Second Amendment

"Armed" is Same as "Armed and Dangerous" When it Comes to Police Searches, 4th Circuit Concludes

Opinion from 4th Circuit Court of Appeals implies that exercising your Second Amendment rights means you inherently lose some of your Fourth and First Amendment rights.

|

A decision last week in U.S. v. Robinson from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that being armed, even legally, is the same as being "armed and dangerous" and leaves you open to police search. It also implies, according to a concurring opinion, that gun carriers lose significant First Amendment as well as Fourth Amendment rights.

John Biehler/Foter

Shaquille Robinson in March 2014 was a passenger in a car pulled over by police in Ranson, West Virginia. It was pulled over, ostensibly, because driver and passenger were not wearing seat belts.

However, the police had received a tip that Robinson had been seen loading a gun and putting it in his pocket before he got in the car. He was in a 7-11 parking lot known to cops as a frequent site of drug sales.

The police searched Robinson after pulling the car over and found the gun in his pocket, and arrested him for an illegal possession of a gun by a felon.

Robinson sued to challenge the search. Since merely having the gun on his person, as the police already suspected from the call, could have been a perfectly legal act—he might have had a permit—the police, he insisted, had no legal grounds for the search that did find the (actually illegally possessed) weapon.

To quote from the decision last week, Robinson argued as part of his appeals process that "Under the logic of the district court, in any state where carrying a firearm is a perfectly legal activity, every citizen could be dangerous, and subject to a Terry frisk and pat down."

Last year, a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Robinson and overturned his initial conviction. The government appealed for a decision of the full court, and now last week that full court disagreed with the panel decision.

The whole case hinges, as the Court explains, in whether "armed" should legally be presumed to mean the same thing as "armed and dangerous," and they conclude that yes, it can be.

The decision, by Judge Paul Niemeyer, says that Robinson "argues illogically that when a person forcefully stopped may be legally permitted to possess a firearm, any risk of danger to police officers posed by the firearm is eliminated….Robinson's position…fails as a matter of logic to recognize that the risk inherent in a forced stop of a person who is armed exists even when the firearm is legally possessed. "

Niemeyer's majority opinion states that precedent all the way back to the 1968 Terry case that established current legal standards for police frisking make it clear that mere suspicion of gun possession, whether legal or not, is more than enough to justify a search.

In that original case the Court, Niemeyer writes, "approv[ed] Officer McFadden's frisk of Terry that 'a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing petitioner was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety.' In this manner, the Court adopted the now well-known standard that an officer can frisk a validly stopped person if the officer reasonably believes that the person is 'armed and dangerous.'"

A separate concurring opinion from the 4th Circuit in the case, also against Robinson, by Judge James Wynn tries to separate out the majority opinion's apparent belief that "armed" and "dangerous" mean essentially the same thing to declare more clearly that being armed with a gun specifically (not, for example, a wine bottle) is the thing that indeed takes away your constitutional right to be free from unwarranted search.

As Wynn plainly writes, "individuals who choose to carry firearms forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms."

In Wynn's opinion, in a statement that alarmed many in the gun rights community, the majority opinion as it stands has further (bad) implications for gun carriers and their constitutional rights:

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. See Richards v. Wisconsin…(1997) ("In order to justify a 'no-knock' entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile." (emphasis added)).

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. See Schenck v. United States...(1919) (Holmes, J.) ("The question in every [freedom of speech] case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (emphasis added)).

A dissent written by Judge Pamela Harris disagrees, after noting that so many law-abiding citizens have carry rights that it just doesn't hold up to conflate "armed" (even with a gun) and "dangerous" the way the majority decision does, and that:

unless and until the Supreme Court takes us there, I cannot endorse a rule that puts us on a collision course with rights to gun possession rooted in the Second Amendment and conferred by state legislatures. Nor would I adopt a rule that leaves to unbridled police discretion the decision as to which legally armed citizens will be targeted for frisks, opening the door to the very abuses the Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent.

