Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
Remember....Judges are spawned from lawyers......and lawyers are spawned from ____________.

So what's new...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,029 Posts
We here in Virginia are acutely award of this decision by the Fourth Circuit Court because it runs in direct violation of Virginia law. Here, the carrying of a sidearm is not grounds for police suspicion of the individual being about to or having committed a crime. It does not rise to the level of probable cause. In essence it carries pretty much the same level of concern as does carrying a cell phone.

So we are very concerned about this and how it might play out if tested. And the quote below is absolutely appalling from a sitting judge...

'Wynn added, “Individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”'
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Just tell 'em your a illegal alien and they'll leave you alone. Probably even offer to pay for your college.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
That decision won't stand. But in Ohio you have the duty to inform a LEO on any stop. So, basically the same thing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Further more, nothing speaks of illegal immigrant other than Felon by the paranoid and unconstitutional opinion of the 4th circuit court. Obviously attempting to turn the belief that if anyone is armed then they are indeed forfeiting their constitutional right. This is an obviously ludicrous agenda by the court.

It is important to note that the point of highlighting this case is not to defend felons in possession of guns, but to defend the civil liberties of people who have interactions with police while lawfully carrying firearms

Even if an interaction is not with law enforcement.

More pointed to defend, favor, those who choose not to use their constitutional right to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,816 Posts
Interesting that the decision comes from judges who carry firearms anywhere they want for their personal protection. On the other hand, maybe conducting some "reasonable cause" searches of said judges driving home from the bar (not the law kind) late at night might be in order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
Don't know why this article is headlined like it pertains to all citizens who carry when the fact is it is about a felon who was not supposed to be carrying in the first place. If you want to quote an article about the right to carry make it about somebody who does have a legal right to carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,029 Posts
When that camel gets his nose under a slightly parted door, you can bet the rest of his body isn't far behind to open that door and follow that nose on in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rcsoftexas

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Don't know why this article is headlined like it pertains to all citizens who carry when the fact is it is about a felon who was not supposed to be carrying in the first place. If you want to quote an article about the right to carry make it about somebody who does have a legal right to carry.
Next time I will run my thoughts by you, for sure, before I post one. :image035:

For me, the article says more about the judges making rightful gun owners evil.

It is important to note that the point of highlighting this case is not to defend felons in possession of guns, but to defend the civil liberties of people who have interactions with police while lawfully carrying firearms. While such persons ought to be able to interact with police without being viewed as suspect, the 4th Circuit’s language of “armed and therefore dangerous” calls such a possibility into question.

Judge James A. Wynn opined, “Individuals who carry firearms—lawfully or unlawfully—pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers".<<<+++=== What? , in particular.” Wynn added, “Individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.” <<<<+++-----What the heck?????

The Anti's gotta love this!

I would like to believe you read the article and the posts up to yours but I highlighted a response of my reasoning behind the wording and choice of subject, of my post, for your reconsideration. I did not even consider the felon except that his arrest is what brought this attack towards people who choose to carry..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
That decision won't stand. But in Ohio you have the duty to inform a LEO on any stop. So, basically the same thing.
I believe you only have a duty to inform if you are carrying legally, in this case it appears he wasn't carrying legally so he would not have had a duty to inform. Weird how these stupid laws work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
Judge James A. Wynn opined, “Individuals who carry firearms—lawfully or unlawfully—pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers".<<<+++=== What? , in particular.” Wynn added, “Individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”

In one sense the Judge is correct that those of us who have CHL licenses and are armed do in fact present a risk to police officers because the sheer fact we are armed makes it possible for say a very small percentage of us to go wacko and actually engage an officer in a gunfight. That said, what his Honor (and I use the term loosely) has failed to realize or incorporate into his opinion is the statistical fact that CHL holders statistically have a lower incidence of criminal behavior that police officers do. Therefore, the police officer should also consider his fellow officers suspects when on duty as they also have the capacity to go off the reservation and start killing people as well as the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, Park Rangers, local Sheriffs, Federal Marshall's and Border Patrol agents as well as the entire US Military. And let's not forget armed rent a cops. :blink:

Bottom line: everyone is a threat......:comeandgetsome:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,327 Posts
Don't know why this article is headlined like it pertains to all citizens who carry when the fact is it is about a felon who was not supposed to be carrying in the first place. If you want to quote an article about the right to carry make it about somebody who does have a legal right to carry.
It's about the 4th, not the 2nd. The fact that he turned out to be a felon is irrelevant; the police had no reason to stop him, ask him whether he had a gun, or search him when he refused to answer.

If, say, they'd gotten the call, then recognized the guy from some previous interaction and realized he was a felon, they'd have had probable cause. But that's not what happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,702 Posts
It's about the 4th, not the 2nd. The fact that he turned out to be a felon is irrelevant; the police had no reason to stop him, ask him whether he had a gun, or search him when he refused to answer.

If, say, they'd gotten the call, then recognized the guy from some previous interaction and realized he was a felon, they'd have had probable cause. But that's not what happened.
Depending on the facts and circumstances it is not unreasonable to identify the passengers in a vehicle stop and perform a Terry search (cursory search for weapons). Once lawfully stopped (by using PC) you do not further PC to conduct a Terry search. The fact that an anti gun judge made that statement is problematic, he allowed his personal feelings where they did not belong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,312 Posts
Don't know why this article is headlined like it pertains to all citizens who carry when the fact is it is about a felon who was not supposed to be carrying in the first place. If you want to quote an article about the right to carry make it about somebody who does have a legal right to carry.
Opinion here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902A.P.pdf

Focus on pages 9 - 16, and then the dissent.

Forget about the facts, read the holding. Under this opinion, if you are legally carrying and stopped, you are "armed and therefore dangerous" and subject to a frisk.

Horrible opinion; the case established horrible precedent for the 4th circuit.

As for the defendant, he got caught because someone saw him put a gun in his pocket and get into a car. Under this holding in the 4th Circuit, if I adjust my gun in a parking lot, a cop can later stop me and frisk me.

Bad, bad, bad....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,312 Posts
Depending on the facts and circumstances it is not unreasonable to identify the passengers in a vehicle stop and perform a Terry search (cursory search for weapons). Once lawfully stopped (by using PC) you do not further PC to conduct a Terry search. The fact that an anti gun judge made that statement is problematic, he allowed his personal feelings where they did not belong.
I agree with this, but the court, in an attempt to uphold the search and conviction, created an "armed and therefore dangerous" standard. The particular 7-11, notorious for drug transactions, the passenger's actions upon stop, all that could have been used to support the search without the new "armed and therefore dangerous" rule that came out. Sometimes courts make bad law to uphold a desirable result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,702 Posts
I agree with this, but the court, in an attempt to uphold the search and conviction, created an "armed and therefore dangerous" standard. The particular 7-11, notorious for drug transactions, the passenger's actions upon stop, all that could have been used to support the search without the new "armed and therefore dangerous" rule that came out. Sometimes courts make bad law to uphold a desirable result.
Yup, I think if they would have just stuck with the Terry V Ohio standard they would have been better off.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top