GOA Case Goes Before the U.S. Supreme Court

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

-- While on the political scene, GOA exposing lying politicians

The Supreme Court held oral arguments on Monday in a case where Gun Owners of America is heavily involved.

The case is Heien v. North Carolina, where a driver was pulled over by police because his car’s right rear brake light was not functioning properly -- even though state law requires only one working rear “lamp.”

Nevertheless, the state Supreme Court upheld the stop and search, claiming it to be “reasonable.” Thus, the old maxim has been revised to “ignorance of the law is no excuse — unless you are the one enforcing the law.”

GOA’s brief defends the Fourth Amendment property right to the security of one’s person. If no law has been violated, then the government has no superior interest in detaining a person or seizing property, and thus the search and seizure was unconstitutional no matter how “reasonable” the police may have acted.

To put it more bluntly, since Mr. Heien was violating no law when he was stopped, the state objectively has no property interest in his person or in his car or anything that could potentially be found in his car (like a gun). For that reason alone, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment, regardless of how “reasonable” some North Carolina judges subjectively believed the police had acted.

Protecting the Fourth Amendment is important because it ultimately protects gun owners from being illegally stopped, searched and having their firearms seized.

You can help support cases like this by giving generously to the work that GOA does.

Not only will that help us to challenge anti-gun laws in the courts, you will be helping GOA to magnify its no-compromise message on Capitol Hill.

GOA holding lying politicians accountable

You’ve heard the old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying?

Answer: His lips are moving!

While it’s a funny line, we know, of course, that this is no joke. We’ve all grown accustomed to the typical Washington-style politics, where anti-gun politicians will vote to eviscerate the Constitution and to restrict your Second Amendment rights when they’re in Washington, but at election time, they tell you they’ve been with you all along.

Well, GOA has been ferreting out egregious examples of lying lips, and exposing them in their home states.

You can check out our exposés of Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Mark Udall (D-CO) on the GOA website.

Or make sure you friend us on Facebook to get these updates in a timely manner.

Voter Guide coming soon!

And speaking of elections, the best way to cut through the B.S. that so many politicians put out at election time is to make sure you get a copy of the GOA voter guide, which we have published for the past two decades.

GOA’s voter guide -- which will be posted on GOA’s website within the next week -- is a great tool for helping gun owners know which candidates really support their gun rights, and which ones are just trying to hoodwink the voters.

So please stay tuned. We will be alerting you to this soon!

[Subdeacon Joe]

If we, as "civilians," have to follow the law in all its minutia, then agents of the State should also have to follow the law in all its minutia.

[The Shoer 27979]

If we, as "civilians," have to follow the law in all its minutia, then agents of the State should also have to follow the law in all its minutia.

I have been saying that for years Joe

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

Just a matter of form we 'Civilians' also include all police that are not "Soldiers" "Sailors" "Marines" "Airmen" or what ever a non derogatory term for "Coastie" is provided they are operating under the DOD. Police are not and should not be military and hence are civilians, were they actually the military posse comitatus would preclude them engaging in law enforcement activities.

 

Guess 11 years in the infantry has made me crotchety or maybe just the calendar has.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Just a matter of form we 'Civilians' also include all police that are not "Soldiers" "Sailors" "Marines" "Airmen" or what ever a non derogatory term for "Coastie" is provided they are operating under the DOD. Police are not and should not be military and hence are civilians, were they actually the military posse comitatus would preclude them engaging in law enforcement activities.

 

Guess 11 years in the infantry has made me crotchety or maybe just the calendar has.

 

That's why I put "civilian" in quotes. LEOs are, for the most part, "civilians" too (keeping in mind that some may be in the reserves or Guard). I'm not fond of LEOs creating an us/them by calling those who don't have a badge "civilians."

[Smoken D]

If the consented search is not upheld, will the cocaine be returned? This will be another question as with was this a reasonable stop. Will be a interesting legal outcome.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

If we, as "civilians," have to follow the law in all its minutia, then agents of the State should also have to follow the law in all its minutia.

 

ya think!

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

ya think!

 

Not often. If you get a reputation as a thinker, people will expect it of you.

[Smoken D]

If we, as "civilians," have to follow the law in all its minutia, then agents of the State should also have to follow the law in all its minutia.