Harris' dissent also spells out what seems to this non-lawyer a clear circuit split on the question that the 4th Circuit has just created, one that might require the Supreme Court to hash out:

We are not alone in this insight. In Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't…(6th Cir. 2015), for instance, the Sixth Circuit held that where state law permits the open carry of firearms, the police are not authorized by Terry to conduct a stop – or an attendant frisk – of a person brandishing a gun in public. Where the state legislature "has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets," the court reasoned, the police have "no authority to disregard this decision" by subjecting law-abiding citizens to Terry stops and frisks…..; see also, e.g., United States v. Leo…(7th Cir. 2015) (rejecting "frisk" and search of backpack on suspicion that it contains gun in light of "important developments in Second Amendment law together with Wisconsin's [concealed-carry] gun laws"); United States v. Ubiles (3d Cir. 2000) (invalidating Terry stop based on suspicion of gun possession in open-carry jurisdiction).

Wynn's boldly stated conclusions about all the rights that gun carriers lose based on this 4th Circuit judgment have been viewed-with-alarm by, among others, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action and Ammoland.

NEXT: Thoughts on the Gorsuch pick

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nut punch.

    And not by Trump!

    1. However, the police had received a tip that Robinson had been seen loading a gun and putting it in his pocket before he got in the car. He was in a 7-11 parking lot known to cops as a frequent site of drug sales.

      Fuck the War on Drugs. It’s evil, and the people fighting it are evil.

      1. This really can’t be said enough.

    2. I didn’t vote for Trump. I thought he was a clown, a self-promoting jerk, a joke. I figured he’d do nothing good for America.

      I was wrong. (Okay, maybe he is a self-promoting jerk – but I am in awe of his first two weeks on the job – doing more good for America than Obozo did in eight years. Trump could wind up being the best president since Andrew Jackson.)

      But this court? What morons these “judges” be. They should not only be over turned, but turned out – to judge at most the local beauty pageant or the comeliness of pigs at the county fair.

    1. Just in time for Gorsuch to make sure that ridiculous en banc opinion by the 4th Circuit gets smacked down.

      These anti-gun people do not even try to hide absolute disdain for the Constitution anymore.

      If I was the passenger, I would have continually asked, am I under arrest or did I violate the law? No? I have nothing to say to you and ignore the cop. If I was close to home, I would start walking.

      Another reason to get rid of seat belt laws. Excuse to search and seize for police.

  2. doesn’t hold up to conflate “armed” (even with a gun) and “dangerous”

    So much this. If I see someone carrying, especially openly, I don’t immediately go into fight-or-flight mode. Unfortunately, I think a lot of lefties really do. And I *very* rarely carry.

    1. The Second Amendment gives you the right to carry a weapon because, as a law-abiding citizen, it is your duty to carry a weapon. Libertarians should acknowledge that duty – what else? Are you going to depend on the government to protect you? I always carry. It felt weird at first, but now it feels natural.

      1. I wish i could but i live in IL and would get shot on the spot :/

        I want to move to kentucky TT

  3. “individuals who choose to carry firearms forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”

    “individuals who choose to comment on Hit & Run forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to comment on Hit & Run.”

    “individuals who choose to carry large cups of soft drinks forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to large cups of soft drinks.”

    “individuals who choose to undergo tattooing forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to undergo tattooing.”

    “individuals who choose to exercise certain religious rights forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to exercise certain religious rights.”

    ….

    1. In this instance, he’s simply pointing (gleefully, I’m sure) out the obvious implication of the opinion held by his conservative colleagues.

    2. “individuals who choose to exercise certain reproductive rights forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to exercise certain reproductive rights.”

    3. Individuals who choose to hold elected office and/or work for the government forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to hold elected office and/or work for the government.

      See how that works? Just throw together anything you want to hear and it makes sense. Heck, I can even…

      Individuals who choose to hold elected office and/or work for the government forego each and every constitutional protection which are afforded to individuals who elect not to hold elected office and/or work for the government.

      …FYTW!!!

    4. Put “vote” in there and see how far it would fly with these chip-worthy judges.

  4. Gahhhhh!!!!

    This is pretty awful. Carrying makes me subject to search on a whim? What if I’m in my car? What if I’m walking into my house?

    Yay for Trump’s new Supreme appointment.

    /reaches out to grasp glimmer of hope

  5. Off topic, but within theme.

    100 foster kids died in Texas state custody last year. Texas Governor Greg Abbott said identifying reforms in child-protection programs is his number one priority. And what does he plan to do about it?

    Increase their funding.

    “Do not fund this rickety system only to have it come back to haunt you in years to come,” Abbott told lawmakers. “Do it right.”

    I wonder how big an increase their budget will get next year when they kill two hundred kids?

    1. 100 in one year?

      Every single person involved should be forced to dig a giant ditch as a mass grave before they are forced to kneel before it and then systematically executed.

