Another Fed Court Rules that Exercising 2A Could Diminish Other Rights
Like Tree9Likes
  • 2 Post By Merlin
  • 2 Post By Sean K.
  • 3 Post By TomAiello
  • 1 Post By Bravo
  • 1 Post By Mechanic
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Another Fed Court Rules that Exercising 2A Could Diminish Other Rights

  1. #1
    XCR Guru Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,507

    Another Fed Court Rules that Exercising 2A Could Diminish Other Rights

    So If I answer the door, I don't usually unless I know who it is, my gun is in behind my back. I wonder how they would handle that? In this case the 'officer' Did Not Identify himself, so if I shot the idiot I would be probably be charged with murder of a LEO.
    As one of the comments made is I agree, A Right Cannot Be Diminished and If It Is, It Was Never a Right.

    https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ano...minish-rights/

    A panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Thursday that a police officer will not face civil penalties for shooting and killing an innocent man because he was holding a handgun when the officer knocked on his door.

    The full circuit court declined to review the case, meaning the panel’s decision stands.

    As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern notes in an excellent analysis of the case, the Eleventh Circuit Court’s ruling followed a Fourth Circuit Court ruling from January that effectively held that the exercise of Second Amendment rights diminishes Fourth Amendment rights.

    In other words, possessing a handgun in your own home could subject you to police actions that would not otherwise be permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

    The incident in question took place late one night in 2012. Andrew Scott and his girlfriend were playing video games in their Florida home when they heard loud banging at their door. No one yelled or called to them. Scott, unsure why someone would knock on his door without identifying themselves, retrieved his legally-owned handgun and went to investigate.

    The facts of the case get a bit fuzzy at this point. Deputy Richard Sylvester, the police officer who was banging on the door, says that Scott pointed a handgun directly at his face. Scott’s attorney presented evidence at the trial that indicated his client actually retreated, keeping the gun down the whole time.

    In either case, Sylvester, without identifying himself as a police officer, fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott.

    Sylvester was at Scott’s home looking for another person suspected of armed assault and battery. He had reason to suspect the man answering the door might be dangerous, and, if his account is true, had even better reason to believe his life might be in danger.

    But, as David French at the National Review points out, the Eleventh Circuit Court was required in this case to assume that Scott’s version of events was true. The court ruled, in other words, that a police officer can kill a person in his own home simply for holding a gun at his side.

    They justified their decision using a legal principle called “qualified immunity.” Essentially, qualified immunity bars individuals from suing the government for violating their rights unless those rights were “clearly established.” This requires the plaintiff’s lawyers to find another case with almost identical facts in which the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor.

    Scott’s attorney could not find a similar case and could therefore not prove his client’s rights were “clearly established.”

    In her dissent, Judge Beverly Martin pointed out the huge, Second-Amendment-sized holes in the court’s argument. Sylvester’s decision to shoot Scott for holding a handgun violates his “clearly established” right under the Second Amendment.

    The “conclusion that deadly force was reasonable here,” Martin noted, “plainly infringes on the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’”:

    If Mr. Scott was subject to being shot and killed, simply because (as the District Court put it) he made the “fateful decision” to answer a late-night disturbance at the door to his house, and did so while holding his firearm pointed safely at the ground, then the Second Amendment (and Heller) had little effect.
    Both French and Stern call upon the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit Court rulings, which, if Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed this week, could happen in the near future.
    Sean K. and Mechanic like this.

    "Be Vigilant and Safe!!"
    "Molon Labe!!"
    "It Is A Weak Man Who Urges Compromise!!"

  2. #2
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    20,066
    More qualified immunity BULLSHIT. That shit needs to be completely revoked, yet won't be. Apparently, "conservative" Amerikans are perfectly fine with giving extra rights to those who wear a government costume. Fuckin' Fascists.
    Mechanic and Merlin like this.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  3. #3
    XCR Guru TomAiello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    5,566
    Their reasoning isn't just about the Second Amendment.

    If you follow it to it's natural conclusion, the exercise of any right leads to the diminishment of all others.

    Want to speak out in political dissent? Then you surrender your 4th Amendment rights.
    Sean K., Merlin and Bravo like this.
    - Tom Aiello
    tbaiello@mac.com

    ...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    XCR Guru Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,509
    And this is why I don't answer the door without seeing who's on the front porch first (unless of course I'm expecting someone).
    And my pistol (or something larger) is in my hand..... it's just that my hand is out of sight of anyone on the other side of the doorway.
    Merlin likes this.
    Do you really think we want laws to be observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants law-abiding citizens? Pass the kind of laws that can’t be observed, enforced, or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers.

  6. #5
    Carbineman xdmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    67
    That is down right nuts.
    Travis Kay
    linkedin.com/in/kaytravis
    twitter.com/traviskay
    CCFR, CSSA, NRA member, are you? In the greater Vancouver area? Drop me a PM

  7. #6
    Expert Mechanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lebanon, IN
    Posts
    1,117
    So the gist is to be prepared to defend yourself if you answer the door while armed. I'm curious how the lying sack of shit cop managed to fire six shots with a gun in his face?
    Bravo likes this.
    "Don't Tread On Me!"
    -- (reiterated without permission) Rich Hornay

  8. #7
    XCR Guru Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post
    So the gist is to be prepared to defend yourself if you answer the door while armed. I'm curious how the lying sack of shit cop managed to fire six shots with a gun in his face?
    Think they said the victim was backing away down the hall according to the girlfriend.

    "Be Vigilant and Safe!!"
    "Molon Labe!!"
    "It Is A Weak Man Who Urges Compromise!!"

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-04-2017, 12:28 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-26-2014, 03:38 PM
  3. Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules
    By Merlin in forum Politicking
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-13-2014, 04:57 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 07:15 PM
  5. Colorado Court of Appeals rules to allow guns on campus
    By dont_tread_on_me in forum Politicking
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 11:53 AM