 

Could there ever be any exceptions? Such as running code 1? Possession of a firearm in a bar, bank. Jumping into a no swimming area to save a child?

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

Could there ever be any exceptions? Such as running code 1? Possession of a firearm in a bar, bank. Jumping into a no swimming area to save a child?

 

Why can't a "civilian" have the same exceptions? If ordinary, non-badge carrying honest citizens carry into a bank or bar, do they automatically try to rob the bank or shoot up the bar? Do thugs automatically say, "Gee....I can't bring my gun into that bank?" and so leave their guns outside? Or decide not to rob that bank because they can't bring in their guns? Felons are not allowed to so much as touch a firearm, but I have seen cases where, when they had reasonable fear for their life and the lives of others, use a firearm in self defense and the State acknowledged that, yes, their right to protect their lives trumped the prohibition on their being in possession of a firearm.

 

Also, in the context of the original post, given the power and resources of the State (government at any level), I expect the State to have to follow every jot, tittle, and iota of the law as a protection for citizens. We can't say, "Oh, I didn't know what the law was." and expect the State to say, "Well, in that case, we'll let it go." Why should a citizen be expected to tell the State, "OK, your guy didn't know the law and violated my rights, but I'll let it slide."? I'm not willing to give the State any slack at all in their procedures, or knowledge of the law, unless it is in the favor of the citizen or the suspect/accused. The law is there not just to protect us from predators, but also from the overwhelming power of the State.

 

 

 

 

[Smoken D]

 

Why can't a "civilian" have the same exceptions? If ordinary, non-badge carrying honest citizens carry into a bank or bar, do they automatically try to rob the bank or shoot up the bar? Do thugs automatically say, "Gee....I can't bring my gun into that bank?" and so leave their guns outside? Or decide not to rob that bank because they can't bring in their guns? Felons are not allowed to so much as touch a firearm, but I have seen cases where, when they had reasonable fear for their life and the lives of others, use a firearm in self defense and the State acknowledged that, yes, their right to protect their lives trumped the prohibition on their being in possession of a firearm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Been several times a "civilian" stopped at a red light then proceeded through it. Found out a medical emergency and no ticket written. If a bank or bar post, "No Firearms", should it not be illegal to carry in that establishment. Does not that owner have to right to run their business as they want? So a person comes into that establishment with a firearm saying, I have the right to carry where ever I want.

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

 

Been several times a "civilian" stopped at a red light then proceeded through it. Found out a medical emergency and no ticket written. If a bank or bar post, "No Firearms", should it not be illegal to carry in that establishment. Does not that owner have to right to run their business as they want? So a person comes into that establishment with a firearm saying, I have the right to carry where ever I want.

 

We are getting far afield from the original post - an agent of the State made a stop based on his mistaken idea of what the law is. Based on that questionable stop, a citizen was arrested. I'm expected, even if I don't know the law, to obey the law. Why should an agent of the State, in this case a LEO, not be expected to obey the law to the same extent I am? Especially when, by his making a mistake in the law, a person is subject to arrest? You are suggesting that, well, gee, the LEO didn't know the law, so he doesn't have to follow it. And, yes, we can play all sort of "what if" games until the cows not only come home but die of old age, coming up with all sorts of contorted "if a child is hanging from a burning flagpole in the middle of a "gun free" school swimming pool, can a LEO (or a person with a CCW) rush in to save that child without stopping to disarm?"

[Smoken D]

This would be the same case that is before the Supreme Court. Say the same situation the officer stopped the vehicle and upon walking up to the car observed a child's bloody body lying in the back seat. The driver after being advised the Miranda Warning admits to shooting this child resulting in their murder. Now what do we do, was this an illegal stop? And if so the admission must be thrown out along with any finding from this vehicle being stopped. How to get away with a child's murder?

[Blackwater 53393]

 

 

Been several times a "civilian" stopped at a red light then proceeded through it. Found out a medical emergency and no ticket written. If a bank or bar post, "No Firearms", should it not be illegal to carry in that establishment. Does not that owner have to right to run their business as they want? So a person comes into that establishment with a firearm saying, I have the right to carry where ever I want.

