East_TN_Patriot

No, the only time a LEO can do any sort of entry without a warrant is when the officer has suitable evidence to support the belief that exigent circumstances exist. It's been that way since before I started policing in 1997. If a cop kicks in your door without a warrant or probable cause, they are violating the 4th Amendment, will likely subject themselves to civil penalties, and may even open themselves up for criminal charges. I totally get your point that we don't want the police to be able to kick in doors on a whim, but these particular cases did not take us anywhere down that road.

Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar' - Guns - Fox Nation

And this is actually a very important point. Poor folks have very little recourse when their rights have been violated because lawyers don't work for free. This has been a major issue in the criticisms of asset forfeiture.

Yes, you could. That's exactly what "probable cause" is. It's an educated guess based on information at hand. If the officer has enough information to believe that there is a crime in progress, the reasonableness clause of the 4th Amendment has been met. Probable cause is nothing more than a collection of observations that lead the officer to draw a conclusion about whether a person has just engaged in a crime, is in the process of engaging in a crime, or is getting ready to commit a crime. It has to be enough information that another reasonable person when given the same facts would draw the same conclusion. Not only do the facts have to lead the officer to "think" a crime is taking place, but eventually a jury of normal folks will have to "think" the same thing when the information is given at trial. Probable cause is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required to convict at criminal trial, and even that standard does not require absolute certainty. No where in this case does the Court give the police to kick in doors on a random hunch or mere suspicion.

My issue is HOW people draw their conclusions. When people disregard facts in order to back up their own opinion and then treat that as fact, I take issue with it. Opinions are like @$$holes. Informed opinions, based on a wide variety of facts and information, are not. Every arguement I've read here is grounded on a completely false and incorrect assumption about what these cases said. That is not just any old opinion. It's much like the gun control nuts who base their "opinions" on false assumptions and emotional responses to the issue. Are you suggesting that their opinion is just as valid as yours? It's like saying the sky is green, but no matter how much information you hear, you refuse to admit that it's blue and then say that your opinion on it being green is totally legitimate and just as correct as those who say the sky is blue.

Cast metal parts are not necessarily inferior to forged parts. In fact, if casting is done correctly, the metal can be more easily manipulated to get the micro-crystalline structure you want. As a fellow who has done some forging of knife blades, I can assure you that not properly handling the steel will quickly render it useless. The key in each of these processes is that the steel is of high-quality suited to the end use of the part and that it is properly heated, cooled, and finished. I also know that some high-tech steels that are out there now can't be forged without destroying the structure of the metal. There is a big difference between casting of pot metal and casting of high-quality steel. Many vehicle wheels are cast as are car parts. Somehow our cars don't crumble and we pay good money for them. In fact, casting of parts, in many cases, has been shown to be a superior method for producing high-strength parts and parts that would be far too expensive or difficult to machine from forged blanks. I also suspect that the majority of the money here is in the smithing work. Just look at all the work they are putting into it. Custom fit high-end parts, polishing, melting of parts, etc. It's no different than buying a Kimber or Springer off the shelf and putting a bunch of custom work into it. I know folks that are easily toting around $2000 1911s for all of the custom parts, refinishing, and smithing work put into them. Interesting to see how the claws have come out when some local folks are trying to put out a new and better product in a world where everything is being made overseas. Did you ever stop to wonder why your guns are so inexpensive (comparatively speaking)? It ain't because they are being generous. They are mass producing firearms using every bit of opportunity they can to cut costs, which is why most 1911 pistols find their way onto a workbench at some point for custom work and tweaking. I am a custom leather maker and it's maddening how people expect the quality of hand-crafted goods, but want to pay China import prices for them. The two aren't compatible in most cases. These guys are looking to fill a niche and I wish them the best of luck at it.

What's interesting is that Kleck is pretty much a pro-gun control guy. When I met him at a conference, he was pretty clear in our chat that he thinks that restricting gun ownership is a good idea, but that the arguments of the gun control lobby are generally lacking any basis in fact. I appreciate his intellectual honesty even if I don't agree with his overall opinion on guns.