      1. No. They’re getting big pay raises. You must have missed that part.

      2. On a related note, I now fully support torture, of these motherfuckers anyways .

        1. They don’t need to be tortured. They just need to be afflicted with a long-term, painful disease and be unable to receive proper pain relief treatment because of the laws they support.

          1. Dammit. I didn’t read past the comment I wanted to comment on.

        2. Not torture, Just a really painful form of cancer or some such that makes them scream when they try to get out of bed.

    2. It’s crazy how Abbot makes me miss Perry. Thankfully the Texas Governorship is one of the most neutered in the country.

  6. Also.

    Jesus, Doherty. Way to kill the room.

    1. You’re just disappointed that you can’t bitch about Yet Another Trump Article. 😉

  7. Argle bargle, argle bargle. Who can even make heads or tails of this nonsense. I’m going to bed.

  8. (1919) (Holmes, J.) (“The question in every [freedom of speech] case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

    Oh, an appeal to the authority of Shit for Brain “Fire!” Holmes… hey constitutional dipshits, not only does Congress have no rights (to prevent speech that they think will bring about substantive evil what that means or otherwise) period and besides not having any authority granted to do so under the Constitution, Congress is explicitly prohibited from making such laws under the very clear words of the 1A. Fuck off slavers.

        1. That is an unworthy honor. I’m deeply touched guys.

    1. The “clear and present danger” test was explicitly overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, right? So why is it being cited now?

      1. Because it’s convenient and meshes with the judge’s sensibility.

  9. this is pretty bad…..even for people who went to law school.

  10. Shaquille Robinson

    ACLU, where are you?

    1. Who cares when one of those canaries die. The coal mine looks perfectly safe.

    2. Everyone knows the ACLU counts to 10 like 1,4,5,6,7,8,10

  11. Pamela Harris for Supreme Court (next round) please?!

    1. Okay, so embarrassed that she is a Yale grad and Obama appointee.

      *hangs head in shame*

      1. She got it right. Doesn’t matter who picked her.

        1. True enough. She seems to have actually been awake in her constitutional law class unlike our last President.

    2. you misspelled “Kamala”

      1. This guy, James “Kamala” Harris?

        1. well played

          he has my vote

  12. Exercising one of your Constitutional rights necessarily infringes upon your other rights.

    What say you, Mr. Jefferson?

    “I must’ve forgotten that line. Clearly, Constitutional rights are an either/or proposition.”

  13. So wait, they got a tip that some guy at a known drug buying spot had a gun.

    Which apparently wasn’t good enough to stop the vehicle. So they initiate a pretext stop, saying that they didn’t have on seat belts. (a decent reason to not have this as a primary offense, I suppose) Now, because we know that the tip existed, we also know that the stop was only a pretext to find the drugs that they just bought at the 7-11.

    So…. If we know it was a made-up stop to get around the lack of probable cause (which it has to be, otherwise they would have just stopped them on suspicion of drug possession based on the tip), and if such a stop would indeed not have been legal due to a lack of probable cause…. then why are we worrying over anything else. IT was an admittedly bad stop in the first place. Poisoned fruit, etc.

    Or are we just going to allow pretext stops to get around the 4th amendment?

    Hey! That guy looks shady. I want to search him and his vehicle. But I don’t have probable cause to do so. I know! I’ll just say he is driving erratically! I’ll pull him over on suspicion of drunk driving. Then I can search him and the vehicle to protect officer safety!

    1. And remember that no matter how careful a driver you think you are, if a cop follows you for long enough you will do something that’s technically a traffic violation and allow them to pull you over. And couple that with the reasonable belief standard that seems to apply to cops, and this is a permanent end-around the 4th amendment to be used against anyone driving or riding in a car.

      1. Oh come on. Being pulled over is not sufficient cause for a frisk and certainly not sufficient for an actual search of the vehicle. That’s well-established case law.

        In this case, the frisk happened because of the 911 call.

        1. They were pulled over for not wearing seatbelts, not a 911 call. And the call was a tip, not an emergency call.

          1. In this case, the frisk happened because of the 911 call.

          2. The traffic stop was not claimed to be illegal/unconstitutional by the defendant. So that’s not even an issue.

            It’s the frisk that’s the issue in the case, and that happened because of the call.

            1. It is an issue, because the search wouldn’t have happened absent it. The problem is how the stop led to the search and what justified that path.

