# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Security & Defense >  Why Liberals Should be Alarmed That Courts Are Eroding The Second Amendment

## Suzanimal

Wow, kinda surprised to see this at Slate.




> The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment
> 
> The American judiciary is currently engaged in a vigorous debate that can be summed up in one question: Can you diminish your Fourth Amendment rights by exercising your Second Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures; the Second Amendment safeguards the right to keep and bear arms. What happens, then, if police officers search or seize a person solely because he is carrying a firearm? Is that unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and therefore illegal?
> 
> Last week, an Illinois appeals court answered that question in the affirmative, ruling that mere possession of a handgun does not justify a search or seizure. Liberals and conservatives alike should cheer the courts decision. Empowering law enforcement to curtail the Fourth Amendment makes no one safer, even when its done in the name of controlling gun violence. And allowing officers to target gun owners without suspicion of wrongdoing puts us all at greater risk of harassment, discrimination, and brutality.
> 
> Unfortunately, not every court sees the issue that way. In January, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that when officers conduct a lawful traffic stop, they may frisk the driver if they reasonably believe him to be armedregardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm. Even if the individual holds a concealed-carry permit, the court clarified, an officer may still search him without having any suspicion that he committed a crime. In a trenchant critique of the ruling, National Reviews David French wrote that the majority was relegating lawful gun owners to second-class-citizen status. While that might sound dramatic, Judge James Wynn admitted as much in a concurrence, declaring that gun owners forego other constitutional rights, including freedom from unannounced police intrusion and freedom of speech.
> 
> We didnt have to wait long to see what Wynns theory looks like in practice. In March, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, refused to reconsider a decision previously issued by a panel of 11th Circuit judges. The panel had thrown out a lawsuit against a police officer who suspected, without any good reason, that a criminal might be lurking inside a particular apartment. In the dead of night, the officer banged on the apartment door. (He did identify himself as law enforcement.) The startled resident retrieved the firearm that he lawfully owned and slowly opened the front door. When he saw a shadowy figure holding a gun, he retreated inside. The officer shot him dead as he was attempting to close the door.
> ...


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...amendment.html

----------


## oyarde

When the collapse comes and a lazy liberal tries to steal my can of beans , would they not prefer I shoot them than tomahawk them ?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit] Judge James Wynn [...] declar[ed] that gun owners “forego other constitutional  rights,” including freedom from unannounced police intrusion and freedom  of speech.


Is any comment about this really necessary? Or even adequate?

----------


## osan

> Wow, kinda surprised to see this at Slate.


Indeed.





> The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment
> 
> The American judiciary is currently engaged in a vigorous debate that can be summed up in one question: Can you diminish your Fourth Amendment rights by exercising your Second Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against “unreasonable searches and seizures”; the Second Amendment safeguards the right “to keep and bear arms.” What happens, then, if police officers search or seize a person solely because he is carrying a firearm? *Is that “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment and therefore illegal*?




Anyone with a lick of sense and integrity would call this a "stupid question".  The answer is so plainly obvious, small children can answer it when given the full context.




> Last week, an Illinois appeals court answered that question in the affirmative, ruling that mere possession of a handgun does not justify a search or seizure.


 

Ill-Annoy?  Now THAT is surprising.




> Liberals and conservatives alike should cheer the court’s decision. Empowering law enforcement to curtail the Fourth Amendment makes no one safer, even when it’s done in the name of controlling gun violence. And allowing officers to target gun owners without suspicion of wrongdoing puts us all at greater risk of harassment, discrimination, and brutality.





> 


I am something of astonished at this unlikely show of basic sense.

Next question to be explicitly enumerated and answered, hopefully correctly: is a man within his prerogative to use his 2A right to defend violation of his 4A right by police, even if it means shooting and perhaps killing a cop.  The obvious answer is "absofoigin'lutely".  Once again, it should not even be a question of any necessity, but given the pall of degradation to which the American population has come under, the issue has become critical in the face of the ever-growing ubiquity of those boots stamping on human faces with the apparent temporal stamina of "forever".




> Unfortunately, not every court sees the issue that way. In January, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that when officers conduct a lawful traffic stop, they may frisk the driver if they “reasonably believe” him to be armed—“regardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm.” Even if the individual holds a concealed-carry permit, the court clarified, an officer may still search him without having any suspicion that he committed a crime. In a trenchant critique of the ruling, National Review’s David French wrote that the majority was “relegating lawful gun owners to second-class-citizen status.” While that might sound dramatic, Judge James Wynn admitted as much in a concurrence, declaring that gun owners “forego other constitutional rights,” including freedom from unannounced police intrusion and freedom of speech.


Boo-hiss to the 4th and kudos to Mr. French.  All these idiotic rulings and the dangerously deleterious effects they have on our daily lives glaringly underscore the gross and sad inadequacies of our Constitution.  Hamilton is due his credit for what is perhaps the greatest political coup of all time, unlikely to be matched even in our great^5 grandchildren's lives.  Appropriate boo-hisses also due him for either the treachery therein enshrined, the buffoonery, or perhaps both.




> We didn’t have to wait long to see what Wynn’s theory looks like in practice. In March, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, refused to reconsider a decision previously issued by a panel of 11th Circuit judges. The panel had thrown out a lawsuit against a police officer who suspected, without any good reason, that a criminal might be lurking inside a particular apartment. In the dead of night, the officer banged on the apartment door. (He did identify himself as law enforcement.) The startled resident retrieved the firearm that he lawfully owned and slowly opened the front door. When he saw a shadowy figure holding a gun, he retreated inside. The officer shot him dead as he was attempting to close the door.


Well nobody should find that surprising.  The proper remedy, of course, is to ID the cop, hunt and apprehend via black bagging, hold for private trial, and dispense honorable justice, which in this case should be a sentence of death by hanging, the body left swinging on the limb for the world to discover, the message to Themme and their instruments: do the right thing or we will do it for you.  This ain't rocket surgery, but it is difficult and risky work.  It is also very necessary work if we take our rights seriously, which apparently we do not.




> It might be tempting for liberals to view these cases through the lens of gun control and favor the state or for conservatives to see them as a question of law and order and support the officers. Both sides should resist the temptation. A rule that allows cops to search or seize individuals for carrying a gun can only lead to more brutality against young black men like Philando Castile. It also permits officers to trample upon our rights to property and self-defense. These are constitutional values, not partisan ones. And advocates across the ideological spectrum should urge the courts to follow the First District’s lead and reject the disastrous illogic now developing in the federal circuits.


If _we_ are not going to defend our rights at the front lines, why should _Theye_ respect them at all?  These are the fundamental questions I see nobody asking... save myself.  Why is that, does anyone think?

----------