^^^ THIS! ^^^ I have a kid and I don't want him, or any of his classmates to be patted down by anyone absent a very clear and credible threat that requires such activity. It is slowly getting to the point where we will be subjected to random searches of our persons, property, papers, and effects all in the name of "safety." All of this is happening since the 1990s while violent crime has been declining for over 30 years. There is no correlation between the two. It has gotten worse since 9/11 and the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are lower than being struck by lightening, always have been even before the TSA, Patriot Act, and other post-9/11 monstrosities. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I purchased a nice Smith & Wesson 4th Model top-break .32 revolver a few months ago and I am planning on selling it on GunBroker. It was manufactured circa 1905, so I presume it is covered as a C&R. It's a cool little revolver, but with a new kid in the house I just need to clear out the guns I won't be shooting. Can I ship it directly to a C&R licensee even though I don't have my C&R license yet?

OK, except I am bringing up multiple facts, data that I have collected from multiple sources and existing case law, to back up my comments. Your opinion appears to be based on mere speculation and your own interpretation of the facts as you see them - if I am wrong, please feel free to point out where you are collecting your info. In other words, you are using your own opinion to back up your opinion and calling that "fact." I study and teach these issues every day and I can seek out literally dozens of cases that back up what I am saying. I am not stating opinion, but providing the "facts" as best as we can obtain them. If you don't agree with the facts on principle, that's perfectly acceptable, but you seem to be treating facts as mere opinion, thereby allowing you to disregard them and replace them with your own "facts" and opinions as equally legitimate. Again, I'm not providing opinion, but just telling everyone the reality of the case law and how it applies to the 4th Amendment.

They are most definitely invasive, especially since they are having government agents do the searches. The Supreme Court has generally said that searches of student property on school campuses is not considered "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment due to compelling safety concerns (a claim that I find rather dubious in most cases), but this has not been extended to law enforcement officials on a school campus (unless I have missed some case law somewhere). We now have a public county school district using federal officials to search students. This is about as shocking as I have seen in a while.

Dr. Gary Kleck authored another article for the Wall Street Journal that is a must-read for pro 2nd Amendment folks. It also demonstrates the responsibility that we have as gun owners. The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking - WSJ.com

I am literally in disbelief over this one. A school district has asked TSA agents to conduct pat downs of students going to their prom. The creep of the government into our lives continues. TSA Patdowns At Santa Fe Prom - Video - KOAT Albuquerque

So sorry to hear about your loss. I heard about the tornado last night, but didn't see any of the damage until this morning. I spent a month in Santa Rosa County, Florida after Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and I know firsthand the devastation Mother Nature can dish out. Thoughts and prayers inbound for your family and all those dealing with the aftermath of the storm.

What about protection of the unborn child? I kind of think the fetus feels that having its limbs ripped from its body and its brain sucked from the skull is pretty intrusive. Government has one primary and solemn obligation, and that is to protect innocent human life from arbitrary and unjust force. There is no more unjust force than that used against an unborn child. If innocent life is not protected, none of our other freedoms or liberties mean a damn thing.

Yup, that pretty much covers it. They're both cartoon characters. Unfortunately, they actually exist and are in politics.

Charter Arms has started making a .22 revolver as well that's based on their small revolver platform. I think it's called the Pathfinder. The quality of the current production firearms seems to be much better than that of a few years ago.

Fair enough, but voting Democrat and being a liberal are two different things.

And this is one of the most insightful observations I've seen in this thread. There were a couple of Germans who said the same thing: Max Weber and Emile Durkheim.

