Lawful Gun Ownership = Trigger for No Knock Raids? Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

Lawful Gun Ownership = Trigger for No Knock Raids? Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

This is a discussion on Lawful Gun Ownership = Trigger for No Knock Raids? Supreme Court Rejects Appeal within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
Like Tree90Likes

Thread: Lawful Gun Ownership = Trigger for No Knock Raids? Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738

    Lawful Gun Ownership = Trigger for No Knock Raids? Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

    The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. In denying a petition for certiorari in Quinn v. Texas, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially makes lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to weigh in on the case and protect Americans against encroachments on their Second Amendment rights.
    https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...amendment_case

    This is the first I've heard about this incident and case. Apparently it's been going on for a while...
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member
    Array molleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    palm bay, florida
    Posts
    1,734
    What a stacked political agenda affords us.
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and msgt/ret like this.
    "Don't shout for help at night, you may wake your neighbors"

  3. #3
    Member
    Array Parrisk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N.E. Pennsylvania
    Posts
    413
    Crazy... am I reading this right, the lower courts say by legally owning firearms you basically wave your 4th Amendment rights?

    How can that be.. why not say if you claim the 5th or 1st Amendment you waive the 4th....
    US Army Retired (2002)
    PAFOA.com, NAGR, USCCA, and NRA Life member

    "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
    unknown
    "Dare in Brocca" - Beretta

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    In denying a petition for certiorari in Quinn v. Texas, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially makes lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment
    Not true, the police HAD a legal warrant. The issue was the way they served the warrant. Why is he complaining so much? Oh yeah, the police found cocaine on a valid warrant, so he is trying to make this a "2nd Amendment" issue so he can get the search invalidated.
    SCXDm9, mano3, Longstreet and 3 others like this.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Parrisk View Post
    Crazy... am I reading this right, the lower courts say by legally owning firearms you basically wave your 4th Amendment rights?

    How can that be.. why not say if you claim the 5th or 1st Amendment you waive the 4th....
    The Court didn't say any such a thing. That is what the article is claiming and has nothing to do with reality. The police had a valid warrant. The only thing at issue is are "no knock" warrants legal? The 4th Amendment say; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

    It does not go into how a warrant must be served. No knock warrants have been found valid over and over. Now should just owning a firearm make it an automatic no knock warrant? Of course not. But this is not a 4th Amendment issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue. It is a person that had drugs that is trying to find a way to get out of being busted.

  6. #6
    Member
    Array Parrisk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N.E. Pennsylvania
    Posts
    413
    OutWestSystems.. thanks.. that makes sense

    I guess my day is almost done and my old eyes are not as reliable as they were this morning


    I can almost, ALMOST, support it.. if there is probable cause, and warrant issued, and weapons are known to be in the house, would you want to knock and serve?
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    US Army Retired (2002)
    PAFOA.com, NAGR, USCCA, and NRA Life member

    "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
    unknown
    "Dare in Brocca" - Beretta

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array SCXDm9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,465
    I think a name change maybe in order... to maybe Paul Harvey, with the rest of the story!

    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Not true, the police HAD a legal warrant. The issue was the way they served the warrant. Why is he complaining so much? Oh yeah, the police found cocaine on a valid warrant, so he is trying to make this a "2nd Amendment" issue so he can get the search invalidated.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Things gun forums have taught me:
    -Some people shoot guns other "run" them.
    -I don't dislike Glocks but often dislike Glock owners.
    -Open carry is to a handgun as bluetooth is to a cell phone!
    -Simple math can deliver posts per day... some gun forum members need to get out more!!!

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,532
    Well, the "no knock" principle seems to have worked well for the nazis and the KGB. Gee, we should all embrace it. We can all go to bed tonight and be confident that the police never get an address wrong or receive a false tip of drug dealing, and mistakenly invade our homes with guns blazing. Just bust down the front door and shoot the dog, set the house on fire with tear gas or flash bangs. It's OK. We live in America, our freedoms are secure. Hey, that said they were sorry. Ivan lives next door.
    RickyD, NONAME762, Aceoky and 6 others like this.
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    2,332
    I understand and can agree in concept with the no-knock warrant.

    However, my personal view is that it should be up to a judge to determine if no-knock is justifiable unless there is something happening at the time the warrant is being served that gives police reason to enter unannounced. The fact is, the police knew this was a legal gun owner before they asked for the warrant and they knew how they would undertake the raid. I don't think it should be up to them to make such decisions. We have judges issue warrants for a reason.

