NRA: Federal Appeals Court’s Shocking Pronouncement on Your Rights

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

Lawful Gun Carriers Must Forfeit Other Rights

If you thought your Second Amendment rights were safe with the election of a new President, you may have to rethink your position. Rulings such as this, especially given the first decision and the Justice Department’s sending the case back to be reconsidered which resulted in the weapon being blamed in the second decision… should give each of us pause to ask ourselves, “How safe is the Second Amendment in the eyes of the courts and how important will the fight be for the next Supreme Court Justice?

The election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency has many gun owners feeling more secure about their Second Amendment rights than they have in nearly a decade.

Gavel in front of a blurred out American flag

But a decision this week by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a stark and sobering reminder of the utter disdain and denial with which many judges continue to treat the right to keep and bear arms. Taken to its logical extreme, the opinion declares open season on law-abiding Americans who choose to carry firearms for self-defense. It may well be the most anti-gun ruling from any court of the modern era.

The case, United States v. Robinson, has been a roller coaster of conflicting opinions ever since Mr. Robinson first moved to have the evidence in the case against him suppressed for violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The issue presented by the case is whether police officers, having reason to believe a person is in possession of a firearm, can legally treat the individual as dangerous, even if they have no reason to believe the possession is illegal and even if the person’s behavior is not overtly threatening.

On March 24, 2014, an anonymous tipster called the Ranson, W. Va. police department claiming to have seen an African-American male in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven load a handgun, conceal it in his pocket, and leave the lot as a passenger in bluish-green Toyota Camry driven by a white female.

Within minutes, a police officer responded to the location and observed a vehicle less than a mile away from the 7-Eleven matching the description provided by the caller. The officer observed that the occupants of the car were not wearing seatbelts, which allowed him to execute a lawful traffic stop under West Virginia law. Mindful of the anonymous tip, the officer ordered Robinson, who was in the passenger seat, out of the car.

Meanwhile, back-up had arrived. The second officer approached the car, opened the passenger side door, and asked Robinson if he had any weapons. He would later testify that Robinson’s only reply was to give him a “weird look.” The officers then had Robinson place his hands on top of the car and frisked him for weapons, finding a firearm in his pants pocket.

Both officers testified that Robinson was cooperative throughout the encounter and that they never observed any gestures indicating he intended to use any weapons against them.

After the frisk, one of the officers realized that he recognized Robinson from prior criminal proceedings. Confirming that Robinson had a felony record, the officer arrested him for felon in possession of a firearm. The case was then tried in federal court.

Under Supreme Court precedent from 1968 (Terry v. Ohio), police officers who believe a suspect they have detained for investigation but have not arrested can conduct a limited “pat down” of the suspect’s outer clothing when they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is “armed and dangerous.” This was the basis for the search the officers used to find the incriminating firearm in Robinson’s pocket.

But Robinson claimed that the officers had no reason to believe that he posed any danger to them and therefore that they had no legal authority to frisk him. He noted that people may lawfully carry firearms in West Virginia, that the police had no information at the time of the frisk that his carrying was unlawful, and that he did not act aggressively or uncooperatively toward the officers.

A magistrate judge agreed with Robinson and recommended that the evidence of the firearm be disallowed. The district court judge presiding over the case rejected the recommendation, ruling the high crime area in which the contact occurred, the information the officers had that Robinson was armed, and Robinson’s failure to answer when asked about weapons created a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous.

Robinson then appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The case was heard by a three-judge panel, and two of the three judges agreed with Robinson.

Judge Pamela Harris’s majority opinion stated:

[I]n states like West Virginia, which broadly allow public possession of firearms, reasonable suspicion that a person is armed does not by itself give rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous for Terry purposes. Where the state legislature has decided that its citizens may be entrusted to carry firearms on public streets, we may not make the contrary assumption that those firearms inherently pose a danger justifying their seizure by law enforcement officers without consent. … Nor will we adopt a rule that would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons … authorizing a personally intrusive frisk whenever a citizen stopped by the police is exercising the constitutional right to bear arms. [Quotation marks and citations omitted].

Barack Obama’s Justice Department then asked the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the panel decision.

That rehearing, unfortunately, led to a reversal of the earlier panel decision. The majority opinion, released on Monday, cast the issue in the case as, “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.”

The majority insisted that the “armed and dangerous” language in Terry really meant “armed and therefore dangerous” (emphasis in original). In other words, “the risk of danger is created simply because the person, who was forcibly stopped, is armed.”

