I'm really getting tired of having to preface all these court decisions and government edicts with "You can't make this shit up!".
Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides en banc that even if you are a legal firearm owner in your home, or a legal carrier of a firearm outside your home, by virtue of that legal ownership and/or carrying you forfeit at least some of your Fourth Amendment rights and First Amendment rights, because you are, ipso facto, "dangerous". No, I mean it, you
can't make this shit up! The only good thing for us here in Hawaii is that we are immune to giving up our rights when carrying because we can't carry! How's that for making lemons into lemonade?!
We
deserve "no knock" raids in our homes
simply because we are lawful firearms owners! I'm totally flabbergasted... but not quite speechless...
Check out the "reasoning" (my emphasis):
"I see no basis — nor does the majority opinion provide any — for limiting our conclusion that
individuals who choose to carry firearms are categorically dangerous to the Terry frisk inquiry. Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that
individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment."
The decision:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions.../144902A.P.pdfArticle from NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444180/gun-control-fourth-circuit-court-appeals-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rightsExcerpt:
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just suffered from an outbreak of bad judging. In an en banc opinion, the court ruled that after a lawful traffic stop, the police may frisk any person who they believe may possess a firearm, regardless of whether that person possesses a concealed-carry permit. The court actually typed this sentence: “The danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon,
not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession” (emphasis added.) The implications were clear: Even lawful gun owners are by definition “dangerous” and can be broadly treated as such by the state.