 

I my home state, the store or bar or bank or whatever must post a special placard of a certain size and with specific wording, including a quote of the state ordinance, or the establishment can only ask the armed patron to leave. So long as that patron leaves peaceably, he is protected from prosecution.

 

A simple "NO FIREARMS" sign won't be seen as valid past the right to ask someone to leave. So if our legally armed permit holding hero goes in and saves the child in SDJ's example, when the emergency is over, our hero will be able to walk away without fear of persecution. And no, I didn't mean prosecution.

[Dubious Don #56333]

Police are people too; none of us is infallible and we rely on our training to direct our actions. Some mistakes gives your brothers and sisters untold hours of joy in teasing one about; some mistakes cost hours of tedious court time and still others can cost one his or her life. The case cited above was repeated in my own State; it went as far as the AZ Supreme Court as far as I am aware and while AZ still has a valid law on the books that says one must have WORKING equipment if it is installed that Supreme Court case would seem to be in conflict with that. Grey area comes to mind. Since I do not like court and I like even less to get sued, I do not stop people with one tail light but I know those that do because they like walking closer to the edge than I do. It's still legal however and a choice.

 

Kind of like how fast/far are you going to chase a speeder? 45? 65? 85? 105? 115? 135? Traffic and roadway conditions notwithstanding of course. You can bet that no matter what the conditions, reasons or speed, EVERY little thing is going to be torn apart, microscopically, anally in the cold, bright light of a prosecutor's office or courtroom. Just ask my friend whom we'll call Dude. He was exceeding the speed limit by a good degree in the city trying to keep a homicide suspect in sight. Not pursuing, just keeping up so they could eventually box and stop him. An elderly driver failed to yield from a stop sign drove in front of him and was killed. Talk about second guessing. The agency that did the investigation recommended homicide charges. Correct and not unexpected. The prosecutor didn't agree. Then the knives and the mud came out and it got personal. And ugly.

 

Dude is currently in the process of losing everything. Wife, kids, job, everything. He might get to keep his pension. Maybe. Did he go out that day with any evil intent? Of course not. Did he make an informed decision about how fast to go considering the conditions and the golden BB got him? (Black cloud if you prefer) You decide. I know what Dude would say.

 

I prefer the term 'Citizen'. On the side of almost every police vehicle I've driven over the 35+ years used to be the motto "Protect and Serve". Our Chief Deputy recently changed that to Integrity, Accountability, Community. Took me a while to like that one, being a traditionalist and all (Kind of like going from all white to black & white to all black cars) but I've grown to like it. WE are citizens first and the ONLY government officials empowered by law to deprive another citizen not only of their liberty but their life if necessary. It is not a duty I take lightly nor is it one that is easy to navigate as I have done all these years. There were eleven in my academy class and the same number for another agency. Less than five made it to 20 (retirement) Only three of us with my agency made it to twenty and only two of us are left. Of those I started out with all those years ago only a handful are left, leaving for retirement, people who discovered policing just wasn't 'it' for them, those who got the big sendoff with bagpipes, twenty one gun salute and a flag handed to their next of kin and of course, those who fell astray. I know quite a few police who fall in that latter category as policing is not very tolerant of certain violations of either law or policy. Those in the former I think about every day. I am not ashamed to admit that some of my dead friends haunt my dreams.

 

The next time some of you choose to make a stupid remark about police or think all cops have an us and them mentality, kindly remember there are those of us who gave all and there are also those like me who put the badge on every day and our greatest daily accomplishment is A going home at the end of the day and B serving our fellow citizens to the best of our ability.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well said, Don. I don't think any of us expect LEOs to be perfect.

 

But I do expect that, as I said above, if I have to obey the law even if I don't know what it is, I expect the same from the agents of the State who have the responsibility of enforcing the law. And, because of the overwhelming power of the State, I expect any slight mistake by a LEO on the knowledge or application of the law to be turned in the favor of the ordinary citizen. Most of us don't have a swarm of lawyers, investigators, labs, and experts at our beck and call as the State does.

One thing I have noticed both here and in the Saloon is that everyone is more than willing to come down on BATFE, IRS, etc. for the least little thing, but will cut other agents of the government (LEOs) lots of slack. Yes, there is a difference between the cop on the beat and an agent of a federal bureau, department, or agency. But, ultimately, they are, all of them including LEOs, agents of the State.