    Of course, the SCOTUS apparently disagrees with me - go figure, the SCOTUS finding for more government intrusion on citizens.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by oldnfat View Post
    Well, the "no knock" principle seems to have worked well for the nazis and the KGB. Gee, we should all embrace it. We can all go to bed tonight and be confident that the police never get an address wrong or receive a false tip of drug dealing, and mistakenly invade our homes with guns blazing. Just bust down the front door and shoot the dog, set the house on fire with tear gas or flash bangs. It's OK. We live in America, our freedoms are secure. Hey, that said they were sorry. Ivan lives next door.
    Apples and oranges. The Soviets and Nazis didn't really believe in having warrants.

    So what freedom in the Constitution prevents "no knock" warrants?
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD View Post
    I understand and can agree in concept with the no-knock warrant.

    However, my personal view is that it should be up to a judge to determine if no-knock is justifiable unless there is something happening at the time the warrant is being served that gives police reason to enter unannounced. The fact is, the police knew this was a legal gun owner before they asked for the warrant and they knew how they would undertake the raid. I don't think it should be up to them to make such decisions. We have judges issue warrants for a reason.

    Of course, the SCOTUS apparently disagrees with me - go figure, the SCOTUS finding for more government intrusion on citizens.
    I think that is exactly what should happen.
    RickyD, Aceoky and gatorbait51 like this.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    The Court didn't say any such a thing. That is what the article is claiming and has nothing to do with reality. The police had a valid warrant. The only thing at issue is are "no knock" warrants legal? The 4th Amendment say; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

    It does not go into how a warrant must be served. No knock warrants have been found valid over and over. Now should just owning a firearm make it an automatic no knock warrant? Of course not. But this is not a 4th Amendment issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue. It is a person that had drugs that is trying to find a way to get out of being busted.
    Except that it IS a Second Amendment issue, because if simply owning a firearm is taken as justification for a no-knock entry, then owning a firearm puts one at greater risk of being shot by police. Because, if police don't announce themselves, the homeowner has no way of knowing that the people attacking him are police, and is likely to fight back and be shot - as happened in this case, and has happened in many others.

    It amounts to saying: "We respect your right to own firearms, but we take the fact that you own firearms as an implicit threat against us in and of itself, and may have to shoot you as a result." Hardly what the framers had in mind.

    As for the drugs, it was under a gram and likely his son's, since that was the reason for the warrant in the first place.
    ...there is no arguing with such snivelling puppies, who allow superiors to kick them about deck at pleasure.

    Captain Bellamy

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    I think that is exactly what should happen.
    We agree on something - it's like cats and dogs living together.

    One of us must not be feeling well...
    Aceoky likes this.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Except that it IS a Second Amendment issue, because if simply owning a firearm is taken as justification for a no-knock entry, then owning a firearm puts one at greater risk of being shot by police. Because, if police don't announce themselves, the homeowner has no way of knowing that the people attacking him are police, and is likely to fight back and be shot - as happened in this case, and has happened in many others.

    It amounts to saying: "We respect your right to own firearms, but we take the fact that you own firearms as an implicit threat against us in and of itself, and may have to shoot you as a result." Hardly what the framers had in mind.

    As for the drugs, it was under a gram and likely his son's, since that was the reason for the warrant in the first place.
    Is it a 1st Amendment issue if I had said I will kill any cop that comes in my house? Yes a person having a firearm makes the search warrant a greater risk for the officers. That is a FACT. Not a fun fact but still a fact. Now are no knock warrants most likely over used? Yes, but that does not mean they should not be used.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,262
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Not true, the police HAD a legal warrant. The issue was the way they served the warrant. Why is he complaining so much? Oh yeah, the police found cocaine on a valid warrant, so he is trying to make this a "2nd Amendment" issue so he can get the search invalidated.
    Quote Originally Posted by From the article @ The Rutherford Institute
    WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

    ...

    In August 2006, Collin County (Texas) police obtained a warrant to search John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might be in possession of controlled substances. The warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. Nevertheless, based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household, the SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises.
    Haven't seen the actual warrant itself, nor the judge's justifications for granting it. Haven't seen any other writing or report about this case, other than this Rutherford Institute item (above).

    But it seems clear that the warrant was based on drugs being suspected, and that it did not authorize a no-knock, unannounced entry. Yet, such an entry was done. Either it was done based on (a) ignoring the specs of the warrant, or (b) due to the additional info known but not claimed on the warrant (ie, knowing or believing weapons were in the home, despite being lawfully owned).

    Complaining based on the no-knock, unannounced entry being specifically disallowed in the warrant, yet it being done anyway. Seems simple enough. I'd "complain", too.

    And, sure, I'd be plenty happy if such an end-around the 4A and warrant's requirements resulted in any and all evidence found getting tossed. Why not?
    Aceoky, gatorbait51 and Ghost1958 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •