The Rutherford Institute is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, a case in which the lower courts have held that the exercise of the Second Amendment is cause to invalidate the protection of the Fourth Amendment. From the Rutherford Institute . . .

WASHINGTON, DC — Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court hears only a small number of cases each year. Much as I would like to see this case settled at that level, the odds make it unlikely that the SCOTUS will hear it. This

is an important case because of the precedent established. About half of U.S. households have firearms in them. If a random sampling of homes shows that one of two homes contain a firearm, and if a firearm is sufficient cause to execute a violent (no-knock) home invasion as part of the service of a warrant, then why would any risk-adverse police force put “officer safety” at risk half the time? Logic would suggest that every warrant service should be a violent home invasion.

Then combine that stance with registration lists, which anti-rights advocates claim will be used to “protect police officers.” Advocates of the recently abandoned Canadian gun registry claimed that a major use of that registry was to check to see if homes to be visited by police held firearms. It was ultimately shown that was not the case, but that doesn’t mean a registry would not be used that way. Registration lists are already being used to confiscate firearms in California.

If the police have a list showing that there is a gun in a home, and the presence of a gun in the home is sufficient to justify a no-knock raid, then being on a gun registration list makes you a potential target. Given events of the last year in New York, Maryland, and Colorado, it’s easy to believe that you, or a gun you own, could be legislated into a group of either people banned from having guns or guns that people are prohibited from owning.

The fact is that gun registration is gun confiscation, even if in slow motion over an extended period of time. With the precedent set by this case, gun registration presents a risk of violent home invasion by police. Second Amendment defenders have been saying this for some time, as have some of the more candid opponents of RKBA freedoms.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

56 COMMENTS

  2. Does exercising the first amendment invalidate the third amendment…..oh crap, the gov is at my door with a squad of soldiers that need a place to sleep!!

    Seriously, how could this ever pass even a cursory examination?

      • DC court just ruled monitoring everyone in the US’s email, location, and contacts is legal because of terrorists, F*** the Constitution. I think we’re done.

        • Sadly I have a coworker who refuses to believe things like that are true. He just always comes back with “The government wouldn’t do that, it exists to serve people”. Hopefully he wakes up before a bunch of government thugs in ski masks smash down his door and force him to wake up.

        • Totenglocke, I’ve met people like the one you describe. Unfortunately, most don’t wake up without encouragement. That’s why I treat them like a little puppy that’s done something naughty. As soon as they come up with an excuse like “but the government would never do that”, you find 1 or more articles that refute their blatant naivete, place it in front of their nose then hit them over the head with a rolled up newspaper.

  3. I think I will excersize my 1st admendment rights by saying “HELL NO!”. Break one you break the rest.

  4. This precedent is a fact of life for Austrailians and Englishmen .Buy a gun, and waive the rest of your rights in the process.It’s also a pathway to harassment and anti-home defense safe storage laws.Set aside home invasi-I mean no knock warrants.How would you like a government official from, say ,the ATF paying house calls to make sure your guns are “responsibly stored”?No 4th Amendment for gun owners, remember?

    Don’t think for a second the antis don’t want that here.If a condition of gun ownership in America means the legal waiver of the 4th Amendment ,many folks won’t own guns at all.If you’re a newbie and face the terrifying prospect of unannounced government visitation , you probably won’t buy a gun at all.Better an unlikely chance of dying in a home invasion then the certain visitiation of a surly G-man shopping for criminal cases to manufacture.

  5. When the police take your gun, be it in your home, car, or on your person it is attacking both 2A and 4A , at the same time if you have done no real crime first… They try and make far out cases like you had action movies, or a war book so you are labeled evil in a court… That my friends this is all PURE WITCHCRAFT and the government has become more EVIL that the crime itself……I will say America today is run by WITCHCRAFT and it is doing nothing to keep us SAFE…….and now even being a war VET. makes someone EVIL …..This is all B.S. and must stop NOW…vote everyone OUT….and if you are TEA PARTY or pro Bill of Rights , or pro-family or pro-life, or do not support gay rights you are a terrorist this is all BULL!

  7. No it should not.
    The Enumerated Rights of citizens must always outweigh the false sense of security of the public good.

    • We have many rights that are not enumerated that are just as important. No right of the Citizens should ever be infringed ever.

    • You (and, really, everyone here) should understand the difference between the plain text meaning of the 4th, and what is set as precedent in today’s courts. You may find this very enlightening – it’s a long read, solely because there are so many byzantine exceptions, but it’s well worth it to become aware of all the traps that have been set:

      http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1485

      Some of the things that you’ll take away from it are so weird that you probably won’t believe me until you read it. For example, if you’re ever ordered out of your car by cops for a pat-down, make sure that you stand in front of your car, not in the back; if you’re in the back, then your trunk is “within reach”, and they can search it without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, because it is “related” to the pat-down (!!!).

  10. I would say NO. All the more reason to fight against a gun registry and another good debating point when pointing out the problems of a gun registry.

    • In the mean time I have determined I will not be on any government lists pertaining to firearms when possible. I don’t have to register where I am and won’t live where I must. I won’t shop retail for my arms and unless a miracle happens I won’t be playing with any NFA items either.

  12. Sounds like it’s time to invest in a higher grade door system, preferably with a trap door at the entrance…

  14. Make a bad Law.
    Out law drugs.
    Bust into houses to get the evidence.
    Make it Indistinguishable from a home invaision.
    Make the No-knock search on the wrong house.
    Make it my house with an XD40 at my bed side table and an M&P9 on my wife’s.
    I have to process that these are real cops, not home invaders (even though they are) and stand down?
    I, my wife, and/or a cop dies because we have to save America from weed?????
    WTF!

  15. Someone needs to make the point before the supreme court that the constitution is all or nothing. If one amendment is violated, the constitution itself has been violated. Since the constitution is also where the legal authority of the legislature comes from, then violating an amendment also nullifies the power of government.

    • violating an amendment also nullifies the power of government.

      Truth! Some believe that power in our government has already been nullified through significant breech of the contract by which the people agreed to be governed. For them, it is a matter of waiting and watching… sometimes making commentary here and there.

  16. No knock, no surrender. If I am not served a warrant first, it is a criminal home invasion and we can all die. You may surrender and live a coward and slave if you wish. Kneel before the SWAT team like a good little subject. I will live or die a free man and bow to no man. It’s what being American is all about. Freedom from the tyranny of men.

    • That’s how I think. How am I supposed to know it’s the cops? I hear knocking or maybe not. I hear “this is the police” or not. I hear banging, I grab my shotgun and the first poor bastard through the door gets it. Will I be next? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the second guy get it? Maybe, maybe not. I may get it but not without wasting someone in the proscess. These are are very possible senarios. They BETTER think before storming in. It’s for EVERYONE’S benefit.

      • Word. With all the windows breaking, smoke, gunfire and muzzle flash, I can’t hear what the alleged cop is saying or visually verify that he his a cop and not just some burglar dressed in surplus. Real cops present the warrant and refrain from cursing in front of children. Criminals kick in doors, break windows and point M4s at the heads of terrified 4 year old boys hiding from them and their creepy mustaches in the closet. That’s why my 3″ Winchester slugs are in a quick access bandolier and my shotgun is always loaded. If I didn’t invite you in, get out or get carried out in a bag. I play rough. Welcome to Wisconsin. Don’t forget to wipe your communist ass.

        • F.Y.I. Shotgun loads will not penetrate ballistic vests or body armor.

          Please note that even large caliber rifles (such as .308 Winchester) will not penetrate ballistic plates.

          In all honesty I am not sure what firearm and ammunition to use to stop a criminal attacker dressed in body armor with a ballistic vest and ballistic plates on their torso and possibly even their thighs.

          • Always go for a head shot, works all the time, or a leg shot if you don’t want a kill shot…45 acp best , next best 40 S&W or 9 MM luger +p.. and last is 45 Colt +p always a good stopped..

    • You will die, there is no “or”. How much chance do you really think you stand against a team of well-trained professionals in body armor with full auto SMGs when the first (and the last, for a while) thing you’ll see and hear is a flashbang at the floor of your living room?

      If, by some miracle, they don’t kill you when you try to defend yourself, then you will be charged for attempted murder. And if you actually manage to hit one of them, well… they’ll probably tuck you away for life.

      It’s not a particularly useful way to resist. You won’t make them afraid, and you won’t achieve much.

      • Or maybe I kill them and live to fight another day. Police are human and therefore can be killed. But you’re right. I will die. But I will take at least one other person with me. Unlike you, I am not afraid to fight.

  17. Would the federal courts have approved it if, in the days of snail mail and phone switchboards, funding was provided to copy every single address you used and every return address on mail you received, if every line and phone line out was recorded….for everybody….all the time?

