Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gorsuch and concealed weapons and the 4th Amendment

On the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.

The facts of the case are these. A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun. Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so. The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez. After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.

Of course, hard cases make bad law. But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come. Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

There was a big thread a week or two back about a court decision in which they upheld a cop's right to disarm and frisk any concealed carry people upon a stop.

Looks like Gorsuch agreed with a similar opinion. He didn't write the opinion, but he signed on to it.

One case is hardly cause for panic, but it's good to be aware of it and I hope that one of the brilliant pro-2A Senators grills him on it during his confirmation hearing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html

I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.

Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.

Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...

I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.

Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?

That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?

Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.

Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...

Not everyone is concerned.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...suchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court


Can anyone name a better nominee?

One that could actually pass the vetting and get confirmed?

Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?

That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?

The cop got it right. A bad guy lost his firearm and it turns out he was a convicted felon. If the bad guy would have had it open carry, would the officer acted the same way? Who knows. The bottom line is the guy was a convicted felon and he had no right to carry at all.

None of us were there a the time the stop and frisk was made. (Terry vs Ohio) We don't know all the circumstances and we don't know what else the Officer knew or saw that is not reported in this piece.

I see this decision as supporting the LEO and protecting future LEO's as they do their job. I completely disagree with the sentence that says " Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights". Everyday we get bombarded by people, courts, the media and lawyers about respecting the rights of Americans and we were expected to protect and honor those rights.

Some folks have lost their 2nd Amendment rights through their own bad behavior. It's the LEO's job to sort that out, sometimes in difficult circumstances and on very short notice. This decision by the courts says that the 10th Circuit supports the LEO's making those difficult decisions.
kwg

Yup, you are correct, it is a "Story".

Here is the actual decision.

read it then come back with something more that what was published as a "story".

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ

Not everyone is concerned.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...suchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court


Can anyone name a better nominee?

One that could actually pass the vetting and get confirmed?