• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Excellent ruling by 4th Circuit

92fan

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
17
Location
Fairfax county
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
 

muccione

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
237
Location
Conover
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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:

USMC1911-MilSpec

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22
Location
Clayton
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%
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
already posted

Here's the original thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?112176-4th-Circuit-ruling-supporting-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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Here's the original thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?112176-4th-Circuit-ruling-supporting-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!
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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. :p:)
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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. :p:)
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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/Published/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.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:
Top