Leroy... I'm more than willing to allow anyone to have a differing opinion than I, but in this case, it definitely seems you are finding ways to make the facts fit your opinion. For instance, the reason the courts ruled the way they did is because they HAD TO. They didn't rule that way because of the drug war, they ruled that way because our court system runs on the idea of precedent and the courts must interpret and apply the law as it already exists. The case law says that what the cops did was within the scope of the reasonableness clause in the 4th Amendment, so the court followed that precedent and applied the existing case law here. Nothing more. Nowhere does the case law before, or in these two cases, allow for random house to house searches. If they did, that would be a violation of case law a-la the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which is notorious for "making law" by ignoring precedent. I see no indication that anyone in this debate advocates such a blatant disregard for civil rights and I will join you in vigorously fighting such a push. Again, if you want to disagree with the legal argument on its own merits, that's fine, just don't make the argument into something it's not. Also, as far as the drug war is concerned, we have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to get the "big fish" with little luck for a couple of reasons. First, those big-time drug folks are in other countries. They operate outside of the jurisdiction of the US. We can only arrest the folks who they employ to do their work domestically. The US has been highly criticized for essentially exporting our drug war to these countries and they have become literal war zones. Just look at Columbia, Peru, and Mexico. This leads to the second problem, which is corruption within these nations. The economies in drug producing nations is extremely poor and the illegal drug trade is a major part of their economy and it is nearly impossible to eliminate such a major part of their fiscal survival. As a result, politicians and police in these nations are extremely corrupt and actively subvert American efforts to fight the drug war in these nations. The problem is even greater when we are also calling for eliminating foreign aid to these countries. So essentially, we are saying "we know your economy sucks and your survival, and the survival of your citizens, relies on the money the drug trade creates, but we need you to stop that for our American citizens who are too stupid to not take drugs, and, oh by the way, we're cutting all of your foreign aid too. Good luck with that and thanks for your cooperation." Again, this is not a problem that is easily solved by just doing more enforcement, enforcement that requires officers to utilize "no-knock" warrants or just going after the "big fish." If life were that simple, we'd have beaten the drug problem decades ago. The problem is the individual user, and until the user decides not to use, this problem won't get any better. Wasting trillions of dollars on drug enforcement has been an epic failure, caused a multitude of problems with civil rights, placed the police and the public in a precarious relationship, and has resulted in thousands of deaths that include bad guys, good guys, and innocent bystanders.

Pardon my ignorance on this topic - I don't hunt because I'm too stubborn as a former police firearms instructor to go take that hunter safety course. I would assume that these wild hogs would be good eating wouldn't they?

