Fourth Circuit takes aim at gun owners' civil rights #U.S. v Robinson

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by tmoore912, Jan 25, 2017.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Branded With a Scarlet ‘G’: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals takes aim at gun owners’ civil rights.

    http://bit.ly/2jmR9ct

     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017

  2. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights
     
  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/en-banc-cases

    United States v. Shaquille Robinson, 814 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2016), rehearing en banc granted (April 25, 2016) (No.14-4902)
    http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/14-4902-20160922.mp3

    Decision Jan 23, 2017
    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902A.P.pdf

    In other words, armed IS armed and dangerous.

    Here is what they said about the Terry case.
    Underlining emphases as in original.


    The public defender is not very good at oral argument (listen to the recording linked in this post).
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Summary

    The plain meaning of "armed and dangerous" is easily changed by adding one word into a different standard, "armed and therefore dangerous."
     
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    681
    113
    One of the vehicle's occupants !
    So this broad authority to seize and disarm people applies to more than just the driver, who may have committed some traffic violation. A driver who may be suspected of some minor offense involving how and where the vehicle is driven, or parked.

    It's open season on passengers and witness-bystanders, too.
    Anybody who potentially might object to what a cop asks them to do (mere passengers and even non-passenger witnesses to a crime can be seized and ordered to identify themselves, too, if the government wants to go down that road and risk offending people and provoking the ACLU's outcry.)

    This ruling isn't just bad for the given scenario from that one case-- it's a slippery slope for sure.
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    681
    113
    Well, they always say that tough facts make for bad caselaw.
    Here, we have a black male seen handling a gun and loitering next to a seedy apartment complex known for drug activity, in the highest-crime area of the city. The man turns out to be a convicted felon, and although it's not something cops knew when they first confronted him, it's certainly something the judges hearing his case knew about, and may have allowed to influence them. If cops aren't supposed to profile people, fine, but we all know they do, and the courts will be reluctant to let a bona-fide guilty-as-hell criminal get away with a crime just due to that.

    So, this court creates a new type of profiling that's ok.

    Black males loitering in high drug areas = bad profiling. Cops can't make any assumptions about that.

    Gun possession = dangers, imminent threat to cops. GOOD PROFILING.
    Gun owners can go nuts and start shooting police officers at any moment. That's legitimate profiling. EVEN IF THE PERSON HAS A CARRY PERMIT.
    Permits don't matter, says this court, because the danger comes from being armed and having a cop challenge you, NOT from the legality of what and how you're carrying.

    So, we're back to profiling. The Court is reading minds. If you have a gun and you have to deal with a cop in the cop's official capacity, you're likely to want to shoot the cop. Can't have that. So we'll take away your rights now, BEFORE you can commit the crime we fear you're thinking about committing.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,617
    1,704
    113
    What a broad brush the justices paint with. Maybe I'll start carrying in Thunderwear and they can fondle my junk looking for it.

     
  8. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    The most important part of the article—where this actually applies—was left out by everyone.

     
  9. legacy38

    legacy38 Well-Known Member

    9,075
    89
    48
    My personal opinion is that this ruling is contrary to the cases cited within it.

    While I think it is a bad ruling, it does still hinge on the initial stop being legal, and I read nothing in it that legalizes stop and frisks on people simply for being armed. The individual was legally seized under Maryland v. Wilson. It is the court's analysis after that point that is in question.
     
  10. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    And that's the part that bothers me, not "... has a reasonable, aticulable suspicion that someone possesses a firearm" , just a belief, in other words not even an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion*" but a mere hunch.


    *plagiarized from Terry v Ohio.

    Then again, the ruling is right in line with the judge dismissing civil suit against an officers suspicionless seizure in the great Gary Pirkle Park pirkling,
     
  11. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    Do officers and judges routinely have sex with each other?
     
  12. legacy38

    legacy38 Well-Known Member

    9,075
    89
    48
    Are you conceding that your seizure was legal? If not, the cases are not in line at all.
     
  13. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Well, the judge conceded that it was all legal and proper, so who am I to argue?


    But no, and it STILL irks me.
     
  14. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,813
    819
    113
    From what I can read and understand in that case opinion, this may be the perfect case for SCOTUS to take up.

    Nemo
     
  15. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    681
    113
    I like the prior 4th Circuit opinion-- the one from February last year, decided by the normal 3-judge panel.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902.P.pdf

    ************ As for the new "en banc" opinion *************

    The problem with getting SCOTUS to grant certiorari on this is that it's a pretty narrow question, very fact-specific.

    Mr. Robinson was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation.
    Even if that cops were using the traffic violation as a mere excuse (pretext) to stop him and detain him over the concealed handgun allegations, pretextual stops are legal. (Whren v. U.S.) (1996).

    So, the narrow issue is can a person who is lawfully detained as a suspect in a separate crime, who is reasonably believed to be carrying a LOADED and CONCEALED handgun (both of these things are important to the 4th circuit en banc opinion) be disarmed and detained a bit longer to have the legality of the situation checked-out?

    Is there another U.S. Court of Appeals case that says NO, even when the armed citizen is a suspect in a crime and was lawfully stopped for that?

    Is there a split among the circuits?

    Well, yes. U.S. v. Leo (7th Cir. 2015). The cops had a 911 call that a couple of teenagers were breaking into an apartment. Cops saw the teenagers in the area both before and immediately after the 911 call. The 911 caller said one kid had a gun, and he placed it in his backpack. Cops detained both of them on reasonable suspicion (not probable cause; this was an investigatory stop). That part was OK. But after they were handcuffed, searching Mr. Leo's zippered-shut backpack was not OK. That was not like a Terry v. Ohio pat-down for a gun that the suspect could have drawn in a second. Opening Mr. Leo's bag was not "incidental to" any lawful arrest (it turns out the apartment wasn't burglarized. The 911 caller was wrong.) Leo did not consent. There were no "exigent circumstances" that made getting a warrant signed by a judge impossible due to time or distance or mobility of the suspects.

    The LEO court--the 7th Circuit-- said there is no gun exception to the 4th Amendment. Just being suspected of carrying a gun and being suspected of some other crime is not enough when the gun is not within easy reach and when the suspect is already handcuffed, and when there's no reason to believe that the gun was being carried illegally (cops had no way of knowing Mr. Leo didn't have a carry permit).

    So yeah, after Trump's new Justice gets on the Court, let's hope they take up this issue and rule on whether "officer safety" can flatly trump gun rights and allow every cop to treat every armed citizen like a wanna-be cop killer.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
  16. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    70
    48
  17. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    Can the President fire circuit court judges?

    That's one nasty swamp I'd like to see drained. What do those fools think will happen when they strip away the remaining veneer off our rights? Are they trying to get the Tree of Liberty watered again or something?
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    No. They are appointed for life. Impeachment is the only way to remove one forcibly.
     
  19. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    States ask Supreme Court to halt unjustified searches of lawful gun owners

    http://www.guns.com/2017/07/28/stat...lt-unjustified-searches-of-lawful-gun-owners/