    Would the federal courts have approved it if the wives of whalers in Nantucket were all arrested and jailed for 10 years because they smoked a bit of opium in the a.m. to get through a lonely day of work while husbands were a’whaling? This practice is archeological fact, BTW.

    I’d like to hear exactly what has changed. It isn’t the nature of drugs or mail. A clear law review article spelling out why things are suddenly different would be of interest. The case law really isn’t convincing.

  18. I believe the Founders’ heads would explode if someone tried to convince them that their acknowledgment of God-given, natural rights would somehow cancel each other out.

  19. Actually, just as a thought experiment.. Can someone with a decent understanding of constitutional law answer me this: Where in the Constitution does a person’s property rights supercede another’s enumerated rights to bear arms (2nd Amendment), or speech/religion for that matter? I see a bunch of language related to warrants, soldiers, quartering, etc. but little relating to behaviors among citizens with competing rights.

    Given courts’ tendency to override property rights of others for various reasons (women in mens’ clubs, gay wedding cakes, etc.), why should providers of public accomodations be allowed to discriminate against those who are engaging in lawful, Constitutionally-protected self-defense? I mean, other than the whole “two wrongs don’t make a right” thing.

    • Dr. Kenneth Noisewater,

      First and foremost, the U.S. Constitution is a document that establishes and limits government’s interaction with citizens. It is not a document that directly governs interactions between citizens.

      We as citizens in a society live under an implied “Social Contract”. The trouble is that no has ever explicitly spelled out that Social Contract and most people have never heard of it.

      To get more acquainted with the concept, research the following … it will be time well spent:
      Natural Law
      Social Contract
      John Locke
      Common Law

      Even if you read nothing more than the entries in Wikipedia it will be an excellent investment of time.

    • As others have noted, Constitution defines the powers and limits of the government (and mostly federal one at that, though 14th also made a lot of it apply to the states).

      Now, you raise a valid question by noting that various anti-discrimination laws are placed on private parties, and are legislated by the government, so there must be a constitutional justification for this. The main such law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its constitutionality has, indeed, been disputed, but it has been upheld by SCOTUS (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States). The basis for this decision has been the Commerce Clause. Arguably, as with most cases involving this clause, it is bullshit concocted for the lack of actual constitutional justification, but it is what it is.

  20. NO it doesn’t Put your guns in a gun trust and police or anybody else can’t touch them.If they do take them a lawyer will have them back in your hands within24 hrs.
    You have to outsmart these aholes and use the laws against them!
    You label your safe the” ABC Holding Company” police cannot touch it as it doesn’t belong to you,it belongs to the trust,a third party entity with a tax ID number which you are the executor of.If they breach that safe it is the same as if they were Stealing your neighbor’s firearms without cause. Now you or the trust have a case against them.It’s called turning the tables.
    They can’t take your things if they don’t belong to you.You exchange ownership for stewardship ,which YOU can change back to ownership anytime you want.

    • Yes, because cops are notorious for obeying laws and respecting our constitutional rights…if they are throwing out the 4A with a no knock raid, what makes you think they care about whose safe it is?

    • Intelligent comment, much better than bellicose statements (mostly armchair warrior BS when the chips are down) about engaging, on the losing side in your own property (even if you and your family don’t die your house is shot to sh*t), in a fire fight with militarised Police (SWAT). Second Amendment talks of a Militia which is group defence against the power of the state if/when used wrongly, not individuals allowing themselves to be picked off.

  21. If my door is knocked down in the middle of the night, knock or no knock, if I don’t have a chance to identify the user of the rifle pointed at me I’m firing first and asking questions later. This continual disrespect of peoples’ homes and personal liberty is disgusting.

  24. Short answer: No.

    Anybody who believes as such is anti-rights, and is a therefore an enemy of We, The People.

    It’s that simple.

  25. Ever notice how so many of these cases involve some druggie or other criminal in the first place? Yes, there’s always some violation of rights and yes, occasionally someone or their dog gets shot. The storm troopers are to blame and there should be legal repercussions which befall them. Still, what ever happened to the stupid people/places/things rule?

    If your kid is using and/or dealing drugs, then kick his SWAT magnet butt out of the freaking house! Because if it isn’t some SWAT entry team bashing down your door and bashing in your head, then it’s just a matter of time before it’s some Tango Blast Houstone rip crew doing the same.

Comments are closed.