Excellent ruling by 4th Circuit

carolina guy · Mar 7, 2013

muccione said:
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.

Citizen · Mar 7, 2013

carolina guy said:
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.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 7, 2013

Citizen said:
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.

Citizen · Mar 7, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
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.

Superlite27 · Mar 7, 2013

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

Superlite27 · Mar 7, 2013

Citizen said:
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 agree with your description of pandering by "trying to be one of us", however.....

...Out of all people, I never figured you to be a "gun snob", Citizen!

I've pocket carried a NAA .22mag for SD when convenience required it.

Your account obviously describes someone who performs at a "bare minimum" in order to fit in....

However, the size of a firearm shouldn't be a requirement for folks who desire to carry. Although OC of a NAA derringer seems a little "minimalist" (?), I have seen those belt buckle holsters, and know folks that pocket carry them (such as myself) for BUG's.

Citizen · Mar 7, 2013

Superlite27 said:
I agree with your description of pandering by "trying to be one of us", however.....

...Out of all people, I never figured you to be a "gun snob", Citizen!

I've pocket carried a NAA .22mag for SD when convenience required it.

Your account obviously describes someone who performs at a "bare minimum" in order to fit in....

However, the size of a firearm shouldn't be a requirement for folks who desire to carry. Although OC of a NAA derringer seems a little "minimalist" (?), I have seen those belt buckle holsters, and know folks that pocket carry them (such as myself) for BUG's.

He's a liberal and lawyer. He prolly could afford more gun. And, if he couldn't, as a liberal he could demand that everybody be taxed to help subsidize guns for those who cannot afford to buy one themselves. He defended expropriation for health care. No reason he couldn't do it for everybody to have a gun.

Of course, if we wait long enough he'll probably come around to this thread and tell us he has a larger gun, he just couldn't carry it that evening because he didn't have a holster and didn't want to mexican carry.

carolina guy · Mar 8, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

You know...the more that I think about it...I think that EVERYONE that is free upon the streets should be allowed to defend themselves. Period.

If someone is a danger to society, they should NOT be free upon the streets.

EMNofSeattle · Mar 8, 2013

carolina guy said:
You know...the more that I think about it...I think that EVERYONE that is free upon the streets should be allowed to defend themselves. Period.

If someone is a danger to society, they should NOT be free upon the streets.

But lets face it, no one other then first degree murderers are ever going to get life imprisonment.

carolina guy · Mar 8, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
But lets face it, no one other then first degree murderers are ever going to get life imprisonment.

True...but if they are HONESTLY dangerous, then convict and get the maximum sentence possible, and then do NOT parole them early. If someone gets 20+ years at age 20, they are much less likely to do the same at 40...and if they do repeat, then almost no chance at 60.

If they are crazy, then they need to be institutionalized until they are "safe" or until they expire naturally.

At some point, someone would have to have been deemed to have "paid their debt" to society and then given the same "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt as everyone else.

Just stop pardoning, plea bargaining, etc.

OC for ME · Mar 8, 2013

OC for ME said:
<snip> 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. <snip>

1245A Defender said:
So many posts in this thread, yet they all miss the important4th amendment point! <snip>

RIF

http://www.rif.org/

WalkingWolf · Mar 8, 2013

Superlite27 said:
I agree with your description of pandering by "trying to be one of us", however.....

...Out of all people, I never figured you to be a "gun snob", Citizen!

I've pocket carried a NAA .22mag for SD when convenience required it.

Your account obviously describes someone who performs at a "bare minimum" in order to fit in....

However, the size of a firearm shouldn't be a requirement for folks who desire to carry. Although OC of a NAA derringer seems a little "minimalist" (?), I have seen those belt buckle holsters, and know folks that pocket carry them (such as myself) for BUG's.

What's wrong with being a "gun snob"? I am one. If you don't have at least one old SA revolver, or at least a very old beat up not pretty gun you cannot play. There!

WalkingWolf · Mar 8, 2013

carolina guy said:
You know...the more that I think about it...I think that EVERYONE that is free upon the streets should be allowed to defend themselves. Period.

If someone is a danger to society, they should NOT be free upon the streets.

+1

Warm, touchy, feelly laws do not work, it is a proven fact. Want safety, lock yourself(generally) up in a basement or a bomb shelter, do not go out in public. Or lock up the offender who are not safe to be in society, because they don't give a dam about firearm laws. Just because one is not a felon does not give them more rights than someone who was incarcerated and is now free. If they are free, they are free, if they are not, then we are not.

