Mediaboss Marketing

On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a long-standing dispute in Indiana:

May a police officer detainan individual in possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person's possession of the gun is lawful?

In Pinner v. State, the court ruled that the mere possession of a gun, without some additional indication that the possession is illegal, does not justify a police officer in conducting an "investigatory stop" of the individual to check to see if the person has a License to Carry Handgun or that the person's possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful. And since the possession of a gun alone does not justify a stop - it also does not justify a search of the individual as part of a "stop & frisk."

Now,Indiana Attorney GeneralCurtis Hillis asking the United States Supreme Court to accept a case that originated in West Virginia, Shaquille Robinson v. U.S..and urging SCOTUS to create a similar rule for the country as a whole thatIndiana adopted in the Pinner case.

In Robinson, a witness called authorities to report that he had seen a man in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven loading a gun and placing that gun into his pocket. The witness gave a description of the armed man and the car he got into in the parking lot. Officers then pulled over the car - purportedly because neither Robinson nor the female driver were wearing a seatbelt - and asked Robinson to exit the vehicle. When asked if he was armed, Robinson did not respond verbally but gave the officer "a weird look." At this point, Robinson was directed to place his hands on the roof of the vehicle,he was searched, and the officer recovered a handgun from his pocket. Robinson was arrested, prosecuted and convictedunder federal law for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the primary issue was whether police had the legal right to search Robinson during the traffic stop. Robinson argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, since the police officers were acting only on a tip that he was armed and had no reason to believe that his possession of a firearm was illegal or that he was a danger to the officers at the time of the stop. In ruling that the search was legal and upholding Robinson's conviction, the Fourth Circuit held that the mere possession of a firearm is sufficient for a police officer to fear for his safety and justifies a search of the person who is reportedly armed -- even with no reason to believe that the person's possession of the firearm is illegal.

Now, Indiana is among five states (including Michigan, Utah, Texas and West Virginia) who have filed an "amicus curiae" (friend of the court)brief, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Robinson's petition for certiorari and to review the case.

In the brief, Indiana argues that the Fourth Circuit's ruling "forces an individual to choose between her right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and her right to be free from searches under the Fourth Amendment." In effect, Indiana is now asking SCOTUS to adopt arule very similar to the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court inthis year's Pinner case - that the mere possession of a firearm is not sufficient to justify a stop or a searchof a person by a police officer without some other reason to believe that the armed person is committing a crime or is a danger to the officer.

Hoosiers should be proud that the State of Indiana, through our Attorney General, is taking a stand in support of our Constitutional rightsnot only our right to bear arms, but our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizuresrecognizing that a person who chooses to exercise his Second Amendment rights should not automatically forfeit his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Guy A. Relford

Guy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author of Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies (Wiley & Sons Publications, 2012). He hosts The Gun Guy with Guy Relford on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.

Read the original here:
Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When ... - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said Monday he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women. (WHAM photo)

Honeoye Falls, N.Y. (WHAM) - Opponents of New York state's controversial SAFE Act are turning to Congress for help.

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women.

The SAFE Act - which became law in 2013 - lumps the shotguns and rifles used by hunters and sportsmen in with all handguns, including those Governor Cuomo called assault weapons.

"This is the first time I can remember any legislation that was more harmful to law-abiding citizens - legally - than it is to criminals," said Tim Andrews of SCOPE.

"Governor, you are on notice. We are going to repeal and declare, null-and-void, your SAFE Act," Collins told a cheering crowd at Rochester Brooks Gun Club in Honeoye Falls.

On Monday afternoon, Collins unveiled the bill, which he refers to as SAGA - the Second Amendment Guarantee Act.

"Knowing the members as I do, we will have overwhelming support on this bill," Collins said while visiting the Rochester Brooks Gun Club. "Certainly, the minute they find out that the NRA and SCOPE may well be scoring this related to their Congressional score card, we'll get universal support."

SAGA seeks to limit a state's ability to regulate or impose penalties on rifles and shotguns. For example, the SAFE Act Provision limiting rifles to 10 rounds would be replaced with federal standards which currently do not have a limit. Yet it will have no impact on magazine restrictions for handguns.

"It's a good start and better than trying to wait for the whole enchilada," said Gary Zelinski of Canandaigua. "You've got to do something at this point."

New York courts have upheld the SAFE Act, and Republican proposals at the state level - including one to exempt upstate - will not pass without the support of Assembly Democrats from downstate.

"They have a different view on gun ownership," said Senator Rob Ortt (R) Niagara County. "Many of them equate it with crime. We equate the Second Amendment with freedom."

State Senator Rich Funke said, "This federal legislation may well be what we need to restore the freedom New Yorkers have enjoyed for centuries."

The bill asks conservative Republicans to limit the rights of states, but Collins predicted the bill will have the support it needs. "We're not going to allow a state to stomp on your rights for religion, and we're not going to let them stomp on the Second Amendment, and that's the difference," said Collins. "It is state's rights until they override a constitutional amendment."

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a statement Monday afternoon, blasting the bill as a, "blatant political ploy," and, "disturbing."

Read more from the original source:
Rep. Collins to introduce Second Amendment Guarantee Act - 13WHAM-TV

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: The National Rifle Association is the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? Visit NRACarryGuardExpo.com today to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

See the original post:
MMA Legend Royce Gracie on the Second Amendment - Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

When a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided an important gun rights case last week, some advocates were already thinking ahead.

Clark Neily of the Cato Institute told my colleague Ann E. Marimow that the 2-to-1 ruling against the Districts requirement of a good reason to obtain a permit to carry a gun in public was thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned.

[Appeals court blocks D.C.s concealed carry law]

It would make an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home, Neily said.

As if.

The fact is the justices have shown a remarkable lack of interest in deciding that issue, or in expanding upon their landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. They have had multiple chances to define with specificity what the Second Amendment protects beyond Hellers guarantee of individual gun ownership in ones home, and they have declined each opportunity.

Just last month, the court decided to stay out of a similar case from California, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

[Supreme Court declines to review California concealed-carry law]

Declining to even review the ruling brought an impatient rebuke from Justice Clarence Thomas.

It reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, wrote Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Thomas said he found the 9th Circuits ruling indefensible.

But even if other members of the court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six states have asked us to resolve the question presented, he wrote.

Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith acknowledged the absence of clear direction at the beginning of his opinion last week on the D.C. permit procedure.

Constitutional challenges to gun laws create peculiar puzzles for courts, he wrote, because they require balancing the highest goal of government protecting innocent lives against individual rights bestowed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, he observed, has offered little guidance.

The courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment is younger than the first iPhone, Griffith wrote. And by its own admission, that first treatment manages to be mute on how to review gun laws in a range of other cases.

By listening closely to what the court had to say in Heller, Griffith and Judge Stephen F. Williams blocked the Districts law as a violation of a core Second Amendment protection.

The law requires those seeking a permit to carry a concealed firearm to show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. Living in a high-crime area shall not by itself qualify as a good reason.

As of July 15, D.C. police had approved 126 concealed-carry licenses and denied 417 applicants.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson came up with a very different interpretation from her colleagues. Heller blessed the Districts regulation, she wrote, because of the citys unique security challenges as the nations capital and because the permit process does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The sole Second Amendment core right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home, Henderson wrote.

She added that by characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.

She noted that her colleagues had put on blinders to the historical analyses of the D.C. Circuits sister circuits: All who have considered the issue concluded that restrictive state regulations on carry permits are constitutional.

There arent many states with such stringent requirements Maryland, New Jersey and New York are among them. They are outliers, said attorney Alan Gura, a go-to Second Amendment lawyer who successfully argued Heller at the Supreme Court and the D.C. case, Wrenn v. District of Columbia, as 44 states allow citizens to claim their rights.

As is its custom, the Supreme Court has not given reasons when it declined to review the lower court decisions upholding the state restrictions. That unanimity, though, could be one reason the Supreme Court has not gotten involved.

The court most often steps in when there is a conflict in the lower courts. The D.C. Circuits panel decision creates that for now.

The city has not decided on its next legal move, but it seems likely to ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the panels decision. As David Kopel, a University of Denver law professor and gun rights activist notes, when Heller was decided in that court a decade ago, the full circuit declined to review and overturn the panels groundbreaking endorsement of an individual right to gun ownership.

But the court has changed dramatically since then. It is more liberal now, with a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

If the full D.C. Circuit joined its sister circuits in upholding the good reason requirement, gun rights activists would be back to the Supreme Court, again asking for review.

As Thomass dissent indicates, there is some division on the court on the matter, and reasons for why the justices have not stepped in are a matter of speculation.

Perhaps a solid majority agrees the lower courts have read Heller correctly and that it leaves space for jurisdictions to impose stringent requirements for carrying a gun outside the home.

Or perhaps the court remains closely divided Heller was decided on a 5-to-4 vote and the justices simply have little appetite for tackling the controversial matter of guns in the absence of a lower court disagreement that would force their hands.