The court also asserted the same “logic” applies, even if possession of the weapon is legal. “The presumptive lawfulness of an individual’s gun possession in a particular State does next to nothing to negate the reasonable concern an officer has for his own safety when forcing an encounter with an individual who is armed with a gun and whose propensities are unknown,” the majority opinion concludes.

Thus, because Robinson was lawfully stopped, and the police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe he was armed, “the officers were, as a matter of law, justified in frisking him and, in doing so, did not violate Robinson’s Fourth Amendment right.”

Incredibly, though the court resolved the case on the broadest constitutional proposition possible, the majority opinion then went on to describe all the circumstances known to the officers that would have allowed them to make an individual “dangerousness” determination under the facts of the case. Thus, the majority essentially admitted that the patently anti-gun holding of the case–that all persons armed with a gun are a per se lethal threat to police officers–wasn’t even necessary to its resolution.

If the majority opinion were not bad enough, Judge James A. Wynn wrote an incendiary concurrence berating the majority for focusing broadly on “weapons” rather than on firearms specifically. Wynn’s opinion argued that the majority’s reasoning also necessitated recognition of two other “key issues.” The first, Wynn wrote, is that “individuals who carry firearms—lawfully or unlawfully—pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers, in particular.” The second is that “individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”

Judge Wynn went on to explain how he believes the law of the Fourth Circuit—which includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia—is now that lawful gun owners are second class citizens.

“[T]he majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights,” Wynn wrote, “like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers ‘knock-and-announce’ before forcibly entering homes.” He continued, “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.”

Indeed, Judge Harris, whose panel opinion was overturned by the majority, recognized even darker implications of the majority opinion in a dissent joined by three other judges. “[T]oday’s decision insisting on a conclusive link between ‘armed’ and ‘dangerous’ she wrote, “undoubtedly will have implications for police use of force, as well.” In particular, “If a police officer reasonably believes that a suspect poses a ‘threat of serious physical harm,’ he may use deadly force to protect himself ….”

She went on to observe that under the majority’s reasoning, “The legal right to carry arms is perfectly self-defeating ….”

Whether Robinson will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the Fourth Circuit’s majority and concurring opinions epitomize the disordered thinking that leads to useless and persecutory gun control by focusing on an inanimate object, and not on human behavior, as the controlling factor of the law.

It’s difficult to ignore the timing of the opinion, coming just as Congress’ interest in national right to carry is back in the news. Whether that’s purely coincidental, we’ll leave to the reader to decide. But it’s hard to imagine how any viable right to bears arms can exist where every lawfully armed motorist who’s stopped for a minor traffic infraction can be treated by police officers as a lethal threat.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (57)

  • Brian Shea

    |

    I’ll try not to be as long-worded as some of these posts. Yes, IMHO there was “reasonable” and “Articulable” suspicion that he was armed which justified the frisk once there was a reason for the stop. I would find it reasonable for LE to want to know if I was armed – hell, I would let them hold my weapon if they wanted to. If he hadn’t been a felon they would have handed him his gun back and sent him on his way. I am all about 2A rights but don’t feel this threatens the rights of law abiding citizens. This guy was not one of them.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Brian Shea,

      Wrong. Whether suspected or confirmed, just being armed alone is not an unlawful act and therefore would never justify a frisk. In addition to a weapon, an officer must “articulate” they witnessed actual dangerous activity to qualify for a “Terry frisk”. That simply was not the case.

      I recommend you actually thoroughly read some of these “long-worded” posts. Most of my posts explain how the law is actually applied, rather than you winging it with personal opinions. You never know – one day this knowledge might help you or a family member through a similar situation.

      In case you’re interested in reading any of my post based on my 35 years (and counting) in law enforcement, here’s a link to a lawful explanation as to why your opinion is mooted by facts and law:

      http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/nra-federal-appeals-courts-shocking-pronouncement-rights/comment-page-3/#comment-368146

      Reply

  • NoKMA

    |

    As a former law officer of long past, before officers became open targets and trigger happy themselves, I fear this ruling will only escalate the potential for more civilians being harmed along with more officers also being endangered due to weary citizens fearful for their lives. Leave the sleeping dog lay, less he growls or jumps at you, applies to both parties of a confrontation if no visible indication of a threat is present.. I am a bit concerned myself by some of the new younger generation officers serving this day and time. There are just far to many factors one has to be aware of and take into consideration these days and to many of these new young officers can not multi-task. I also know the feeling of putting forth your all just to have some judge place a revolving door in the court house! Liberal DA’s that dislike cops are also a problem in small towns ! Social justice has no place in law enforcement or the courts. Equal justice should rule and politics and personal agendas or feelings have no place in our justice system. Say what you want, but the Obama administration made a mockery of our justice system that will take years to over come.. Oh, and yes, I have carried a side arm in one way or another for over fifty years, some of that time in the military. Bad move by this court.