Politicians clearly can find excuses for taking away rights from honest people, if other people will applaud it. YOU(generally) could be next.

dmatting · Mar 8, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
+1

Warm, touchy, feelly laws do not work, it is a proven fact. Want safety, lock yourself(generally) up in a basement or a bomb shelter, do not go out in public. Or lock up the offender who are not safe to be in society, because they don't give a dam about firearm laws. Just because one is not a felon does not give them more rights than someone who was incarcerated and is now free. If they are free, they are free, if they are not, then we are not.

Politicians clearly can find excuses for taking away rights from honest people, if other people will applaud it. YOU(generally) could be next.

+1 again

well said

carolina guy · Mar 8, 2013

dmatting said:
+1 again

well said

Agreed! Very well said!

KBCraig · Mar 8, 2013

It's time for the 4th Circuit to step up and vacate a lot of convictions in the wake of United States v. Simmons.

There are federal judges in North Carolina who are actually refusing to overturn sentences even though prosecutors are begging them to, because those convicted didn't actually break the law.

papa bear · Mar 9, 2013

KBCraig said:
It's time for the 4th Circuit to step up and vacate a lot of convictions in the wake of United States v. Simmons.

There are federal judges in North Carolina who are actually refusing to overturn sentences even though prosecutors are begging them to, because those convicted didn't actually break the law.

if you know of an injustice, then whose responsibility is it to make sure justice is done?

there are several laws that will give you a life sentence. murder not being one of them

92fan · Mar 31, 2013

muccione said:
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.

I have to disagree with you on this. No where in the constitution is government authorized to ban possession or ownership of firearms just because someone is a convicted felon. Convicted feloney don't lose their first amendment right, why their second ? We lost a Redskin a few years ago to an armed intruder. The Redskin was a convicted felon and prohibited from possessing a gun and thus was murdered in his own home.

Things to think about: This country was founded on a tax revolt. Often tax evasion is a felony offense, by your logic the majority if not all of the signers of the Constitution would be bared from owning a firearm.

I know a woman that is a convicted felon. Her crime ? She threw a piece of baloney to a dolphin, she was kayaking near a Federal wild life sanctuary. She was disbarred, fired from her job, spent $185,000 on legal fees, was fined $25,000 and served six months in a federal prison. Her home went to foreclosure during the incarceration and her car was reposed. She now works a retail sales job, does various side jobs to survive and rents a room in a group boarding home. The Feds take out 10% of her gross check before taxes towards the fine. She is living in poverty.

Despite the belief of many gun owners, The the second amendment wasn't about the right to self protection. It was all about keeping your government in check. If our founding fathers were walking this earth today they would be leading insurgent style attacks on our own government, shooting the average HOA board member and home schooling their children.

razor_baghdad · Apr 4, 2013

92fan said:
~WHOLE POST~
Despite the belief of many gun owners, The the second amendment wasn't about the right to self protection. It was all about keeping your government in check. If our founding fathers were walking this earth today they would be leading insurgent style attacks on our own government, shooting the average HOA board member and home schooling their children.

MONEY...EVERY WORD.

I enjoyed reading that post and especially the last paragraph. You are 1000% correct. Our forefathers would be labeled terrorists in the 21st century.

carolina guy · Apr 4, 2013

92fan said:
I have to disagree with you on this. No where in the constitution is government authorized to ban possession or ownership of firearms just because someone is a convicted felon. Convicted feloney don't lose their first amendment right, why their second ? We lost a Redskin a few years ago to an armed intruder. The Redskin was a convicted felon and prohibited from possessing a gun and thus was murdered in his own home.

Things to think about: This country was founded on a tax revolt. Often tax evasion is a felony offense, by your logic the majority if not all of the signers of the Constitution would be bared from owning a firearm.

I know a woman that is a convicted felon. Her crime ? She threw a piece of baloney to a dolphin, she was kayaking near a Federal wild life sanctuary. She was disbarred, fired from her job, spent $185,000 on legal fees, was fined $25,000 and served six months in a federal prison. Her home went to foreclosure during the incarceration and her car was reposed. She now works a retail sales job, does various side jobs to survive and rents a room in a group boarding home. The Feds take out 10% of her gross check before taxes towards the fine. She is living in poverty.

Despite the belief of many gun owners, The the second amendment wasn't about the right to self protection. It was all about keeping your government in check. If our founding fathers were walking this earth today they would be leading insurgent style attacks on our own government, shooting the average HOA board member and home schooling their children.

Actually, the Constitution makes no mention of firearms at all...

Excellent ruling by 4th Circuit

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member