GOA Scores Another Victory!

[Guest oldfella]

[TABLE=width: 600]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Gun Owners of America[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: left]

---

Gun Owners Scores a Victory for

Individual Privacy in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously sided with Gun Owners of America in finding that the placement of a Global Positioning Device on an automobile constitutes a “search†for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and follows GOA’s reasoning to throw out the “reasonable expectation of privacy†test which has been thought to be the dominant Fourth Amendment standard in recent years.

The Obama Administration argued that because the police could theoretically follow Antoine Jones’ car, he had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,†and thus, placing a GPS device on his car was justified. GOA argued, however, that this constituted an “unreasonable search and seizure†which violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

This decision will have dramatic ramifications for gun owners. Indeed, the Court looked to the Founders’ intentions with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which, until the latter part of the 20^thCentury, was understood to restrict the ability of police to “trespass†upon the persons or property of Americans.

“This is no less than a fundamental transformation of American jurisprudence concerning searches and seizures,†according to GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt. “And it is a transformation which throws out fake modern jurisprudence and restores the Founders’ intent.â€

The “reasonable expectation of privacy†test flowed from a Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Gun Owners of America had argued that the Supreme Court should jettison that decision by an activist court, and a majority of the justices agreed.

“The ‘expectation of privacy’ test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government,†argued GOA.

Four members of the court -- led by Samuel Alito, and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan -- argued for the continuation of the “reasonable expectation of privacy test,†but concluded that planting a GPS device on a car for 28 days constituted a Fourth Amendment “search†under that standard as well.

The Obama administration, which had argued that planting a GPS device on a car was not a “search†under the Harlan standard, was unanimously repudiated by the High Court. And the case is being cited by the mainstream media as a defeat for Obama and his Justice Department, which is led by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Said Pratt: “This is yet another failure by Eric Holder, the most corrupt and incompetent Attorney General in the history of the Republic.â€

Gun Owners would like to thank its activists for their support. Your contributions helps GOA to assist in future cases like this at the Supreme Court.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TMF]

The ACLU is also claiming victory on this... and I hear they are supplying lots of lawyers to it.

[Guest oldfella]

That is good to know.

Pete

[Oh Shoot]

What did GOA have to do with it, except have an opinion?

They even write a "friend of the court" document?

- OS

[Warbird]

What did GOA have to do with it, except have an opinion?

They even write a "friend of the court" document?

- OS

I think that pretty much sums it up, an Amicus brief.

[Guest oldfella]

As per my signature line, I am a member of and support both, and respect the opinion you have of these organizations. Respectfully, my personal opinion. based on the overall performance of both, GOA is what NRA should be.

[Warbird]

As per my signature line, I am a member of and support both, and respect the opinion you have of these organizations. Respectfully, my personal opinion. based on the overall performance of both, GOA is what NRA should be.

I'm not certain this particular case has anything to do with one organization being better than another. Many organizations will lay some claim to a victory in this case and in some ways they are right. However, this wasn't GOA's case or fight in any substantive way at all. The larger ramifications of this decision was what they wrote an Amicus on. That's fine. The question was to their level of involvement and that is what I responded to.