    Reply

  • TomC

    |

    Nothing mixed about my opinion on this case – it was an illegal search AND the illegally obtained evidence should have been admitted under the Inevitable Discovery exception.

    I also agree with your comments about why the prosecution tried to tap dance a legal justification for the search rather than admit it was an illegal search and just go for getting the evidence admitted.

    They were trying to think long-term, and MAYBE they guessed right (or maybe not) — this case has a good chance of making it to SCOTUS and it is very hard to guess just what they might decide – while Gorsuch is normally considered a “conservative” my understanding is that he is actually an originalist. We might see some Strange Bedfellows making a rather mixed majority if this case does go to SCOTUS

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ TomC,

      I only based my “mixed bag” comment off the distinct differences between what you actually wrote from one post to the next. In one post you clearly stated, “(the evidence was admissible)” while in your post to “Council” you clearly indicated the opposite by writing, “The defense argued that the search was illegal (which it was…)”.

      Constitutionally it is impossible for any evidence obtained illegally to ever be lawfully admissible; and thus your conflicting comments warranted the “mixed bag” label.

      I do understand that theoretically you believe the prosecutors should have attempted a motion under “Inevitable Discovery”. But the fact of the matter is they did not ever file any such motion; it was never considered by a judge, and thus amounts to nothing more than just your opinion.

      In other words – no matter how much wishful thinking you share in your comments, it will never change the fact that the evidence was ruled unlawfully inadmissible by the Fourth Circuit Panel’s original decision.

      I’ve already stated the specific reasons the evidence did not qualify for “Inevitable Discovery” and why it was never considered by the prosecution. Beyond that I’m just going to have to ask you trust my 35 years as a federal agent assisting in trial prosecution.

      Your sentiment regarding Gorsuch is spot on. I worry about some of his odd rulings though. He’s already heard a very similar case and ruled for the prosecution.

      Reply

  • G Fiad

    |

    In this case the ex-Felon was not entitled to carry a firearm and hence his constitutional rights were not violated. However, fast forward to another lawful stop with a non-felon citizen entitled to carry and who is now going to be treated as a danger if armed is a violation of the citizens constitutional rights. This overly broad and liberal ruling attempting to rewrite and limit the citiz me constitutional rights is a danger to law abiding citizens and an attempt by a liberal anti gun bench to rewrite the laws of these states by misinterpreting and incorrectly applying citizens constitutional rights resulting in the erosion of citizens constitutional rights and they state granted rights to legally carry; furthermore, the ruling endangers law abiding citizens by allowing law enforcement to approach a legally carrying individual as an armed and dangerous individual as a presumption without any evidence or probable cause. Such a broad and biased interpretation is dangerous and a clear violation of citizens’ constitutional rights by the Federal District Courts.

    Reply

  • RPK

    |

    Keep you hands in plain view and do not reach for ANYTHING until instructed to do so by the Officer’s, if nighttime turn on your dome light so the Officer’s can see inside your vehicle and yes, IMMEDIATELY and POLITELY inform the Officer’s you have a valid permit to carry a firearm, where your firearm is located and if it is loaded (if legal to keep it loaded in your state) with a round chambered. With over 20 years law enforcement service, I assure you the patrolman is just as concerned about what the driver and/or passengers might do and to your frustration on WHY he stopped you in the first place. A little courtesy and owning up to a violation goes a long way, too.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ RPK,

      … and while you’re at it go ahead and tell the officer you have a valid marriage license to cohabitate with your spouse, a certified birth certificate to prove you are legally in this Country, and a proper deed to inhabit your home. Oh, and if you own a business, don’t forget to show him your license to operate that as well.

      Seriously, that part is ridiculous. Unless your State law requires you to notify an officer you have a firearm, you don’t need to tell the officer a damned thing. Only 9 states require this. Others have rules that only require it if the officer asks.

