many on the right, including Evangelical Christians, criticizing Pryor's apparent support of the radical homosexual and transgender agenda.
The danger in being the front runner for a spot on the High Court is that you receive intense scrutiny, and, as with most candidates, Judge Gorsuch is difficult to evaluate fully.
Having spent some time digging into Judge Gorsuch's background, we have found many good indicators. First, we should say that we personally knew his mother – Anne Gorsuch Burford, a lawyer whom President Reagan appointed in 1981 as director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Anne was both principled and fearless – taking many arrows in her faithful pursuit of President Reagan's environmental agenda. Sadly, the Reagan administration failed to provide her the backing she deserved, leading to her early departure from that position. Judge Gorsuch's distinguished maternal pedigree should not be overlooked.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Hmmmm ..?? As much as I support the 2nd Amendment, as well as concealed carry. This appears to say that a person who claimed to be a CC really was not .. and they also had a criminal record - keeping them from owning any type of weapon.
It would appear that Judge Gorsuch did the right thing for the right reasons. It really was in support of the 2nd because you don’t want people running around with weapons when they are LEGALLY not allowed to do so.
I don’t see any issue here at all.
From the facts you stated here, I don’t have any problems with this search. “Observing strange behavior” could be almost anything, but at some point we have to give our police officers latitude in cases which may be a life or death situation. They were already called on the scene with two guys displaying guns in a store, that doesn’t sound like concealed carry, that sounds like they had them out with possible evil intent.
“This appears to say that a person who claimed to be a CC really was not .. “
He never identified as himself as a CC.
Yea, even Scalia endorsed flag burning.
Howard Phillips warned about Souter, but no one would listen.
Well, if you produce a license - whether fake or real - you are identifying as a CC holder.
“Well, if you produce a license - whether fake or real - you are identifying as a CC holder.”
I refer you back to my last post to you.
Nope, that’s a classic Terry stop and frisk. Weapons are what’s being “frisked” for in a Terry stop. The Terry case justifies this on the basis of officer safety and the officer is allowed to take possession of the weapon while with the person. However an officer must be able to articulate specific facts which would provide a basis to suspect that the individual may be involved with criminal activity.
_________________________________________
Just like other Constitutional protections of citizen rights, there are no absolutes. An armed citizen who is temporarily detained by a law enforcement officer on reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed, presents a very special Second Amendment issue. Does the citizen have an absolute right to maintain possession of his legally authorized firearm during the detention and inquiry? It is a hard question but I conclude he does not. Obviously, if the inquiry leads to no arrest, the firearm should be returned to the citizen.
OK, so he obviously in the wrong on that one, but is that the only case he’s ever decided that raises concerns? If so, I’m not going to Chicken Little about it. I’m sure every judge has stubbed his toe once or twice.
If you had read my post in its entirety you’d have comprehended that I was axing that very question. I do not know whether that source is excerpt only or not.
Sorry you took offense. I shall not take offense at your FIL scolding or your “sweet smile”, though the latter takes some effort.
“OK, so he obviously in the wrong on that one,”
He was correct on that one.
If you are required to have a permit or a license for just about anything, the authorities have the right to stop you and check to ensure that your permit is in place.
Sounds like a legal search to me.
” Does the citizen have an absolute right to maintain possession of his legally authorized firearm during the detention and inquiry? “
That is one issue. In this case the detainee did not identify himself as being armed and upon seeing the gun, the officer removed it.
As it turned out, he was a felon in possession of a stolen gun.
“Sounds like a legal search to me.”
It wasn’t a search. The officer had him detained and while escorting him outside the gun became visible in his back waistband. The officer merely pulled the gun out as the dude passed by him.
Subsequently it was found that he was a felon in possession of a stolen gun.
2nd Amendment.
Maybe so. I am not legal trained but still have hope in our President to make a right choice. Maybe not perfect but right just the same.
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.