Fourth Circuit gun ruling sets up potential Supreme Court battle

[ProgSpear]

Think about this in the context of the NYSP having a database tying CCW to your drivers license.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police officers can frisk anyone to determine if a person is armed regardless of whether he is lawfully carrying a weapon, setting up a potential Supreme Court showdown.

The appeals court's opinion appears to challenge a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion from 2015, setting up a conflict that likely will need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

At issue is whether police frisks run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio in 1968. A Terry frisk is a justifiable search for weapons, including in the absence of probable cause, so long as there is suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.

The 4th Circuit ruled that "traffic stops alone are inherently dangerous for police officers" in U.S. v. Shaquille Montel Robinson on Monday.

Fourth Circuit gun ruling sets up potential Supreme Court battle

 

[Phauxtoe]

wow that is a Set up for an Abuse of Power!

 

[Saltwater60]

So you can't stop and frisk criminals, but law abiding gun owners are fair game? Fu liberal a holes.

 

[Darth]

Well, one says suspicion that an "individual" is armed and dangerous.

They ruled the "situation" was.

That's a huge leap to just skip over, but I have no doubt they will try.

That's like saying that carrying a gun is inherently dangerous, thereof having a gun makes you "armed and dangerous."

 

[Uzi]

I don't consent to searches or seizures without reasonable suspicion that I've committed a crime. If they ask you, NEVER give them permission. Make sure they know what they're talking about before you're led into thinking you have to do what they say. They might not even ask you if you have a gun before hand anyways. Also, it's always good to keep your mouth shut otherwise.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just because a permit holder who has gone through a rigorous process to be licensed is armed, it doesn't mean he is dangerous.

You have to be both armed and dangerous. Otherwise the govt wouldn't have issued you a permit. Right?

 

[Jmac00]

oooh ya, I agree, all you licensed concealed carrying Law abiding citizens are a bunch of crazy Mo-Fo's

Next you all will be admitted to a mental institution because you obviously have propensity of self preservation

y'all are sick....

 

[enforcer30]

I don't consent to searches or seizures without reasonable suspicion that I've committed a crime. If they ask you, NEVER give them permission. Make sure they know what they're talking about before you're led into thinking you have to do what they say. They might not even ask you if you have a gun before hand anyways. Also, it's always good to keep your mouth shut otherwise.

Pretty spot on, even if it hurts business. It's hard to make location based distinctions in the law, but these situations can vary greatly from inner city gang prone areas to residential suburbs.

 

[Truebeliever]

It is making more of it than it has to be. It is simply that the officer can disarm you during the stop before determining if you are a legal carrier, leave you unarmed during the encounter then let you and your weapon go when the encounter is done. It was done before and since the fathers made and constitution.

The person isn't being arrested for possession, and the weapon is returned to the person if legally possessed

A legal possession of weapon doesn't mean it can't be used on a cop. Knives are used all the time.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It is making more of it than it has to be. It is simply that the officer can disarm you during the stop before determining if you are a legal carrier, leave you unarmed during the encounter then let you and your weapon go when the encounter is done. It was done before and since the fathers made and constitution.

The person isn't being arrested for possession, and the weapon is returned to the person if legally possessed

A legal possession of weapon doesn't mean it can't be used on a cop. Knives are used all the time.

In NY, case law has made it illegal for a cop to ask if a motorist is armed for a routine traffic stop unless their is reasonable suspicion that a crime was or is being committed.

NY court: Cops can't just ask motorists about guns

 

[C3D]

Just take a page from the outlaw bikers and line your pockets with broken glass and sewing pins. If the cop insists on searching you, and asks "Is there anything that is going to cut me?", just respond by saying "Why don't you search me and find out".

 

[VietnamEraVet]

It is making more of it than it has to be. It is simply that the officer can disarm you during the stop before determining if you are a legal carrier, leave you unarmed during the encounter then let you and your weapon go when the encounter is done. It was done before and since the fathers made and constitution.

The person isn't being arrested for possession, and the weapon is returned to the person if legally possessed

A legal possession of weapon doesn't mean it can't be used on a cop. Knives are used all the time.

Well, I for one have been there and done that! ( I've posted the exact details on another thread).

Here is what I still wonder about:

So, OK, as I understand it in NYS, we are required to admit to an inquiry from an LEO that we are carrying if they ask us. And I know there is a decision that says that they cannot legally ask us if we are carrying if we are stopped in a vehicle. In my case, I was standing on my own property when police were called for a DI; they approached me and demanded to know if I was carrying, and I answered that "I have a valid CCW, and yes, I was carrying". He said he was taking my firearm away from me. I told him that I did not think he had the right to do that, as no crime had been committed. He immediately said that they were taking my weapon away from me "for their own safety". I did not resist in any manner as he removed my firearm from my pocket. Note: I did get it back at the end of the encounter, with no charges filed,- other shit went down later (suspension), but that is detailed in the other thread.

What is still confusing to me in all of this is: 1. Does the LEO in fact have a right to take my firearm at that point? 2. Could I have said that I do not consent to a search, or legally kept him from taking my firearm? 3. If I had said, No, you can't have it, would he have had legal cause to arrest me?

I'm not suggesting to be a prick with LEO's. I just wish these types of interactions were clearly defined for all concerned, and consistent everywhere. Situations like this leave me wondering about possibly being arrested, or even shot.

 

[spat]

Well, I for one have been there and done that! ( I've posted the exact details on another thread).

Here is what I still wonder about:

So, OK, as I understand it in NYS, we are required to admit to an inquiry from an LEO that we are carrying if they ask us. And I know there is a decision that says that they cannot legally ask us if we are carrying if we are stopped in a vehicle. In my case, I was standing on my own property when police were called for a DI; they approached me and demanded to know if I was carrying, and I answered that "I have a valid CCW, and yes, I was carrying". He said he was taking my firearm away from me. I told him that I did not think he had the right to do that, as no crime had been committed. He immediately said that they were taking my weapon away from me "for their own safety". I did not resist in any manner as he removed my firearm from my pocket. Note: I did get it back at the end of the encounter, with no charges filed,- other shit went down later (suspension), but that is detailed in the other thread.

What is still confusing to me in all of this is: 1. Does the LEO in fact have a right to take my firearm at that point? 2. Could I have said that I do not consent to a search, or legally kept him from taking my firearm? 3. If I had said, No, you can't have it, would he have had legal cause to arrest me?

I'm not suggesting to be a prick with LEO's. I just wish these types of interactions were clearly defined for all concerned, and consistent everywhere. Situations like this leave me wondering about possibly being arrested, or even shot.

What I don't get is why is he allowed to disarm me for his safety, but I can't disarm him for my safety ?

Why is his safety more important than mine ?

 

[JosERW]

So what does this do for gun rights?

Also this doesn't bode well for the "aw" case in their circuit now does it...

 

[Jmac00]

I must be doing something wrong. In all my encounters with LE, not once has any of them asked if i was armed, even when I obviously had a car full of firearms (4 long guns in cases)

Maybe I should try harder or sumpt'n