4th Circuit Court U.S. v. Robinson

[Ironbear]

Anyone else see this? The article makes it seem like "the sky is falling" but I haven't heard about this through 2nd amendment channels, so I am trying to understand what it really means.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... vil-rights

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just suffered from an outbreak of bad judging. In an en banc opinion, the court ruled that after a lawful traffic stop, the police may frisk any person who they believe may possess a firearm, regardless of whether that person possesses a concealed-carry permit. The court actually typed this sentence: “The danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon, not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession” (emphasis added.) The implications were clear: Even lawful gun owners are by definition “dangerous” and can be broadly treated as such by the state.

The court legislated from the bench, and federal, state, and so now local authorities in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland can treat lawful gun owners as toxic, depriving them of other constitutional rights, all in order to promote “the safety of persons and property.”

[WRW]

In sum, individuals who carry firearms — lawfully or unlawfully — pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainee’s possession of a firearm poses a categorical “danger” to the officers.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... vil-rights

It's that all traffic stops are now "reason to frisk" as soon as dispatch informs the officer of a CHP. That and the rationale for that conclusion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

Yes, I saw this. There is a bill started in the VA legislature that will prevent the VSP from releasing the information of VA residents with a CHP to other states.

http://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/active- ... z4X03mLjvh

Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) has a legislative tracking tool for legislation working it's way through the VA legislature. Check it out here: http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/2017leg.html

Our current AG, Mark "Red" Herring, calls VCDL more radical than the NRA. All the more reason to join and support the good work they do.

[LonghornBob]

I just read the case. And to me, some of the language in it, especially in the concurring opinion, is really concerning. I don't know the full legal ramifications of it, but to me, it seems to go beyond just worrying about a stop-and-frisk by Maryland cops of Virginia permit holders.

The language that really bothers me, in the concuring opinion, says:

“[A]s a matter of law and fact, firearms--and therefore individuals who choose to carry firearms--are inherently dangerous. In sum, individuals who carry firearms--lawfully or unlawfully--pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. “

“ndividuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes.”

“ndividuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.”

Extremely insulting and outrageous.

[MarcSpaz]

What a bunch of crap! Those judges need to be relieved and that case needs to go to a higher court. Any judge that believes a citizen surrenders their Constitutional Rights because they choose to carry a weapon is a danger to freedom.

[smltooner]

What a bunch of crap! Those judges need to be relieved and that case needs to go to a higher court. Any judge that believes a citizen surrenders their Constitutional Rights because they choose to carry a weapon is a danger to freedom.

I agree.
Unfortunately, those are federal judges that are appointed "for life".
That is why we need to be very hopeful that Trump makes the Right appointments.

[kelu]

We need a new law, something like "respect for the constitution" and a litmus test administered every year to the judges.
You cannot be a judge and to disregard the letter and spirit of the supreme law, and put your own beliefs and interests instead.

[MarcSpaz]

^^^