    2. Hey! That guy looks shady. I want to search him and his vehicle. But I don’t have probable cause to do so. I know! I’ll just say he is driving erratically! I’ll pull him over on suspicion of drunk driving. Then I can search him and the vehicle to protect officer safety!

      Hey! Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical Police College, too??

    3. If we know it was a made-up stop to get around the lack of probable cause

      Don’t need probable cause for a frisk, just reasonable suspicion. Note that the officers apparently never searched the vehicle.

      Anyway, this vehicle was singled out specifically because of the eyewitness report of the guy loading a gun and putting it in his pocket, not because of drug suspicions.

      1. And yet my eyewitness report that you routinely engage in sophistry does not justify the police stopping, frisking, or searching you since sophistry is not a crime.

    4. Back when I was a public defender the local prosecutors called the vehicle code “the probable cause book.” They knew if it started with a vehicle stop there was some way to justify it. Add just a little testilying and everything worked out for them.

  14. “Armed” is Same as “Armed and Dangerous” When it Comes to Police Searches

    I asked a question about this exact issue in my Criminal Procedure class last year. Naturally, the prof looked dumbfounded that anyone would think otherwise.

    1. It certainly seems to apply to most open carriers. You know, the ones with badges.

      1. Oh, well, we’d better make sure there’s a legal ruling or law exempting police from that immediately,

  15. I wonder if those 40 fucking dummies listed earlier will come running pissed off at some shit.

  16. Totes circs! HTH! Smooches!

    1. I going to go fuck my surfboard while riding Leslie Ann Warren.

      1. POWER LIFTING POWER UP UNLOCKED!

  17. …even as their shit teams scream about some fucking refugees no one thought necessary to test for Hebdo and San Bernardino… so praise the goddamn gods for all the cops and their strange proclivities…

    Americans have as much to fear from Reason’s unleashed fucking Muslim parade as goddamn psychopathic fucking blue coded ice knuckler Fox cops bending knees into gentle necks whistling the last story.

    all the now ether is vast with tomorrows vanquished

    1. More. You are statistically in far more danger from an American cop than a Muslim foreigner.

      Actually, I think the math means I can skip the “foreigner”. No Muslim is as likely to kill you as the local Barney Fife. I’d look it up, but it’s past midnight and it’s not as if mere math would change anyone’s minds.*

      But then, humans have this tendency to fear the wrong thing.

      *I blame Gillespie for taking a perfectly good mathematical fact, stripping it, starving it of curves, painting it up and making it whore for his sleezy purposes. There was no fucking need for all of this “since 1980 (!!!) NO refugee EVER has BLAHBLAH SHUT UP YOKELS”. There are perfectly proper maths out there to suit the job, and they don’t need to be massaged like a 55 yo prostate. For fuck’s sake, you twit.

      1. If it’s not readily apparent, Gillespie is the twit in this scenario. And also the prostate. I’m feeling a little shirty that he’s fucking up perfectly rational arguments with bullshit hand-waving and fairy dust. Swish cunt needs to get off my side.

      2. Doesn’t really make sense unless the status quo of having the same amount of muslims was the concern, which it is not. The concern is having more of the people who are most likely to mass murder for their religion.

        It’s like saying your chances of dying while jumping out of a plane without a working parachute are vanishingly small, therefore jumping out of a plane with no parachute is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

        1. So, we should ban all risky behavior then.

          Well, let’s get right on that.

          1. Okay, HoD, but no need to rag on Agile Cyborg. He might not be the mental poet we need, but he’s the poet we deserve.

            1. I tried not to. Revised with a second post to point out my ire is mostly reserved for Gillespie’s shitty arguments and everything.

              Agile’s a love. He knows I worship the starshine from his fingertips.

              1. That’s not starshine, and those aren’t his fingertips

          2. No idea how you got that from what I wrote.

  18. Police are the now of governmental dick in your ripped up throat like middle eastern cavalry become the bombs shat off the roads into your blown up ass.

  19. Things are looking up in Brazil.

    Of course even if this scandal wiped out 90% of the politicians in the country the populace would just line up and vote for more scoundrels.

  20. FUCK the POLICE! AND FUCK their goddamn collectivist union.

  21. How long until the prog-media discovers the Labor Force Participation Rate, determines it’s the best way to quantify unemployment and declares it “problematic”?

    1. As soon as they can forget/blot out what the rate was under the Golden Child.

      1. How to do statistics like ba partisan hack:

        Find a measure that is b absurdly high (or low, depending on the metric) and then claim his great your team is when it comes down (or goes up)under their power. See Obama is a deficit hawk.

  22. Tiny puddles make lakes for knees and elbows
    bent under dream concussions spent from iron thumbs
    poking from the sun swept fucking shit sidewalks only
    heat-fucked little boys and girls ever give a bitch about

    i wandered along the alleys of my dreams while perturbed
    by soul baffles and I noticed the fingers of my arms
    poked a ton of odd yells into the field of the world I
    guess makes up the fucks who slather time sandwiches
    with the blurry roundabouts of their fucking
    bullshit

  23. No earth ever became better
    surrounded by codified goddamn
    fucks evolution pretends to ignore
    called the fucking hell bitters and their
    Chieftans and snappy killers the cops

  24. The police searched Robinson after pulling the car over and found the gun in his pocket, and arrested him for an illegal possession of a gun by a felon.

    They frisked him, actually. While a frisk is technically a search, this wording implies a more intrusive search than actually happened.

    And in this case, the “search” revealed only what the officer already reasonably suspected, that the man was armed. It was hardly a fishing expedition or instrument of harassment of the sort the 4th amendment is intended to protect against.

    1. To quote from the decision last week, Robinson argued as part of his appeals process that “Under the logic of the district court, in any state where carrying a firearm is a perfectly legal activity, every citizen could be dangerous, and subject to a Terry frisk and pat down.”

      Only if they openly load their gun and then conceal it in front of the general public, then break the law in a way that initiates a law enforcement contact. The circumstances here are extremely narrow.

      Now, I think the cop could have handled this better. Had he asked the passenger whether he had a CCW permit BEFORE conducting the frisk, and the answer was no, then he could more justifiably have claimed suspicion that the passenger was dangerous (and even cause to believe the crime of illegal possession of a weapon had occurred).

      Of course the passenger was kind of stupid too. Had he removed the gun from his pocket and hidden it somewhere in the vehicle when the traffic stop began, the frisk would not have revealed the gun. One would think that a felon in possession would be a little more circumspect.

      1. Chippy pets never owned a weapon obviously…

        1. Smash the brains of your pets in a giant spinning wheel realizes the little gun on his ankle can protect him from gangsters and psychopathic clowns and evil police but even he pretends that life is a lid of his nightmares and even if he wakes up the crystal pipe comes with tickets that visit after the river floods, right?

      2. Now, I think the cop could have handled this better. Had he asked the passenger whether he had a CCW permit BEFORE conducting the frisk

        I, too, always answer honestly when asked by law enforcement about the legality of my firearm after purchasing drugs at the local 7-11.

        1. Doesn’t matter if he answers it honestly. He either says yes, and produces his permit, or generates suspicion that he is not legally permitted to carry the gun he has been claimed to be carrying.

          Not sure about WV, but in every state I’ve had a CCW permit in, you are obligated to produce it on demand by an LEO.

          1. Q: If I’m stopped by the police, do I have to tell them I’m armed?

            A: No. West Virginia has no duty to inform.

            According to here.

      3. Lick my balls like you licked them boots.

  25. Police are the weeds
    of modern progress
    that choke the life
    from gardens
    defended by
    gentle souls
    karate-kicking
    communists

  26. The holster on the hip of society
    bears many bullets
    and the lives it spends
    are outside the hamburgers
    of fat sick mayors and a million
    today mothers and priests sitting
    under the cloud of old dens
    with suspicious walls and dank blocks
    ….
    odd how hell hits a fingertip and a recollection

  27. And of course, this whole shitstorm is happening based on Wynn’s meaningless concurring opinion, which carries no authority, and sets no precedent, even within the same district.

    The majority opinion is controlling, and they limit the implications to very specific circumstances of the case — the officers already having specific reason to believe that the subject was armed and using the frisk merely to confirm or disprove this suspicion.

    1. In that original case the Court, Niemeyer writes, “approv[ed] Officer McFadden’s frisk of Terry that ‘a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing petitioner was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer’s safety.

      How is that different? And how does a seatbelt violation warrant a search at all, regardless?

      1. Seatbelt violation wasn’t used to justify a “search” or even the frisk that actually happened.

        The reasonable suspicion generated by the call to police is the justification.

        1. But how can those two events be reconciled? If their only cause for pulling the two over is seatbelts, what need do they have to search them, regardless of any call? Just give them a citation and let them on their way. There was no danger to the police. Your justification is reaching at best. This was clearly orchestrated to give them ability to search, but there was no actual reason for it and certainly no actual justification.

        2. The reasonable suspicion generated by the call to police is the justification.

          You want to know something fun? Anonymous tips weren’t justification for a search until 2013.

          Shit, it’s almost like this is all going rapidly to hell in a handbasket while everyone worries about theoretical Muslims, their retirement portfolio and whether everyone’s lifestyle is to their personal tastes.

          Check out standard legal procedure in the bygone days of 2007

          “A mere anonymous tip, standing alone, does not constitute probable cause?An anonymous telephone call may justify the initiation of an investigation, but the court has held that, alone, it will rarely establish the level of suspicion to justify a detention?

        3. The reasonable suspicion generated by the call to police

          Suspicion of what crime? And what were the reasons for that crime elucidated in that call?

          Being armed is not a crime.

          1. Correction: What were the reasons for that suspicion elucidated in that call?

  28. nothing is more dangerous than a police man
    and i suggest that in
    a decent peaceful liberty state perhaps
    the police can be fucking swallowed up
    in the streets while the lamps and signs
    above dance….

  29. How can you make it to judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and be so stupid?

    Regardless, I do not support any calls that these judges be shoved into woodchippers and their blood be used to feed the tree of liberty. That would be wrong.

    1. That would be wrong problematic.

      Federal subpoenas are a pain in the rectum, supposedly.

  30. fails as a matter of logic to recognize that the risk inherent in a forced stop of a person who is armed exists even when the firearm is legally possessed. ”

    And the judge’s position fails as a matter of logic by not recognizing that maybe the cops should do forced stops of people who they haven’t seen commit an actual crime. Do they routinely pull out of the car and search people who aren’t wearing seatbelts? If so, maybe the judge should reconsider the ‘reasonableness’ of such a search.

    1. The police being able to pull someone over for lack of a seat belt is one of the things that led me down the path to Libertarianism

    2. It’s an absolutely bullshit law passed under the guise of safety that was nothing but a power grab by the police. It my fucking life I’m playing chicken with by not wearing a seat belt. It’s nine of the state’s business whether or not I choose to buckle up or not. The law does nothing except give police more tools to use to pull over anyone they care to.

  31. This is going to evolve into simply having a permit to carry?not actually possessing a gun, but just having a permit? will be cause for a Terry-stop molestation or outright search.

    Police departments like Collinsville, Illinois and Piperton, Tennessee salivate over decisions like this.

    And they’re in the streets today marching and bitching about the rights of some Iraqi immigrant.

    Wonderful.

    1. I live in a state where open carry is perfectly legal. However doing so is guaranteed to result in being harassed by the police. That’s because the state is populated by liberal pansies, and the police will receive hundreds of 911 calls about “someone with a gun” whenever anyone legally carries openly. So instead of informing the pansies to stop calling because open carry is legal, they dispatch police officers to conduct illegal harassment, illegal searches, and illegal arrests for disorderly conduct. And nothing else happens.

  32. So does this mean that if police see you leaving a liquor store with a bottle of lets say vodka if they can come up with a reason to stop you otherwise they should automatically be allowed to give you a sobriety test even if they did not see the bottle in the cab of your vehicle and had no other reason to suspect you were drinking other than having a bottle of alcohol at one point?

  33. The sad thing is that even if the good guys prevail and it is decided that being armed is not grounds for a search, that doesn’t mean that any police officers will face consequences for violating that decision. It simply means that if the searched person can afford a decent attorney, that the attorney can argue in court that the search was invalid.

    So the cops will continue to conduct illegal searches regardless of what happens, and poor people who are illegally searched will still be found guilty.

  34. In Soviet 4th circuit, you have right to bear arms. In America, you have rights after you bear arms.

    1. The NRA is always right… except when they’re wrong… but even then they’re still right…

      where are my pills?

      1. Agile took them all

  35. It is my sincerest hope that dirtbags judges like Wynn get it good and hard when the boom finally drops on the police-state they’ve created. We’re all fucked, but at least the schadenfreude of seeing shitheel proggies be the first ones to eat it will be worth the price of admission….

  36. “individuals who choose to carry firearms forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”

    Translation: Because anybody MIGHT be armed, EVERYONE foregoes certain Constitutional protections afforded to individuals [full stop].

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.