The 4th Amendment - Is it applicable to Gun Owners too?


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > The 4th Amendment - Is it applicable to Gun Owners too?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2014, 01:56 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lewisville, TC
Posts: 14
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default The 4th Amendment - Is it applicable to Gun Owners too?

I came across this article while getting my daily dose of gun news and here's what it says:

Because one Texan was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, Texas authorities argue that police were justified in violating his 4th Amendment rights.

If someone owns a gun, is that enough for law enforcement to justify violating that person’s Fourth Amendment rights with a no-knock raid?

It’s a question gun owners in Texas were hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would answer once and for all after Collin County police officers searched Texas resident John Quinn’s home without knocking or announcing their entry. But last week the court declined.

The case relates to an incident in August 2006. Police say they were investigating Quinn’s son, Brian, who they suspected was in possession of drugs. Since the officers were aware that the Quinns owned firearms, including possibly an AK-47, they opted to conduct a no-knock raid at the family’s home.

Because the police officers’ presence came as a surprise to John Quinn, who reportedly thought his home was being invaded by criminals, he reached for his gun. The heavily armed SWAT-like police force fired at him before he could fire at them, resulting in Quinn sustaining injuries.

The police searched the home and found less than 1 gram of cocaine, and charged John Quinn with possession.

Quinn’s son was not home at the time, a fact that the officer’s allegedly knew and was included in the warrant, so Quinn filed a lawsuit claiming the no-knock raid was an illegal search and seizure operation that violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers are required to knock and announce their presence before entering. However, if police feel that knocking would put their lives in danger, they can legally obtain permission to conduct a no-knock raid.

Quinn’s case was taken up by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, but all lower courts and courts of appeal have rejected Quinn’s defense argument, which is that just because he has guns doesn’t mean that police officers can conduct a no-knock raid on his home.

In fact, Quinn argued that if the officers would have knocked, he likely wouldn’t have reached for his weapon, which he had for self-defense purposes, and wouldn’t have been shot at all. But the Texas courts explained in their ruling that because police knew there were guns in the home, they were justified in conducting a no-knock raid.

John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would hear Quinn’s case, and even created a petition arguing that “…in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced ‘no-knock’ home invasions when executing warrants.”

Whitehead, who has also authored a book titled “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State,” warned that if the high court opted to not hear this case, then police officers throughout the U.S. would be able to cite this case as legal allowance for them to conduct a no-knock raid on any person they believed owned a firearm, setting what he called a dangerous precedent.

Despite the Rutherford Institute’s best attempts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear Quinn’s case, thereby allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In response, Whitehead released the following statement:

“Whatever the issue might be, whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts, and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials,” Whitehead said.

“The disconnect, of course, is that the Constitution establishes a far different scenario in which government officials, including the police, are accountable to ‘we the people.’ For it to be otherwise, for government concerns to trump individual freedoms, with government officials routinely sidestepping the Constitution and reinterpreting the law to their own purposes, makes a mockery of everything this nation is supposed to stand for—self-government, justice, and the rule of law.”

Whether the court’s ruling will set a dangerous precedent for gun owners in the U.S. remains to be seen. If it does, it’s likely the Supreme Court will have no choice but to revisit the issue.



gundaddytactical is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 03-18-2014, 02:04 AM   #2
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21987 Times on 12397 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

question that comes to my mind is how did they know he had guns in the first place?

yes, at some point the Supreme Court is going to have to address the issue. might not happen until some LEO is shot or killed serving a no-knock warrant being thought to be a a home invader and then the homeowner is then killed as well.



__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 02:57 AM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,220
Liked 971 Times on 507 Posts
Likes Given: 500

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
question that comes to my mind is how did they know he had guns in the first place?

yes, at some point the Supreme Court is going to have to address the issue. might not happen until some LEO is shot or killed serving a no-knock warrant being thought to be a a home invader and then the homeowner is then killed as well.
This has happened more than once. Just recently a Deputy Sheriff in Texas got himself killed serving a No-Knock warrant at 2:AM in search of a couple pot plants.

The deputy was killed by the home owner Henry McGee who was charged with the Shooting Death of a Police Officer.

In Feb 2014 the Grand Jury declined to indict McGee and the charges were dropped.

This is the legal precedent that we need to expand on. Break into my Home Unannounced cop or no cop and I have the Legal right to shoot you dead. As it was with Henry McGee.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-With-Killing-Burleson-County-Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html?device=phone
__________________
mseric is online now  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 03:06 AM   #4
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21987 Times on 12397 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

nothing is worth a person dying for in regards to a no-knock warrant. many times these are served for the simple purpose that they are afraid evidence will be destroyed to avoid arrest charges. there are very few instances where i can see a no-knock warrnat being a viable option.

the man not being billed by the grand jury is incredible. and not something i would have expected to happen. many states already have the precedent. problem is, if an officer is acting outside his authority is shot or killed, even the if the person is acting in self defence or good faith, they are more than likely to be served up dead, or railroaded by court system.

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
wittmeba Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 03:21 AM   #5
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
RJMercer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 513
Liked 399 Times on 207 Posts
Likes Given: 598

Default

They just have to slowly erode one right at a time and do it carefully one tiny bit at a time. 4th amendment in this show. 5th amendment in another. Then back to the 1st and back around to chisel away at the 2nd again. They know that and they are doing it no differently than the frog in the pot scenario.

__________________

Hey..... what's the red button do?

RJMercer is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 03:37 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,076
Liked 4887 Times on 2369 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
nothing is worth a person dying for in regards to a no-knock warrant. many times these are served for the simple purpose that they are afraid evidence will be destroyed to avoid arrest charges. there are very few instances where i can see a no-knock warrnat being a viable option.

the man not being billed by the grand jury is incredible. and not something i would have expected to happen. many states already have the precedent. problem is, if an officer is acting outside his authority is shot or killed, even the if the person is acting in self defence or good faith, they are more than likely to be served up dead, or railroaded by court system.
Often... I feel that no knocks have more to do with the adrenalin rush LEO's are looking for than destruction of evidence or officer safety. These are simply convenient excuses to justify thug behavior.

I shed no tears for any badge that falls conducting a no knock in the United States.

...and I've quit giving to the Fallen Officers fund because I can no longer be sure the fallen cop didn't have it coming.

Sure enough our resident apologist will chime in to vilify my position without ever giving a thought to the fact that it's THIER actions causing law abiding citizens to feel this way about a profession we "used to" respect.

Tack
__________________
It is not the Citizens duty to show loyalty to the Government... it IS the Governments duty to show loyalty to the Citizen
Tackleberry1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 04:22 AM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
towboater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewares,Ky
Posts: 3,587
Liked 1726 Times on 897 Posts
Likes Given: 3651

Default

I'm a law abiding citizen. There is no reason the law should be breaking in my door. Therefor I would assume they are bad people intent on doing me and my family harm.

__________________
Socialism sucks
towboater is offline  
6
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 05:15 AM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,220
Liked 971 Times on 507 Posts
Likes Given: 500

Default

The problem with the McGee case is that it never made it to court, so there is really no legal Precedent or case law. He got lucky and his luck is really no reason to believe any other citizen should or could have the same.

__________________
mseric is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 05:26 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,076
Liked 4887 Times on 2369 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
The problem with the McGee case is that it never made it to court, so there is really no legal Precedent or case law. He got lucky and his luck is really no reason to believe any other citizen should or could have the same.
Good observation, and IMHO a big reason he was not charged is because it happened in a very small town where both men's families know each other.
__________________
It is not the Citizens duty to show loyalty to the Government... it IS the Governments duty to show loyalty to the Citizen
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2014, 06:38 AM   #10
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,429
Liked 8708 Times on 5034 Posts
Likes Given: 11315

Default

Arguably the no-knock warrant created a scenario where police would be more likely injured.

If my kid were to have illegal drugs in my house without my knowing it and the police knocked on the door with a warrant that specifically stated what they are looking for "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" as required by the 4th, I would allow the search of my son's person and possessions as described. If they found evidence of drugs and he were arrested I would consider not interfering.

Likelihood of that scenario happening? Oh, just about as good as the court upholding our 4th Amendment rights in the first place.



__________________

Shoot me an email at vikingdad995@gmail.com

Quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Vikingdad is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Gun owners march to the Idaho Capitol in support of 2nd Amendment Cnon Idaho Gun Forum 13 02-05-2014 04:55 PM
Is this Replublican's speech applicable to today? danf_fl Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 02-01-2013 04:01 AM
1st amendment not applicable to Marines. UrbanNinja Politics, Religion and Controversy 30 04-27-2012 03:09 PM
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment sculker The Club House 3 01-19-2008 04:30 PM