Skip to comments.Does Exercising the Second Amendment Invalidate the Fourth Amendment?
Posted on 12/27/2013 8:57:30 AM PST by marktwain
The Rutherford Institute is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, a case where the lower courts have held that the exercise of the second amendment is cause to invalidate the protection of the fourth amendment. From the Rutherford Institute:
WASHINGTON, DC Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court 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. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinns home based on information that Quinns son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.The Supreme Court hears only a small number of cases each year. Much as I would like to see this case settled by the Supreme Court, the odds make it unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear it. This is an important case because of the precedent established. About half of U.S. households have firearms in them. If your home can be violently invaded because police have information to believe that you have a firearm in it, then about half the homes in the United States qualify, once any cause for a warrant has been issued. If a random sampling of homes would show that one of two homes contain a firearm, and if a firearm is sufficient cause to do a violent home invasion as part of the service of a warrant (no knock warrant), then why would a risk adverse police administration risk "officer safety" half the time? The logic would suggest that every warrant service should be a violent home invasion.
I learned everything I wanted to know about the illicit conduct of our government while watching the chase for the bomber in Boston.
they are using swat to declare war on the law abiding. internal security forces. state dept pub 7277 freedom from war. dhs and tsa are just different flavors of the internal security forces.
Musing on the short list of who would NOT have a gun in the house.
—Liberal bleeding hearts (but not the elites with body guards and CCWs).
—Felons (sorry, need the /s).
—Non-bitter, Non-Bible clingers.
Can’t really come up with a list of ‘safe’ homes without guns.
So we all are vulnerable (and a drop gun for the rare case when needed).
I LOVE this Catch 22 logic (not love, but I am not a Hater).
Forgot inept boat owners.
You make a good point. I never want to go boating with any FReepers. I might drown.
Only guns have been known to drown in all the freepers boat accidents that I have heard of.
Do not forget, Americans, that the list of those that have State-level Concealed Permits have been sought by advocacy groups in various states. Now, if they were to expand into those States that have county/parish-only permits, it will be a Pandora’s Box.
Louisiana has no gun registry. Write up a bill of sale with your Bic pen on a piece of 81/2 by 11 yellow tablet paper, and there ya go!
Yes, we do have that pesky NICS business, when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
Interesting argument that the State has - since the 2nd and 4th were ratified simultaneously.
The worst thing that the police can do is to make the generally law-abiding public their enemy. Notice how well it has worked in the various inner cities of our nation. When you combine this kind of tyrannical nonsense with the increasingly common and willfull ignoring of the Constitution by various parts of the fed.gov, you have a recipe for complete contempt for the law. Then the police become just another gang, albeit larger and better armed than most others...
...and all gangs are eventually resisted. Is THIS what the po-po want? The ancient Chinese warning of, “be careful what you wish for, you may get it” comes very clearly to mind.
What a FUBAR’ed nation we’re leaving to our kids and grandkids...cops to be feared rather than respected and obeyed (like Mexico or any other Turd World craphole) and government acting wantonly and without any restraints (again, like Mexico or any other Turd Word craphole).
Gun ownership is a good reason for the police to knock rather than bust in unannounced. I would be very reluctant to convict a man who claimed he shot an officer in a no-knock raid thinking he was being broken into by criminals.
Especially that guy that they forgot to issue binoculars to.
You’d never get a chance to be on a jury for such a man.
He’ll be dead. 100% of the time.
I’m trying to think of the legal pitfalls that might exist in a simple argument.
“If a group of armed men break into your home as a home invasion, with evil intent, and you shoot them, in much of the US you have not committed any crime at all, and in fact has have successfully exercised your rights.
“However, if while carrying out an unidentified, no-knock warrant, a group of police officer who look identical to the first group are shot by you, you have committed murder of law enforcement officers, which could even subject you to the death penalty.
“While it has been noted that there is no requirement that the law be logical or rational, it is certainly *unusual* that with the same information available to a person, the same action could result in either no crime being committed at all, or a death penalty.
“If nothing else, given the choice between being murdered in one’s home, or killing a police officer and maybe being killed for it later, is fair neither to the citizen nor to the law enforcement officer.”
I like your reasoning. I have thought along similar lines.