      But to just blindly tell people to offer up such information just because they are exercising an enumerated Constitutional Right does nothing but cater to an increasing Police-State mentality.

      That notwithstanding, the rest of your advice is outstanding. FYI – My background stems from an active LEA career of 35 years and still counting.

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Never Talk to the Police. What you say can and WILL be used against you.

      Reply

    • Damian

      |

      Personally i do not care what city ,state i am in i have read the laws of any state i may have to cross its state line to get where i am going if i am stopped by the police i am letting the police know i have a valid permit and i am armed what are their commands from there if at night yes the dome light will be on hands on wheel at 10 and 2: 00 0 clock until given instructions by the officer or officers .I have had to do this a few times as i have carried for last 25 yrs daily every police officer i have encountered thanked me for my honesty about having my pistols on me and most times gave me a break on even getting a ticket plainly because i showed respect with no ill intent and was 100% honest from the second they approached my vehicle. Last thing you want is nervous police who in todays world have to be super cautious with all stops and encounters and in my state of Ohio it is state law i inform the officer i have a valid permit and i am armed but it could be any state i happen to be in the response and answer would always be the same .

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Damian,

      Please give our officers a bit more credit – if he/she wants to know if you are armed… they’re smart enough to ask you.

      I suppose when officers knock at your front door you immediately bark out a list of all the weapons in your home as well. I’ll presume those officers were just as appreciative of such honesty too, even though they were merely canvassing the area over some recent break-ins.

      Please do not misunderstand me. By no means am I advising folks that wish to offer up their life stories to every traffic cop to not go ahead and fulfill such desires; but rather my goal is to put such comments in the proper perspective whenever they come off as though it’s some mandatory necessity or you’ll never make it out of your traffic stop alive.

      One final thought: It is also quite offensive of you to infer that anyone not “IMMEDIATELY and POLITELY” offering up such unsolicited information is somehow being dishonest; [I’ll pause so you can digest what you wrote to deserve that comment]…

      So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for thinking somehow you’re exceptional honesty above everyone else must have saved your life, or at least got you out of a citation. But the reality is more likely the officer probably just wasn’t in the mood to write you a citation.

      As I’ve already stated, doing the rest is always a good idea. Not making any sudden moves to which could agitate the situation should be common sense anyway. And being polite and respectful are just good manners, so there’s nothing special going on there.

      Reply

    • Brian Shea

      |

      RPK – Amen brother, you nailed it. I grew up on stop & frisk as well. The standard was “Articulable Suspicion”, meaning you could put your reason(s) in writing and it wasn’t just a gut feeling. In this case they had the tip and the matching vehicle description. They asked if he was armed and he did not reply – probably because he knew as a felon he shouldn’t be. I don’t really see this incident as applying to legal gun owners who carry. In fact, if he had been “legal” it’s a non-issue….except if the state requires him to acknowledge carrying when asked by LE. And the end result is a felon goes (back) to jail. Hard to find fault with that.

      Reply

  • TomC

    |

    The scary thing about this ruling is not the decision itself, but the rationale and the language used by the court to support that decision.

    From the facts reported, the court reached the right decision (the evidence was admissible), but they reached that right decision for all the wrong reasons. This seems to be a modern version of the Dred Scott Decision where the court took what was basically a simple case and used it to invent a whole new rationale which was totally unnecessary to the decision.

    The evidence should have been declared admissible on the basis of the Inevitable Discovery Exception. Instead each level of the courts wandered around looking for irrelevant and unnecessary reasons to support what appear to be the personal agendas of the various judges.

    Since, we know that every level of the US courts has been doing this for many years and will undoubtedly continue to do the same thing for as long as we have human beings sitting on the bench, that is why it is critical that we have Supreme Court Justices whose agendas we can live with.

    Fortunately that seems more likely now than it looked a few months ago.

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ TomC,

      You’re somewhat a mixed bag. In a separate post to “Council” you wrote you feel the search was illegal. But here you wrote, “the court reached the right decision (the evidence was admissible)…”

      Notwithstanding your written contradiction – “Inevitable Discovery” would never have applied. The entire premise behind “Inevitable Discovery” stems from the misconduct of an officer who acquired evidence illegally.

      For prosecutors to request that inadmissible evidence later be admitted under “Inevitable Discovery”, requires they also concede to the officer’s violation of the Constitution at the time he unlawfully obtained the evidence to begin with.

