Federal Court Rules Concealed Carriers Have Fewer Rights Than Unarmed Americans

[Dr. Evil]

Federal Court Rules Concealed Carriers Have Fewer Rights Than Unarmed Americans

Let's hurry up and get Gorsuch on the bench before this hits the Supreme Court.

 

[Podmonkey]

Looks like the timing is good here, Gorsuch was confirmed. Considering the glacial pace of the legal system we should be good on this right?
I must say Judge Wynn's ruling is deplorable.

 

[Calculon]

This crap has to stop. The RTKBA is is specifically recognized by the BoR as "shall not be infringed." Come on DJT - set this ship back on course.

 

[prambo]

With Trump having over 100 other Federal judgeships to appoint, the "flavor" of the Federal judiciary will probably change dramatically. If we're lucky, other libtard, activist judges will resign rather than see their loopy decisions reversed by a higher court.

Sorry that the source is NPR - National Propaganda Radio - "...Trump will have more than 100 other judicial nominations to make to the lower federal courts. There are 103 judicial vacancies on the federal trial and appellate courts, or roughly an eighth of the entire federal judiciary. There are 59 pending Obama nominations to fill a majority of those seats, but Republicans have been artful about slow-walking these Obama lower court appointments, and the Republican Senate has confirmed only 11 judges since the beginning of the year. Now all of those pending appointments will die."

 

[Truebeliever]

It's been discussed in another thread. And yes, you are assumed to be armed and possibly dangerous.

The decision is not the judge's opinion of the appeal court. It's based in Terry and the court was not making new case law but rather not changing case law.

Read Terry. The purpose of the Terry decision was to limit police search powers. Before Terry the police could just search you on a whim. And note how it goes from a stop, to a reasonable suspicion of a weapon, to a frisk, and then to a search.
Terry v. Ohio

 

[nortatoga]

Same OP ! LOL!!

 

[RDN]

Whoever wrote this article needs to go back to journalism school or take extra English courses.
The sentence structure is horrible.

 

[RDN]

I understand that NY's unSAFE act law suit was rescinded. And SCOTUS refuse to hear Illinois, Chicago suburb, Highland AWB challenge .
Are there any other gun rights challenges in the pipeline ?

 

[vanderblack]

Doc, You are right and the article certainly makes the point but face it, armed citizens have had fewer rights than unarmed citizens for a number of reasons. If armed, we are restricted from entering certain buildings, dropping our kids off at school, attending certain events and even shopping at certain stores (although I would never shop at a place that restricted carry.) We are often tainted as crazy, dangerous, radical. Cuomo even stated that "they (we) have no place in the State of NY because that is not who New Yorkers are". Our own government refuses to support us. Sad.

 

[spat]

It's been discussed in another thread. And yes, you are assumed to be armed and possibly dangerous.

The decision is not the judge's opinion of the appeal court. It's based in Terry and the court was not making new case law but rather not changing case law.

Read Terry. The purpose of the Terry decision was to limit police search powers. Before Terry the police could just search you on a whim. And note how it goes from a stop, to a reasonable suspicion of a weapon, to a frisk, and then to a search.
Terry v. Ohio

The argument is that suspicion, or even outright knowledge of a weapon (absent evidence that it has been, or will be used unlawfully) does not justify disarming someone. If there isn't a justification to disarm them, then there isn't a justification to search them.

 

[Truebeliever]

The argument is that suspicion, or even outright knowledge of a weapon (absent evidence that it has been, or will be used unlawfully) does not justify disarming someone. If there isn't a justification to disarm them, then there isn't a justification to search them.

If there is some type of negative encounter, yes, the officer will disarm you until the negative encounter is over or you are identified as a good guy.

 

[spat]

If there is some type of negative encounter, yes, the officer will disarm you until the negative encounter is over or you are identified as a good guy.

A "negative encounter" could be the necessary suspicion to justify that, depends on what it takes to be considered a "negative encounter".

 

[stuck in ny]

With Trump having over 100 other Federal judgeships to appoint, the "flavor" of the Federal judiciary will probably change dramatically. If we're lucky, other libtard, activist judges will resign rather than see their loopy decisions reversed by a higher court.

Sorry that the source is NPR - National Propaganda Radio - "...Trump will have more than 100 other judicial nominations to make to the lower federal courts. There are 103 judicial vacancies on the federal trial and appellate courts, or roughly an eighth of the entire federal judiciary. There are 59 pending Obama nominations to fill a majority of those seats, but Republicans have been artful about slow-walking these Obama lower court appointments, and the Republican Senate has confirmed only 11 judges since the beginning of the year. Now all of those pending appointments will die."

Trump need to defund National Party Radio ASAP.

 

[Truebeliever]

A "negative encounter" could be the necessary suspicion to justify that, depends on what it takes to be considered a "negative encounter".

Ok, negative encounter whatever happens. Minor violation or just a reasonable suspicion that turned out not to be a crime. Person is disarmed during the encounter then given their weapon back. It reduces bad things from happening even if it's a misunderstanding like a hand goes to close to a gun while reaching for a wallet. It protects both sides. Frankly, even in small encounters, people have shot and killed cops ( training and backup and all) because the cop didn't check for a weapon and disarm the person first.

 

[JosERW]

1) This is the same court that is hearing the MD "aw" case en banc... guessing we're going to lose another case
2) If this case hits SCOTUS, what if anything, will change for us? I'm sick and tired of all of these useless cases getting cert.

 

[Truebeliever]

1) This is the same court that is hearing the MD "aw" case en banc... guessing we're going to lose another case
2) If this case hits SCOTUS, what if anything, will change for us? I'm sick and tired of all of these useless cases getting cert.

This is not a "gun" case. It is a Terry stop or a Auto exception case. It did not create new case law but rather didn't allow it to be created. It has no barring in the constitution issue of AWB. The gun in this case could have been legally carried and the decision would have been the same as to police powers.

 

[JosERW]

This is not a "gun" case. It is a Terry stop or a Auto exception case. It did not create new case law but rather didn't allow it to be created. It has no barring in the constitution issue of AWB. The gun in this case could have been legally carried and the decision would have been the same as to police powers.

You don't view it as an assault on legal gun ownership? Anyway, I hope you're right. The future of our rights is almost entirely dependent on the 4th Circuit overturning Maryland's ban if we want a circuit split to get to SCOTUS.

 

[Saltwater60]

Man I'm screwed. I'm a concealed carry owner, white, male, and I'm 37. I have nothing going for me.

 

[Truebeliever]

You don't view it as an assault on legal gun ownership? Anyway, I hope you're right. The future of our rights is almost entirely dependent on the 4th Circuit overturning Maryland's ban if we want a circuit split to get to SCOTUS.

I'm not saying the court will or won't overturn Maryland ban. But from a legal standpoint, the legal question of this case is completely different. It's about police powers and not a second admendent case. If the guy had a knife in this case, the ruling would have been the same as far police ability tobfridk for weapons on a car stop.

 

[Saltwater60]

I have no problem if some one sees a gun in a state where it's not legal to open carry that they should be questioned about said gun. Do I think if a cop pulls me over and the computer says I'm a ccw should I or any of you be searched hell no. This is batshit crazy and just a way to find illegal items on gun owners. This will cause trouble.

 

[stuck in ny]

A "negative encounter" could be the necessary suspicion to justify that, depends on what it takes to be considered a "negative encounter".

Ok, negative encounter whatever happens. Minor violation or just a reasonable suspicion that turned out not to be a crime. Person is disarmed during the encounter then given their weapon back. It reduces bad things from happening even if it's a misunderstanding like a hand goes to close to a gun while reaching for a wallet. It protects both sides. Frankly, even in small encounters, people have shot and killed cops ( training and backup and all) because the cop didn't check for a weapon and disarm the person first.

It's obviously a scheme to see who has a gun in free states without registration.

 

[Truebeliever]

It's obviously a scheme to see who has a gun in free states without registration.

You would be wrong. I have lived in a open carry state and would love to return.
And even there, cops in then had an confrontation with a legal gun owner, they would disarm him until the encounter was over.

 

[spat]

I'm not saying the court will or won't overturn Maryland ban. But from a legal standpoint, the legal question of this case is completely different. It's about police powers and not a second admendent case. If the guy had a knife in this case, the ruling would have been the same as far police ability tobfridk for weapons on a car stop.

Knives are still "arms" afaik. So still a 2nd ammendment issue, although its completely overshadowed by the 4th ammendment issues in this case IMHO.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

so also...anyone with a cc can have the police raid their home without a warrant.....we are all on that list

 

[Truebeliever]

so also...anyone with a cc can have the police raid their home without a warrant.....we are all on that list

It doesn't work that way.

 

[Truebeliever]

Knives are still "arms" afaik. So still a 2nd ammendment issue, although its completely overshadowed by the 4th ammendment issues in this case IMHO.

The knife was used as an example of something of legal to own and possess but could be disarmed of by the police if stopped by the police.

The legal question was not a case of legal possession or illegal possession, but rather did the police have the power to search and seize( even if temporarily) the item if they didn't know for sure if the person could possess it legally or not.( He was as convicted felon).

 

[spat]

The knife was used as an example of something of legal to own and possess but could be disarmed of by the police if stopped by the police.

The legal question was not a case of legal possession or illegal possession, but rather did the police have the power to search and seize( even if temporarily) the item if they didn't know for sure if the person could possess it legally or not.( He was as convicted felon).

The police have a lot of power that they shouldn't, the fact that they have the power to do something isnt proof of anything.

The whole point here is that in a system where you are supposedly innocent untill proven guilty, the police shouldnt have the power to disarm you while they are trying to prove that you are illegally armed. They shouldn't be able to disarm you *UNTIL* they have that proof. We may not be able to wait for a conviction in court for obvious reasons, but the evidence needed to obtain it should be required.

Yes, this means many of the criminals you guys arrest now would walk free. Its the price of freedom, and it's worth it. Most of them walk free within a few weeks or months anyway, so we're not really any safer for the current policy, just less free.