OK... a couple of points here. First, you still seem to be missing the point that NOTHING CHANGED WITH THESE TWO COURT RULINGS. THESE GUIDELINES FOR WARRANTLESS ENTRY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. These rulings are not anything new. They are not giving the police any more power than they have had for at least half a century. They are not allowing the police to come and randomly kick in doors on a whim. Everyone is getting all riled up over NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. The cases simply re-affirmed what was already there. Next, to suggest that law enforcement is not putting drug offenders in jail, consider these facts: 1) The United States has become the world's leader in incarceration rates. We put a greater proportion of our population in prison than any other nation on the face of the earth. The vast majority of these offenders are non-violent drug offenders. We currently have over 7 million people at any given time under some form of official correctional sanctions. In 1983, before Reagan re-introduced the "War on Drugs" there were roughly 600,000 drug arrests in the United States. By 1989, this number had doubled to 1.2 million. in 2007, there were almost 2 million people arrested for drug offenses. 4/5 of these were for possession. Most of these arrests are for marijuana. During this time, drug use has remained relatively unchanged across the entire population. And although arrest rates for violent crime have been relatively stable, overall violent crime rates have been on a massive decline since the 1970s. Bureau of Justice Statistics data for all of this is below. See also: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/nsduh.pdf So, now that I have thoroughly debunked the argument that law enforcement is not focusing on drug crime or putting violators in jail, I'll address the next points. I don't quite get what the issue of random home invasion robberies has to do with the issue of whether the police, acting under official color of law, and either making entry after a "knock and announce" that is required by case law, or during execution of a valid search warrant approved for a "no-knock" entry by a judge. In any case, violent crime is on an overall downward trend and I don't live my life in perpetual fear of imminent victimization. I take rational and normal precautions such as my CCW, keeping my doors locked an porch lights on at night, and maintaining general due vigilance regarding my surroundings. I don't worry that I am constantly facing immedate death or serious physical injury every moment of my life. Next, the issue of mistakes by police is a very real and serious problem. These case decisions do not change that in any way. The only way to prevent this from happening is to #1) seriously hold officers accountable when they do make these mistakes and/or #2) completely do away with no-knock warrants and SWAT teams altogether. That's a different debate for another time, but again, nothing new has come about following these rulings. If you think they are wrong, that's fine, as long as you understand that you are calling literally hundreds of court rulings over decades of jurisprudence wrong as well. Finally, I agree that most folks do want to be left alone in their homes, and that's exactly what we do. The number of incidents where an officer makes a completely unlawful and unjustified entry into a home is so miniscule, that's it's almost a non-issue. Even in the cases that started this thread, the people were involved in criminal activity, so let's not suggest that these were incidents involving Joe and Jane Smith sitting in their living rooms one night watching the 700 Club when the mean old police kicked in their door. Estimates are that police use SWAT around 40,000 times per year, and the number of errors is less than 1% of these (much like the stats on gun ownership vs. illegal use of guns). It's essential that we are honest and accurate on what the real threat is. It's a complex issue, and one main part of the puzzle that keeps coming up is the "War on Drugs." I started my police career as a 100% supporter of drug prohibition and the drug war, but by the time I left policing 10 years later, I had become a 100% supporter of harm reductions strategies and legalization/decriminalization of some banned substances. CATO did an excellent report on this topic for those interested: Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

It is universally accepted policy. The courts have continuously reaffirmed the requirement for the police to "knock and announce" before gaining entry and must give the occupants reasonable time to open the door. Many states restrict this further and require warrants be served during specific hours during the daytime. Officers must request special permission for "no-knock" warrants or other variations on the established restrictions and provide probable cause that this variation is necessary. The judge must agree and sign off on it. Even in a "no-knock" warrant, the police must announce themselves immediately upon gaining entry. Police agencies also regularly restrict officers to utilizing these types of entries on a limited basis due to the potential negative ramifications of them. Agencies also regularly restrict officers from making forced entry without a warrant to violent crimes or felonies. Again, lets be clear that these cases didn't change anything. They applied pre-existing case law that's been around for decades. Some of you folks are starting to sound like the Sovereign Citizens and act like there has been some sort of cataclysmic shift in the legal protections under the 4th Amendment. There has not been. If you really don't like this reality, then consider that you have been living most of your lives under a false impression of reality and somehow you and probably absolutely everyone you know has somehow managed to take a dump and flush without the police storming your home. Two other important points should be mentioned here. First is one that has already been alluded to and that is the over-use of police SWAT teams. This is a topic that has been debated quite a bit in the criminal justice world. It's clear that on many occasions agencies have been a little too eager to use this massive show of force against non-violent suspects. It's also known that this explosive display of police power has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians who are responding to what they believe to be a criminal invasion of their home. This reality leads me to the second point and that is the "War on Drugs" that our nation has chosen to engage in. The very clandestine and private nature of the illegal drug trade has required law enforcement to utilize more invasive tactics to detect and apprehend drug violators. Officers inherently adapt these techniques to all other aspects of their investigative activities that ultimately include normal citizen encounters. The violence associated with the drug war also requires officers to utilize more violent tactics, which inevitably diffuse over into normal police/citizen encounters. So while many are decrying what they see as the decline in privacy rights, they are also supporting the aggressive enforcement of drug laws not realizing that the two are not particularly separable. So it comes down to this simple reality of life regarding the police: We want them to have the power to stop and search people, as long as they aren't stopping and searching me. We want them to have the power to arrest people, as long as they aren't arresting me. We want them to have the ability to kick in doors and point guns at people, as long as they aren't kicking in my door or pointing a gun at me. We want the police to utilize all officer safety measures possible unless they are treating me like a potential threat. We don't mind all the devious and underhanded tactics that police employ to catch bad guys, but get upset when we are the subject of them. We want our privacy rights respected, but not the privacy rights of those who want to consume certain substances that the rest of us define as evil (even if they haven't committed any other crime other than drug possession). Ya can't have it both ways folks.

Protect them from what? The police? Are you suggesting that you have a moral obligation to "protect" your family from a police search that you believe to be unlawful? This suggests that you think there are roving bands of thug cops looking for any reason to victimize and brutalize innocent people. Your first point is part of the problem here. You have dissolved this broad issue down into one singular overly simplistic scenario. Clearly a cop can't just walk around, listen for a toilet flush, and kick in someone's door. That's not what happened in the case that was decided. First, the police have to have lawful authority under the 4th amendment to be in a place to start with. Curtilage is protected under the 4th Amendment so the police can't just go snooping around your property. Next, the officer would have to have enough information to establish probable cause that the person in the structure is engaged in criminal activity. The concept of probable cause requires that you have enough information that a jury of other reasonably rational people would come to the same conclusion as the officer when presented with the same facts. This holds the individual officer accountable for the decisions they make and keeps them from making bold and irrational leaps in logic (like one cop I used to work with who tried to convince me that cigarette butts and a Gideon Bible in a vehicle was probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs - my immediate reply to that logic was "WHAT?!?"). Then if the officer has developed probable cause that a crime is taking place in that structure, they are required to get a warrant absent one of the exceptions established in case law. Next, they have to have probable cause that what's going on in the structure meets those requirements, again with the same logic to probable cause applied above. If the officer simply can't articulate the facts that justify the warrantless entry, they have violated the 4th Amendment and will lose the criminal case and be subject to civil, and possibly criminal, penalties. In the case scenario, the officers were responding to a call (this covers the first requirement I mentioned), they saw and smelled marijuana (clearly PC of a crime), when they knocked and announced the suspects began to run around in the home (suggesting that they were in the process of destroying evidence), and the officers made entry. One other point is that once the officers have made entry, they can only do as much as is necessary to secure suspects and the endangered evidence, then they are generally required to stop their actions, hold the scene, and obtain a warrant to do any further searches or seizures beyond the scope of the original entry/search. The case law mentioned in this thread did nothing to relax the pre-existing requirements under the 4th Amendment, but added additional clarification and confirmation. And just as posting gun-buster signs doesn't stop the bad guys from bringing guns into businesses, case law and legal restrictions do nothing to prevent crooked cops from violating your rights. Just be glad that the tools are there for honest cops to do their jobs and that the courts didn't relax the requirements instead of worrying about "protecting your family" from the police.

That Supreme Court case is not changing case law. It has long been recognized that destruction of evidence is an exception to the warrant requirement in the 4th Amendment. If an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect is destroying evidence, they are not required to wait to obtain a warrant. The case law at the federal level has not limited this exception to any particular level of seriousness, but individual states or police agencies can restrict officers to more limited circumstances (eg. felony crimes or crimes of violence). Again, this ruling does not relieve officers of the legal requirement to establish probable cause or obtain a warrant as necessary. It also does not protect officers who make unlawful searches & seizures from civil ramifications. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble here, but there is a very long list of established exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment including: Destruction of evidence Plain view Open fields Motor vehicles (Carroll doctrine) Protection of life & property Hot pursuit International border crossings Abandoned property Felony arrests on probable cause Certain misdemeanor arrests on probable cause Consent searches Searches incident to arrest Inventory searches in accordance to documented and uniformly applied agency policy Investigative detentions based upon reasonable suspicion ("Terry stop") "Plain touch" during a lawful frisk Exigent circumstances of compelling public interest (e.g. in the case of an escaped prisoner) And more recent additions include: Searches of students in public schools "Sneak & peek" searches under the USA PATRIOT Act