      That was never going to happen because their entire prosecution depended on a supposedly lawful “Terry frisk”. Since evidence acquired under “Terry stops” is already contentiously subject to additional scrutiny, the prosecution would never have even contemplated filing a motion for “Inevitable Discovery” because it would have destroyed their entire case.

      This is because even though a Judge need only consider the preponderance of evidence when deciding to allow an “Inevitable Discovery Exclusion”, the evidence under consideration must still meet specific “Inevitable Discovery” requirements; which in this case – being a weak “Terry frisk” to begin with – would never have qualified for an “Inevitable Discovery Exclusion”.

      Below is a quick link in case you missed my post to “Council”. It explains why most of his 3 points of interest are incorrect, but also offers a breakdown as to why the “Terry frisk” was illegal from the start.

      Here’s the link if you care to review it: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/nra-federal-appeals-courts-shocking-pronouncement-rights/comment-page-3/#comment-368146

      Reply

  • Steve Hall

    |

    Its irreverent that Robinson was a felon. If a bad precedent is made and this puts gun owners in a second class status under 4th and 5th Amendment issues this needs to be taken up before SCOTUS. Remember. Miller was a POS felon too and because his side was not argued in the court we have the 1934 NFA. I am highly suspicious that an anonymous tipster relayed such a precise report to the PD. In this day an age there should have been a reverse call number ID on the call. I am suspicious that all the conditions lined up to justify the search having worked with a small town PD for 33 years. I

    Reply

  • Council

    |

    It should be obvious to everyone, but for some reason has was almost completely been ignored by the author and many readers: Robinson was a felon!

    1. Robinson had no business possessing a gun in the first place as a felon!
    2. It was concealed and un-announced to the officer upon being stopped — that makes it a potential threat.
    3. The officer stopped the car for a legit violation(seat belt), having heard the dispatch, and had a good reason to believe Robinson was armed.

    If a Police officer pulls me over, first words out of my mouth…”I have a CC permit and have a gun in the car.”

    This ruling happened because a dumbass with a record, that had no business with a gun, was doing something he shouldn’t have been doing.

    Reply

    • TomC

      |

      “Council” everything you said is correct.

      AND everything you said is immaterial to the issue of whether the search was legal (the officers did not know Robinson was a felon when they searched him).

      The issue before the court was the admissibility of the evidence found in the search.

      The defense argued that the search was illegal (which it was, despite the court’s tortured logic to get around that so it could support your idea that the ends justify ANY means).

      The prosecution tap danced trying to invent a way to make the search seem legal (using the kind of arguments you did).

      The court should have laughed the prosecutor out of court for those arguments.

      On the other hand, if the prosecutor had made the correct argument, the court should have reached the proper decision – that the evidence was admissible despite the illegal search.

      There are a few exceptions where evidence obtained by an illegal search is still admissible – in this instance the Inevitable Discovery Exception should have applied because the police did recognize Robinson as a known felon, and AT THAT POINT they would have searched him and found the weapon. Since they would have found the weapon anyway, the fact that they found it without probable cause at the time of their initial search should have fallen within the Inevitable Discovery Exception.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Council,

      While you have the luxury of hindsight to read the entire scenario all at once, you must accept the fact that law enforcement must instead operate based on the situation as it procedurally unfolds. It is my intention to address each of your numbered points in the eyes of the law, rather than a lay person’s conclusion.

      You wrote, “1. Robinson had no business possessing a gun in the first place as a felon!”

      Answer: You ARE correct. But this is completely irrelevant as a matter of law in this particular case (as further explained below).

      You wrote, “2. It was concealed and un-announced to the officer upon being stopped — that makes it a potential threat.”

      Answer: You are NOT correct. In West Virginia there is absolutely no requirement by law to announce that you are in possession of a firearm (concealed or not). As such, you cannot be considered a threat for announcing, or failing to announce to an officer that you are currently exercising your Second Amendment Right.

      A good analogy is that every vehicle conceals a tire-iron, which is used in more crimes and murder than guns. Yet a tire-iron is never considered an “un-announced” threat to the officer or a reason to stop and frisk. So neither can a gun; especially given there is no constitutional protections to bear a tire-iron, but there is one to bear a gun.

      You wrote, “3. The officer stopped the car for a legit violation(seat belt), having heard the dispatch, and had a good reason to believe Robinson was armed.”