Visit link:
D.C. gun ruling again raises an issue the Supreme Court has been ... - Washington Post

Its happened again. Police officers in Southaven, Miss., were trying to serve an arrest warrant for aggravated assault on a man named Samuel Pearman, but instead they showed up at a trailer owned by an auto mechanic named Ismael Lopez. It was nighttime, and according to his wife, Lopez went to the door to investigate a noise. She stayed in bed.

What happened next was tragic. According to the police, Lopez opened his door and a pit bull charged out. One officer opened fire on the dog, the other officer fired on the man allegedly holding a gun in the doorway, pointing it at the men approaching his home. As the Washington Post reported on July 26, it was only after the smoke cleared that the officers made their heart-dropping discovery: They were at the wrong home.

Lopez died that night. Just like Andrew Scott died in his entrance hall, gun in hand, when the police pounded on the wrong door late one night, Scott opened it, saw shadowy figures outside, and started to retreat back into his house. Police opened fire, and he died in seconds.

Angel Mendez was more fortunate. He only lost his leg when the police barged into his home without a warrant and without announcing themselves. They saw his BB gun and opened fire, inflicting grievous wounds.

If past precedent holds, its likely that the officers who killed Ismael Lopez will be treated exactly like the officers in the Scott and Mendez cases. They wont be prosecuted for crimes, and theyll probably even be immune from civil suit, with the court following precedents holding that the officers didnt violate Lopezs clearly established constitutional rights when they approached the wrong house. After all, officers have their own rights of self-defense. What, exactly, are they supposed to do when a gun is pointed at their face?

In other words, the law typically allows officers to shoot innocent homeowners who are lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights and then provides these same innocent victims with no compensation for the deaths and injuries that result. This is unacceptable, its unjust, and it undermines the Second Amendment.

Think where this leaves homeowners who hear strange sounds or who confront pounding on the door. Should they risk their safety by leaving their gun in the safe while they check to make sure its not the police? Should they risk their lives by bringing the gun to the door, knowing that the police may not announce themselves and may simply be trying to barge into the wrong home? Doesnt the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure include a right to be free of armed, mistaken, warrantless, home intrusions?

Its time for the law to accommodate the Second Amendment. Its time for legal doctrine to reflect that when the state intrudes in the wrong home or lawlessly or recklessly even into the right home that it absolutely bears the costs of its own mistakes. Its time for law enforcement practice to reflect the reality that tens of millions of law-abiding men and women exercise their fundamental, constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families.

What does this mean, in practice? First, extraordinarily dangerous and kinetic no-knock raids should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. Writers such as Radley Balko have written extensively about the prevalence of the practice (even in routine drug busts), the dangers inherent in dynamic entry, and the sad and terrible circumstances where the police find themselves in a gunfight with terrified homeowners.

Second, prosecutors should closely scrutinize every single instance of mistaken-identity raids. Good-faith mistakes are always possible, but given the stakes involved when police raid homes or pound on doors late at night with their guns drawn, they should exercise a high degree of care and caution in choosing the right house. Its hard to imagine a worse or more tragic injustice than being gunned down in your own home by mistaken agents of the state.

Third, if and when police do kill or injure innocent homeowners, they should be stripped of qualified immunity even when the homeowner is armed. There are circumstances where it would improper to file criminal charges against an officer who makes a good-faith mistake and finds himself making an immediate life-or-death situation, but when the mistake is his, then he should face strict liability for all the harm he causes.

As the law now stands, police are not only rarely prosecuted when they violate the Fourth and Second Amendment rights of innocent homeowners by gunning them down in their own home, its often difficult even to impose civil liability. Innocent men and women are left with no recourse, and officers remain immune from judicial accountability for their own, tragic mistakes.

Last year a Minnesota police officer shot a lawfully armed Philando Castile during a traffic stop despite the fact that Castile was precisely following the officers commands. The officers acquittal unquestionably undermined the Second Amendment, but such shootings are mercifully rare. More common are the panicked, confused moments late at night or early in the morning when a homeowner hears shouts at his door, or someone breaks it down, and all he knows is that armed men are in his house. In those moments, a persons rights of self-defense are at their unquestioned apex. Its the states responsibility to protect those rights, not snuff out a life and escape all legal consequence.

READ MORE: Another Federal Court of Appeals Attacks the Second Amendment The Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence The Real Reason Officers Are Rarely Convicted of Shooting Suspects

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

More:
It's Time to Deal with the Police Threat to the Second Amendment - National Review