12 replies to this topic

[Charles Nichols]

The en banc court of the 4th circuit court of appeals answered "Yes" to this:

 

"This appeal presents the question of whether a law enforcement officer is justified in frisking a person whom the officer has lawfully stopped and whom the officer reasonably believes to be armed, regardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm. Stated otherwise, the question is whether the risk of danger to a law enforcement officer created by the forced stop of a person who is armed is eliminated by the fact that state law authorizes persons to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm."

 

The "forced stop" was for not wearing a seat belt.  The conclusion of the en banc majority was that "armed" always means "armed and dangerous" or at least it does so in a motor vehicle.  The government's position was that, outside of a motor vehicle, carrying a weapon (concealed or openly) where it is legal to carry a weapon does not constitute reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio.

 

By the way, Robinson was frisked outside of the motor vehicle and one of the police officers had already drawn his handgun out of the holster which may be a significant factors if the cert petition is granted.  Another significant factor might be that this was a pretextual stop over an infraction.

 

Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry but this is not a Second Amendment question, it is a Fourth Amendment question which the en banc majority got very wrong, in my opinion.

 

On April 7th, the lawyer for Robinson filed a request to extend the deadline for filing his cert petition.  These requests are usually granted and I don't think this case will be an exception.

 

The briefs, oral arguments, and en banc decision are at my website here.

 

I will post the cert stage briefs as they become available.  I have no doubt that when the cert petition is filed, SCOTUSblog will create a case page as well.

[OldMarineVet]

Fear of the assumption, "the conclusion of the en banc majority was that "armed" always means "armed and dangerous" or at least it does so in a motor vehicle", seems to be the driver of violating the 4th Amendment. I look forward to your updates.

Side-note, your opposition to concealed carry in the face of the Second Amendment has piqued my interest. Would you mind starting another thread with your opinion? Thanks

[skinnyb82]

The conclusion of the en banc majority flies in the face of nearly a century of constitutional jurisprudence. No, it spits in the face of constitutional jurisprudence. I thought their reasoning in Kolbe was completely insane but this is a whole different animal. Even Judge Harris, an Obama appointee, went batty in her dissent. This case is so contrary to several precedents set in the mid-20th Century by the Burger Court. It doesn't even deserve oral arguments. Summary GVR with a one sentence per curiam stating "The panel got it right, your en banc court got it wrong."

[mrmagloo]

 

Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry

 

Just caught this little nugget.  I have to admit that I haven't reviewed your website and I'm really not all that tied up about open carry, but I was kind of shocked to see this proclamation this morning.  Seeing IC is all about CC, and of course ALL appropriate gun rights, I'm having a hard time understanding why you cannot reconcile CC for those who prefer it, along with OC for those who prefer that instead?  Or, having the right to do either, or both.

 

I don't want to dredge up the entire element of surprise debate, but I just don't get the open swipe at CC?  So, your theory is, you would gladly throw CC rights under the bus for OC?  What exactly do you mean, for those of us that do are not aware of your apparent "Opposition to Concealed Carry".

 

Please expand on this, as this just isn't sitting well

 

Thank you. 

[RevWildman]

Personally, I found this, "Robinson was frisked outside of the motor vehicle", more interesting and amusing.  I'd like to see someone try and frisk another 'inside' a motor vehicle.

 

Now, I'll leave you back to your regularly scheduled post.

[lockman]

 

 

Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry

 

Just caught this little nugget.  I have to admit that I haven't reviewed your website and I'm really not all that tied up about open carry, but I was kind of shocked to see this proclamation this morning.  Seeing IC is all about CC, and of course ALL appropriate gun rights, I'm having a hard time understanding why you cannot reconcile CC for those who prefer it, along with OC for those who prefer that instead?  Or, having the right to do either, or both.

 

I don't want to dredge up the entire element of surprise debate, but I just don't get the open swipe at CC?  So, your theory is, you would gladly throw CC rights under the bus for OC?  What exactly do you mean, for those of us that do are not aware of your apparent "Opposition to Concealed Carry".

 

Please expand on this, as this just isn't sitting well

 

Thank you. 

 

 

 

Charles, do you really oppose concealed carry? As in ban it?

[Gamma]

Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry

 
Just caught this little nugget.  I have to admit that I haven't reviewed your website and I'm really not all that tied up about open carry, but I was kind of shocked to see this proclamation this morning.  Seeing IC is all about CC, and of course ALL appropriate gun rights, I'm having a hard time understanding why you cannot reconcile CC for those who prefer it, along with OC for those who prefer that instead?  Or, having the right to do either, or both.
 
I don't want to dredge up the entire element of surprise debate, but I just don't get the open swipe at CC?  So, your theory is, you would gladly throw CC rights under the bus for OC?  What exactly do you mean, for those of us that do are not aware of your apparent "Opposition to Concealed Carry".
 
Please expand on this, as this just isn't sitting well
 
Thank you.

http://illinoiscarry...topic=63282&hl=

In short, he desires and is working in the legal system to abolish concealed carry and allow only open carry. My suspicion is that he just intends to make public carry a rarity by making the only legal option be something that is personally unpopular and politically unviable.

Edited by Gamma, 14 April 2017 - 03:46 PM.

[Charles Nichols]

This topic is about the Fourth Amendment and firearms.  The Fourth Amendment applies to persons and their effects, including firearms even if those firearms are carried illegally.  The Fourth Amendment also applies to people who carry contraband, such as heroin. In this case there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion or any of the "automobile exceptions" to the warrant requirement.  The Fourth circuit arbitrarily decided that armed equals dangerous.  More precisely, the Fourth Circuit arbitrary decided that suspicion of being armed equals armed AND dangerous.

 

For those who want to put in their two cents worth regarding whether or not there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry, there is a separate topic created for that -> Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here.  This topic is not the place for that discussion.

Edited by Charles Nichols, 15 April 2017 - 08:25 PM.

[Gamma]

This topic is not the place for that discussion.

Then why did you put it in the original post in this thread? It's pretty much the reason why you troll on this board anyway.

Edited by Gamma, 15 April 2017 - 09:26 PM.

[mauserme]

It looks like we already have a US v Robinson topic Skinny started a year ago, and we also already have a Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here. topic started by Mr. Nichols 7 months ago.

 

Since this current thread duplicates both of those, is there any objection to closing it so the two originals can continue as they should?

 

[bmyers]

IBTL

[Talonap]

IBTL

 

Me also!

[mauserme]

Seeing no objections, this one is done.