If I understand that case correctly, they are asking for the SCOTUS to simply rule that otherwise legal possession of a firearm does not by itself justify the issue of a "no-knock warrant." While that is certainly something we would see as a no-brainer, what we really need is for the SCOTUS to declare that absent the already well-established exigent circumstances protocols, there is never a justification for a "no-knock warrant!"
SCOTUS rarey, if ever, rules outside the scope of the case under review (remember that awful "presumptively lawful" phrase in Heller?), so I would be very surprised if this one is what we are hoping for, beyond the particular facts at hand, of course.
In fact, if SCOTUS does issue a narrow ruling, even in "our favor," so to speak, the absence of a position on the "no-knock warrant" itself would likely validate it as fully legal - certainly in the minds of the LEO community.
TFred
I agree this case is not a cure all. I do see it as a step in the right direction, and as the action is instigated by a Virginia based civil rights AND gun friendly entity, it may bear watching and the Institute propelling the court case considered a possible source to approach for similar actions in the Commonwealth.
I think it wishful thinking to believe a wand will be passed to contain the rampant abuse of the no-knock warrant [reports indicate over 80,000 a year occur here in the land of the free]. Over a ten year period, that would cipher to uh, oh, what, about 800,000 violations of citizens in the name of making the job easier and satisfying the crave for adrenaline rushes for commando SEAL wannabes? Mostly for a plant?
Utah has legislation on the table to restrict the abuse of the no knock - no rights warrant.
http://www.standard.net/stories/201...cize-bill-restricting-forcible-entry-warrants
Utah police chiefs criticize bill restricting forcible-entry warrants
House Bill 70 would require police officers to prove to a judge that there are no less invasive methods possible for obtaining permission for a "no knock" entry into a residence.
Talk about raining on the cop's parade.
"We recognize that police officers often have a tough job, but we also affirm that government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property," said Libertas Institute President Connor Boyack.
That right there is the message I think we need to get across, loud enough and forceful enough to drown out the prevailing logical fallacy of "officer safety". Government agents have a reasonable expectation of being able to do their jobs in the least dangerous means possible, that expectation NOT TO OUTWEIGH THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY SERVE.
Issuing no knock warrants to police too inept to do the homework verifying the presence or absence of children, elderly, mentally handicapped, or issued to police that blatantly disregard those people that could be harmed or killed in an orchestrated military invasion of a home is criminal.
I try to keep my fingers on the pulse of state activity, making note of who opposes the reclaiming of our rights, and what approaches are winning us regained ground. While it seems so obvious what needs to be done, I think it a little obtuse not to recognize and highlight who is behind the efforts at dismissing our attempts to regain our rights. They can be recognized by their growing number of tanks and funding demands for paramilitary training.
