How often does the US Justice Dept intervene?

[Fullmag]

Just got done reading email from NRA:

Federal Appeals Court’s Shocking Pronouncement: Lawful Gun Carriers Must Forfeit Other Rights

Question is how often does Justice Department ask to retry a decision in a circuit court over the states? Do they over turned due to request very often

 

[chipbennett]

While I agree with the ultimate outcome of this particular case, I disagree with the rationale. Once the officer recognized the armed individual as a defendant in court proceedings, and confirmed that he was, in fact, a felon, and therefore a prohibited person, the tip that he was armed, that prompted police involvement in the first case, would have been sufficient grounds to conduct a search.

But, based on the article (I've not read the decision), that wasn't the rationale used. This was, and it is just absurd:

The majority insisted that the “armed and dangerous” language in Terry really meant “armed and therefore dangerous” (emphasis in original). In other words, “the risk of danger is created simply because the person, who was forcibly stopped, is armed.”

If being armed inherently implies and evinces that one is also dangerous, then all of the applicable precedent case law would not use the phrase "armed and dangerous". Even if that were the intent of the various judicial decisions, such decisions would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence that merely being armed does not constitute danger, nor does it evince that one is inherently dangerous. There are 750K armed law enforcement officers who carry routinely, and some 12-15MM citizens who likewise carry routinely. The latter group constitutes the most law-abiding, least dangerous demographic in the country.

Per Arizona v Johnson (another decision with which I disagree), being seized for an unlawful act, and reasonable articulable suspicion that the detainee is armed, satisfies the Terry v Ohio requirements of being "armed and dangerous." The officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Robinson was armed (phone tip called in to police). However, merely being armed, where being armed is lawful, is not evidence of an unlawful act (see US v Black). The officers pulled over the vehicle because the occupants were not wearing seatbelts, which likely satisfies the Arizona v Johnson decision (and which also demonstrates why I disagree with that decision).

This decision is indeed a threat to the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens who lawfully carry firearms.

If "armed" inherently implies "dangerous", then it is time to disarm 750K law enforcement officers.

 

[chipbennett]

I suppose I should have read the rest of the article, too:

If the majority opinion were not bad enough, Judge James A. Wynn wrote an incendiary concurrence berating the majority for focusing broadly on “weapons” rather than on firearms specifically. Wynn’s opinion argued that the majority’s reasoning also necessitated recognition of two other “key issues.” The first, Wynn wrote, is that “individuals who carry firearms -- lawfully or unlawfully -- pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers, in particular.” The second is that “individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”

Judge Wynn went on to explain how he believes the law of the Fourth Circuit – which includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia – is now that lawful gun owners are second class citizens.


“[T]he majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights,” Wynn wrote, “like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers ‘knock-and-announce’ before forcibly entering homes.” He continued, “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.”

Dear Judge James A. Wynn: **** you. You are a disgrace to the judiciary, to the Rule of Law, to the Constitution, to law-abiding citizens, and to humankind.

You deserve to be removed from the bench, disbarred, tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

 

[Fullmag]

Not being versed in law is it normal for the US court to say re-try an appeal court again? The course and extent the judge stretched this is scary. Even the gun control folks should be scared.

 

[Methane Herder]

Tomorrow morning, after breakfast, I will excrete something that would be capable of producing the same thought process that went on in The Honorable Judge Flynn's head. I would not argue the point if someone were to consider both to be equivalent substances.
MH