      Answer: This is a longer answer, but I ask that you bear with me as I explain the legalities as to why you are wrong. Before I continue, I need to remind you the order of events must be given the highest consideration to fully understand all the evidentiary procedures the officer violated leading up to the arrest:

      You ARE correct that the seatbelt violation would have been legitimate. But the seatbelt stop was made illegitimate because the officer admitted he used it as a false pretense to gain access for the purpose of searching the passenger over a gun. Yet guns alone are not a lawful reason to search anyone given they are considered lawful to possess. Bear in mind, the officer had no idea at this point the passenger was a felon. In addition the officer also testified the passenger never gave reason to believe he was dangerous; thus a “Terry frisk” was not a legal option.

      One of the biggest mistakes was the officer specifically admitting he searched out the vehicle over a report of a gun. But the simple fact remains that carrying a firearm is NOT illegal in West Virginia and thus the officer’s search for the vehicle was unwarranted from the very start.

      The stop alone might have been warranted if the officer had naturally happened upon the seatbelt violation through the normal course of his duties, but he had already admitted the “gun call” is what initiated the response, rather than seeing the seatbelt violation first. As I’ve stated, guns are not illegal so the “gun call” does not make for a crime. So I must iterate that the officer’s search for that vehicle was not authorized.

      Even if the “gun call” had come in the middle of the basic seatbelt stop, the officer would still have no lawful reason to initiate a frisk of the passenger over just a gun because as I said the passenger’s actions were calm and thus never triggered a legal “Terry stop”.

      This officer makes hundreds of stops with lawfully armed citizens all the time. I can guarantee you he’d be out of a job if he unlawfully frisked every single one for no other reason than being armed. Thus the “gun call” is a totally moot point and cannot be a viable excuse to have randomly frisked that passenger.

      So that just leaves the felon part. No one disputes the passenger’s prior felony conviction makes his possessing a firearm to be illegal. But it is completely irrelevant because at no time did the officer ever know or have reason to suspect the individual was a felon.

      In the absence of the felony information, the officer had no justifiable reason to frisk the passenger over a simple seatbelt violation even if he did know he had a gun; guns alone are not a reason to frisk. Just because the officer discovered the felony aspect later in no way retroactively justifies his stop and frisk that had already unlawfully taken place.

      I truly get why some of you feel this felon got what he deserved and you believe the Court made the right decision. But procedurally that is not how our legal system works and this liberal Court made a mockery of our judicial system by doing whatever they felt rather than upholding the law as it is written.

      Worse is that in the process this Court issued a new Common Law Ruling that now says all persons with guns are automatically considered dangerous and now subject to “Terry frisks” regardless of their actions.

      The bottom line is this liberal ruling will be overturned once it reaches the Supreme Court. I hope this clears things up for you and any others that have misunderstood it.

      Reply

    • Velox

      |

      Thank you, Council, for your observation. I am delighted to read a considered and rational analysis such as yours. As a Virginia CC permit owner and an active gun wearer, I agree with the logic and the sensibility of the second appelate decision. I may not like the extra scrutiny it will earn me as a gun wearer, but I do not question its sense. When I am armed I am, both in logic and in fact, more potentially dangerous for the simple fact of being armed. I think it’s fair to say that anyone carrying is more dangerous than she would be if she didn’t carry; Indeed, why else would anyone carry save to bear a potential of threat to anyone who would threaten her, to be more dangerous than if she didn’t? So I would not be surprised that an officer stopping me would be concerned about the existence and location of my firearm as well as my intentions and be authorized to ascertain both. The court merely recognizes that reality. I would not place our police in the position of having to deal with any armed citizen without the ability to satisfy himself of his personal safety. My right to bear arms comes with responsibilities and demands a clear-eyed acceptance of the reality of the potential threat my firearm represents to law enforcement and to others.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Velox,

      I am actually saddened and find it quite unfortunate your willingness to deprecate yourself over such falsehoods. It is neither “logic” nor “fact” that a person becomes more dangerous simply because they are armed.

      The entire gun community has spent decades explaining to useful anti-gun idiots that there has never been a shred of evidence to prove a gun has ever murdered anyone on its own. In every single case it took the committed actions of an individual to make each gun go off.

      I am very sorry that any time you decide to carry, that the gun itself somehow makes you into an out-of-control and dangerous maniac. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, I feel that since you are unable to control yourself – that you simply should never carry a firearm again.

      I’d also highly recommend that you seek help since you don’t know how you’ll react around scissors, or even various lawn tools and kitchen appliances.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: