4th circuit decision

cuban smokes said:

so, citizens shouldn't carry firearms because firearms are dangerous; only police should carry firearms because firearm are dangerous

Oh, I get it; it's kinda like this morning when Trump stated he was against violence directed toward law enforcement

Trump didn't say anything about violence directed at citizens by law enforcement; I get it

the agenda is just to further the desired police state .......

Click to expand...

translation-Jet cannot carry a firearm because he lives in a state where politicians he supports don't trust their employers to carry handguns.

He doesn't want YOU or ME to be able to carry when he cannot.

jet57 said:

I did read th pages that you are referring to. My conclusion is - yeah, so?

You're whole argument fall apart right here - again:

The decision goes on to state that a firearm, by its very nature is inherently dangerous, and thus so is a person who is in possession of one, as appearing inherently dangerous is the very purpose od possession in the first place.

I don't remember if it was you that mention coming into my house unannounced, but when firearms are suspected, or known to be there in the course of an arrest, then the police are obliged to look after themselves and the general public first, and answer up later if a mistake was made.

So my opinions for the outset have been right on target.

Click to expand...

I would agree with the dissent in this case that, just because one is armed, does not make him dangerous. I don't agree that a gun is inherently dangerous nor that it is inherently an implement of violence. I have fired thousands of rounds from my guns at targets. I have never fired my gun to commit violence. (Unless you include violence on targets) I have a CCW. I carry to prevent violence to my person and loved ones. I have the option to shoot an assailant but that is my decision, not the gun's. Vehicles often are used both accidentally and purposely to commit violence. Does that make them inherently violent, or implements of violence? Guns are not just used in wars. In fact the first "guns" were developed by the Chinese as a signaling and celebration device. They are likely used more often to shoot game or modern sporting purposes than to commit violence on another person.

That being said, I can't disagree that in this case, there was, apparently by pure chance or luck, a reasonable presumption that the defendant was armed and dangerous. I am comfortable that the scope of this case was narrow enough that the decision does not mean that a law abiding citizen can be randomly searched just because he has a CCW or registered guns. However, I remain weary of the slippery slope towards infringing on our Second Amendment rights and appreciate the OP's sentiment.

Lutherf said:

Opinion here
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/144902A.P.pdf

Article here
Gun Carriers Forfeit Rights According to Federal Appeals Court's Decision

Short version is that en banc panel of the 4th circuit has decided that, for purposes of a frisk incident to a Terry stop, there is no longer a distinction between being armed and being dangerous. According to the court, if you are armed you are, by definition, dangerous and therefore subject to a search at the officers discretion.

That may sound fine and all "common sense" but think about it for a minute. If you're lawfully open carrying a firearm and in compliance with all the state laws you can STILL be subject to a stop and a search. Furthermore, if you have a concealed permit and that comes up on the cops information screen you can be presumed to be carrying and are therefore considered to be dangerous and subject to search.

Even more crazy is that this decision comes at a time when there has been great political pressure on the courts to LIMIT Terry stops....well, at least to limit them when it comes to stopping an individual exhibiting signs of gang or drug activity.



You can see from the above excerpt that the court makes the argument that the firearm alone creates the danger and that the status of the individual in possession of the firearm is immaterial.

Click to expand...

For excising a constitutional right you are considered dangerous. I think they said that about religions as well as other witch hunts we have had. There I was thinking people had become more intelligent.