Author Topic: Supremes asked to decide if 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment  (Read 370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 82,313
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Supremes asked to decide if 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2013, 02:36:28 PM »
Shot! In the name of Love.....

 :whistle:

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,959
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: Supremes asked to decide if 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2013, 06:52:16 PM »
This isn't a question of whether the 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment, or vice versa.  In fact, the 2nd Amendment isn't very relevant to this case at all.  This is a question of whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the cops were justified in entering Quinn's house without first knocking and announcing themselves.  That is solely a matter of the 4th Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment is not implicated here for the simple reason that what matters in a no-knock 4th Amendment case is whether the cops had a "reasonable suspicion" that knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile, or would permit the destruction of evidence.  Whether a firearm on the premises is legally owned or not is not very relevant to the question of whether the cops' no-knock entry was justified because of the presence of that firearm (or, more precisely, because of the cops' reasonable suspicion that a firearm was present).

I don't know enough of the facts to say whether, under all the facts and circumstances, the suspicion that a firearm might be present was enough to justify a no-knock entry in this case; however, I do know that the fact that the firearm was legally owned instead of being illegally owned will have little weight in the determination because the dangerousness of a firearm depends on the propensity of the possessor to use the firearm, not on whether the owner (who may be different from the possessor) owns the firearm legally or not.  That is, legal bullets will kill ya just the same as illegal bullets.

Granted, as the appellate brief points out, there is apparently no caselaw directly on point (Texas or federal) regarding the very narrow question of whether or not a legally-owned firearm can ever, by itself, justify a no-knock entry; however, my expectation is that the Sup. Ct. will hold that the legality or illegality of the firearm's ownership is not relevant to whether the presence of the firearm is sufficient to justify a no-knock entry, and so will refuse to give a per-se rule regarding the effect that legality of ownership has on the underlying facts and circumstances test used to evaluate whether a no-knock entry was justified.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 82,313
Re: Supremes asked to decide if 2nd Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2013, 09:11:08 AM »
Since pressure cookers are now considered "weapons of mass destruction," and a home may be "thought" to have one, is that enough for a swat team to break down someone's front door without announcing themselves? :shrug:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf