Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Excellent ruling by 4th Circuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fairfax county
    Posts
    17

    Excellent ruling by 4th Circuit

    Hello everyone, while I'm no longer a resident of North Carolina I still own a business here and keep my eye on what's going on. Having been harassed myself by ignorant North Carolina law enforcement officers, I wanted to direct your attention to another wonderful ruling that again supports and reaffirms our right to open carry without harassment from knuckleheads with a badge. In United States v. Black the fourth circuit just did a wonderful job of judicial review and essentially bitchslapped the Charlotte police department (it's about time).

    There is a great write up on the case and the entire ruling at fourthamendment.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    60
    As a former resident of Buncombe county, I am glad to see this.
    Crazy cant be stopped with gun registration or control. These guys will continue until Americans admit we have a real mental health and crime issue in this country. Go after the gangs full force and keep the crazies off the streets, and leave me and my gun alone.

    Frederick Douglass said, “A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Conover
    Posts
    237
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. I know our rights are for everyone. BUT!!!!

    Too bad the CMPD did it the wrong way. Black has no business having a gun. He is the type (felon) we don't want carrying a gun.
    This guy is one of the reasons MY rights are infringed on. He gave up his rights the second he committed a felony.
    He should be in prison right now for the next 15 years. Probably carrying a gun right now continuing a life of crime, teaching his friends that the cops can't search them.
    In this case I see nothing good.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. .
    cops let another felon go should be the headline

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. I know our rights are for everyone. BUT!!!!

    Too bad the CMPD did it the wrong way. Black has no business having a gun. He is the type (felon) we don't want carrying a gun.
    This guy is one of the reasons MY rights are infringed on. He gave up his rights the second he committed a felony.
    He should be in prison right now for the next 15 years. Probably carrying a gun right now continuing a life of crime, teaching his friends that the cops can't search them.
    In this case I see nothing good.
    Even convicted felons have rights, IMO there is nothing in the 2A about it is OK to infringe on the rights of someone who has made a mistake. If they are too dangerous to own a handgun they are too dangerous to be out of jail. I agree completely with the court on this. SOMEBODY needs to teach people that cops cannot search you without RAS. IMO if we take guns away from anybody it should be those people who do not believe in the constitution.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-02-2013 at 03:01 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Clayton
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Even convicted felons have rights, IMO there is nothing in the 2A about it is OK to infringe on the rights of someone who has made a mistake. If they are too dangerous to own a handgun they are too dangerous to be out of jail. I agree completely with the court on this. SOMEBODY needs to teach people that cops cannot search you without RAS. IMO if we take guns away from anybody it should be those people who do not believe in the constitution.
    Agree 100%

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    already posted

    Here's the original thread:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...porting-the-4A

    And I agree that if someone can't be trusted with all their rights, they should still be confined or controlled.
    Maybe delay reinstatement of rights 'til they're off probation, as is done with voting, but once they're deemed not to be a danger to society, they should be treated like any other citizen.
    A lifelong punishment isn't right, except in a few heinous crimes, and they're kept in prison.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by USMC1911-MilSpec View Post
    Agree 100%
    Agreed 100% x 10^10^10!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Here's the original thread:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...porting-the-4A

    And I agree that if someone can't be trusted with all their rights, they should still be confined or controlled.
    Maybe delay reinstatement of rights 'til they're off probation, as is done with voting, but once they're deemed not to be a danger to society, they should be treated like any other citizen.
    A lifelong punishment isn't right, except in a few heinous crimes, and they're kept in prison.
    And here we have a winner..... !00% x 10^10^10^10!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    26
    forgive my ignorance, as I am new here, but what does RAS stand for?

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceman7496 View Post
    forgive my ignorance, as I am new here, but what does RAS stand for?
    Reasonable Articulate Suspicion
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    26
    ty WW

  14. #14
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. I know our rights are for everyone. BUT!!!!

    Too bad the CMPD did it the wrong way. Black has no business having a gun. He is the type (felon) we don't want carrying a gun.
    This guy is one of the reasons MY rights are infringed on. He gave up his rights the second he committed a felony.
    He should be in prison right now for the next 15 years. Probably carrying a gun right now continuing a life of crime, teaching his friends that the cops can't search them.
    In this case I see nothing good.
    careful with what you say. you have probably committed three felonies today and more tomorrow

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...830760842.html
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Even convicted felons have rights, IMO there is nothing in the 2A about it is OK to infringe on the rights of someone who has made a mistake. If they are too dangerous to own a handgun they are too dangerous to be out of jail. I agree completely with the court on this. SOMEBODY needs to teach people that cops cannot search you without RAS. IMO if we take guns away from anybody it should be those people who do not believe in the constitution.
    I haven't researched this too closely, but as far as I can tell, denying self-defense rights to felons started either with GCA1968 or NFA1930's. Well after the 2A was written. As far as I know, from the Framing forward for at least 100 years, felons were not denied the right to self-defense.

    As others have pointed out, denying felons this-or-that merely establishes the government power to do so, with little objection from the rest of the populace because...well...we're not felons. But, the foot is in the door. Anybody else who is somewhat looked down on by society (translation: minority) is open to similar treatment. Until one day, here comes the government trying to remove that right from the remaining people.

    Wanta bet how far gun control would have gotten if it had been shouted down and marched against when it was first tried on felons?

    As members of society, we need to stand up for all rights of everybody, and not let ourselves be drawn into factional discord by those who profit from it. For example, as much as I detest username The Donkey, I'll vigorously support his right to carry that ridiculous BUG he OCed to that VCDL meeting years ago.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    As members of society, we need to stand up for all rights of everybody, and not let ourselves be drawn into factional discord by those who profit from it. For example, as much as I detest username The Donkey, I'll vigorously support his right to carry that ridiculous BUG he OCed to that VCDL meeting years ago.
    You haven't seen my current bug~~A 5 inch 51 navy, the Mrs took back her shiny 5 shot snubby after I made faux pearl grips for it.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. I know our rights are for everyone. BUT!!!!

    Too bad the CMPD did it the wrong way. Black has no business having a gun. He is the type (felon) we don't want carrying a gun.
    This guy is one of the reasons MY rights are infringed on. He gave up his rights the second he committed a felony.
    He should be in prison right now for the next 15 years. Probably carrying a gun right now continuing a life of crime, teaching his friends that the cops can't search them.
    In this case I see nothing good.
    The wrong way???

    Pray tell us all how those thug cops could have done it "the right way" that would lead to they discovering that Black was a felon in possession of a firearm.

    Viewed in their totality, all the factors recited by the Government fail to amount to a reasonable suspicion justifying Black’s seizure, and the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s ruling, and vacate Black’s conviction and sentence.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions...d/115084.P.pdf
    While Black was the appellate, he was only seized because a citizen was lawfully OCing in his presence. The opinion is a almost sideways slap at LE, to remind them that where OC is not unlawful the OCer and those in his immediate vicinity cannot be seized and searched unless other factors indicate a seizure is lawful.

    Those thug cops blew it, they likely knew they were blowing it at the time yet proceeded anyway, and the state perpetuated their fable in district court. The 4th Circuit would have none of that and rightfully vacated the conviction and sentence. Essentially, it was not about Black at all but about Troupe. Black could have very well been a LAC who has friends who were not law abiding at some point in the past.

    Black may or may not adhere to the law in the future. The Constitution can not be ignored by the state and a citizen's rights cannot be violated just because.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    So many posts in this thread, yet they all miss the important4th amendment point!
    This case is NOT about a felon in posession of a gun.
    The cops never had RAS to seize him or to search him.

    This case is about Unreasonable search and seizure!
    The court has backed up and strengthened the notion, the fact,
    that unless detained by clear and unquestionable authority of law,
    we are within our righ to leave police, even to Flee, to avoid a concentual encounter!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    So many posts in this thread, yet they all miss the important4th amendment point!
    This case is NOT about a felon in posession of a gun.
    The cops never had RAS to seize him or to search him.

    This case is about Unreasonable search and seizure!
    The court has backed up and strengthened the notion, the fact,
    that unless detained by clear and unquestionable authority of law,
    we are within our righ to leave police, even to Flee, to avoid a concentual encounter!
    Bob is right, this has nothing to do with felon in possession, Black was searched simply because he was next to a Legal OCer and the cops strictly applies a "gun +1 rule" to search him, Black was not suspected of a crime and was not even the subject of the stop, he was searched merely for being with the "Wrong crowd" at the "wrong time" by police officers acting outside their authority. thus reversing the case was the appropriate action for the appeals court to take.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    So many posts in this thread, yet they all miss the important4th amendment point!
    This case is NOT about a felon in posession of a gun.
    The cops never had RAS to seize him or to search him.

    This case is about Unreasonable search and seizure!
    The court has backed up and strengthened the notion, the fact,
    that unless detained by clear and unquestionable authority of law,
    we are within our righ to leave police, even to Flee, to avoid a concentual encounter!
    Well, yes. Two points:

    1. There are already two or three other threads on the subject.

    2. We already knew there is no RAS for mere OC where legal; known it for years. The 4th Circuit is late to the party, albeit perhaps only because some dumba$$ cop or prosecutor waited this long to try to get around the law. Glad they ruled that way, but really (yawn), what's the news? SCOTUS already addressed it in Florida vs JL when they expressly declined to modify standard Terry doctrine if a gun was involved, not that it needed even that much addressing. And, in most of the 4tth Circuit we've already convinced the police that mere OC doesn't give RAS--its been the crucial argument for seven years. Almost all police in the 4th Circuit already acknowledge, even if grudgingly, that where legal, mere OC does not make RAS.

    In a way, I wouldn't be far off the mark to sarcastically say to the 4th Circuit, "thanks alot we've already done all the hard work". In fact, I have to wonder if all the noise we've made over the last six or seven years didn't maybe influence their decision to leave OC alone and not twist things to make RAS, and then wait and see if it would appealed en banc or appealed to SCOTUS.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-07-2013 at 07:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by muccione View Post
    This WOULD be an Excellent ruling IF Black was NOT a convicted felon. I know our rights are for everyone. BUT!!!!

    Too bad the CMPD did it the wrong way. Black has no business having a gun. He is the type (felon) we don't want carrying a gun.
    This guy is one of the reasons MY rights are infringed on. He gave up his rights the second he committed a felony.
    He should be in prison right now for the next 15 years. Probably carrying a gun right now continuing a life of crime, teaching his friends that the cops can't search them.
    In this case I see nothing good.
    It is still a good ruling.

    As for Black, he will have either learned from the encounter or he will not. If he has not, it is a fair bet he will screw up in the near future and I am pretty sure the CMPD will be keeping their eyes open for him.

    As for felons having a gun...unless they are a VIOLENT felon, I think they deserve their 2A rights FULLY upon release from prison.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    It is still a good ruling.

    As for Black, he will have either learned from the encounter or he will not. If he has not, it is a fair bet he will screw up in the near future and I am pretty sure the CMPD will be keeping their eyes open for him.

    As for felons having a gun...unless they are a VIOLENT felon, I think they deserve their 2A rights FULLY upon release from prison.
    I used to think that. Now, I lump it under the same category as criminals are gonna get guns anyway. The violent felons who want to continue being violent felons are just gonna get another gun on back channels. And, formerly violent criminals who have given it up are not going to misuse any guns they did obtain legally. So, what's the point? Career enhancement for prosecutors who can say they put away a guy for five more years than otherwise because he was in possession of a firearm? Make it easier for cops to arrest a guy for a gun offense because they couldn't put together a case against him for something else?

    Its just the camels nose, as it were.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I used to think that. Now, I lump it under the same category as criminals are gonna get guns anyway. The violent felons who want to continue being violent felons are just gonna get another gun on back channels. And, formerly violent criminals who have given it up are not going to misuse any guns they did obtain legally. So, what's the point? Career enhancement for prosecutors who can say they put away a guy for five more years than otherwise because he was in possession of a firearm? Make it easier for cops to arrest a guy for a gun offense because they couldn't put together a case against him for something else?

    Its just the camels nose, as it were.
    I disagree, once someone has proven themselves to be violent they should never be allowed to own a firearm and should be imprisoned for mere possession, and by violent i'm not talking about two kids getting into a playground fight or a little skirmish over a girl at the bar. I'm talking Rapists, murderers, assasins, arsonists (at least the type with psycological problems, not nessecarily someone who burns their car to collect a false insurance payment)

    I'm willing to say extreme violent offenders should lose their rights, and that's exactly how society has handled violent people for centuries. the entire idea of felons losing their rights is a direct shoot back to english common law, in which a citizen lost their property (and hence their rights to vote) upon being found guilty of an offense against society.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    You haven't seen my current bug~~A 5 inch 51 navy, the Mrs took back her shiny 5 shot snubby after I made faux pearl grips for it.
    Donkey came to a VCDL meeting to promote a liberal candidate. Jim Webb, maybe. I don't recall because it was maybe four or five years ago. He brought along some cool old guns and set up a table. But, then spoiled the effect at trying to be "one of us" by the appendix carry of something on the order of a NAA .22 derringer in a cheesy little holster that looked like naugahide.

    So, while I'll vigorously defend his right to carry it; I won't recommend it for a rep at a meeting of gun rights people most of who are carrying bigger nines, forties, and forty-fives.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Fortunately, this finding HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A FELON BEING IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and everything to do with 4th Amendment protections. Other than a few folks discussing the relevant applicable items, it seems to be all "Felon with a firearm....felon with a firearm...felon with a firearm".

    Can anyone see the forest? There seem to be too many trees occluding the view.

    Does anyone care to discuss what this finding means to EVERYONE'S 4th Amendment rights?

    This finding has ruled that one does NOT have to be physically detained in order to be considered "siezed". Also, it's an AWESOME coincidence these folks were standing around with a lawful open carrier! After all, the court ruled on several details that pertain to all of us:

    1) It was found that the presence of numerous officers could lead to a person assuming he or she was not free to leave.

    2) The siezure of one's firearm could lead to a person assuming he or she was not free to leave.

    3) The siezure of one's identification could lead to a person believing he or she was not free to leave.

    What does this mean?

    If, while open carrying, you encounter a GROUP of officers that make "voluntary contact", have your weapon taken from you "for officer safety", or have your I.D. taken without having RAS of your suspected crime clearly explained to you.....

    ....YOU HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY DETAINED.

    Utilize your right to remain silent until your attorney can file the appropriate lawsuit stating this case as precedent.

    None of which has anything to do with a felon in posession of a firearm

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •