Maybe the 2nd isn't as fixed as all that...

[Jrrarglblarg]

Another interpretation is that it meant "well-equipped" AND "well-trained." After all, if they were supposed to serve as a military force, they would have had to have suitable, approved weapons and military training. Both "well-equipped" and "well-trained" would certainly be subject to interpretation by authority, not something a citizen could decide for himself.

Maybe that's the solution: Every firearms owner should be required to complete three months of Army basic training, followed by group drills every second weekend for life. After all, you never know when those crazy Canadians might come rushing across the border.

I support the notion if not the specifics of this suggestion.

But then I support mandatory conscription of all Americans at the age of 18, with non - military uniformed services options such as forestry, nursing and whatnot that could fall under existing government departments.

We won't "make America great again" by continuing to be a nation of selfish individualists who see other Americans as The Other. But if you shove a random assortment of Americans into a single group with a single purpose they'll come together as an Us. We didn't fight and beat the Great Depression and two different enemy nations at the same time by being selfish individualists, but by coming together as Americans.

Bring back the draft!

 

[Polaris]

Isn't this case worth discussing on its own merits? Fourth amendment issues have even wider-ranging implications than those arising from the second amendment do.

Granted I am not a lawyer (but I've watched a hella lot of Law and Order episodes, so...), but I wanted to stand up and clap when I read her dissent. I believe I have a new favorite justice.

It is, but the OP was about wishful thinking on the part of arthwollipot.

I support the notion if not the specifics of this suggestion.

But then I support mandatory conscription of all Americans at the age of 18, with non - military uniformed services options such as forestry, nursing and whatnot that could fall under existing government departments.

We won't "make America great again" by continuing to be a nation of selfish individualists who see other Americans as The Other. But if you shove a random assortment of Americans into a single group with a single purpose they'll come together as an Us. We didn't fight and beat the Great Depression and two different enemy nations at the same time by being selfish individualists, but by coming together as Americans.

Bring back the draft!

Mind if I blatantly steal this?

 

[arthwollipot]

It is, but the OP was about wishful thinking on the part of arthwollipot.

I repeat:

I particularly intended to draw a comparison between the 4th Amendment and the 2nd, but you're free to discuss the case however you like. It certainly is worth discussing on its own merits.

Please don't personalise the argument. If you have something to say, say it.

 

[theprestige]

If a police officer becomes aware of an outstanding warrant, doesn't he have a duty to the community that empowered him, to act on that warrant, regardless of how he became aware of it?

And having properly acted on that warrant, doesn't the proper action of the warrant itself justify whatever may arise from that proper action?

 

[Minoosh]

If a police officer becomes aware of an outstanding warrant, doesn't he have a duty to the community that empowered him, to act on that day warrant, regardless of how he became aware of it?

And having properly acted on that warrant, doesn't the proper action of the warrant itself justify whatever may arise from that proper action?

If I understand your question correctly: I don't think arresting the guy on the warrant was the issue. As far as I can tell the ruling means an illegal search becomes retroactively legal if a warrant is discovered, so drugs found can lead to drug charges. If police hadn't found a warrant, the fruit of the poison tree would have been excluded; there would be no drug case.

I haven't read the opinion(s), this is based on summaries.

Earlier I started to tell arthwollipot he was really reaching, but now I'm not too sure. However, I'm trying to envision a case that could put, say, a ban on certain weapons in front of the court. I suppose someone who was denied a semiautomatic rifle could sue the government for wrongful denial, and justices (overstepping or not; depends on point of view) could say that actually he wasn't wrongfully denied because no one has the right to semiautomatic rifles because [insert reason]. That would reverse case law, which does happen.

Plessy vs. Ferguson upheld "separate but equal" and 58 years later Brown v. Board of Education made it illegal. Justices do reflect the times.

 

[Ranb]

Many A2AAs here and elsewhere are convinced that the 2nd Amendment is more-or-less inviolable,....

Of course they're wrong. The federal government has required individuals to beg their local sheriff for permission to own various guns since 1934. State and local governments have been banning or severely restricting guns based on their own prejudices (which sometimes have nothing to do with crime control) for decades all with hardly any interference from the feds. This is why I've never (or very rarely) used the 2nd as an argument on gun control; it is too often simply ignored.

Ranb

 

[theprestige]

The Supreme Court has just ruled that evidence obtained in an illegal search can be used against you.

Revisiting the OP after reviewing the case: I think this is inaccurate. The Supreme Court ruled that the search was legal, because it followed from an arrest which followed from discovery of an outstanding warrant.

And since the OP suggests a linkage to the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to see that linkage supported with evidence and logic, because right now their isn't any.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course they're wrong. The federal government has required individuals to beg their local sheriff for permission to own various guns since 1934. State and local governments have been banning or severely restricting guns based on their own prejudices (which sometimes have nothing to do with crime control) for decades all with hardly any interference from the feds. This is why I've never (or very rarely) used the 2nd as an argument on gun control; it is too often simply ignored.

Ranb

I agree. But I frequently read - and reading it again prompted me to post this thread, having seen the article some days before - that the 2nd Amendment "will never be repealed". I had an argument recently with someone who used the term "never" but when I called them on it, they restated it as "in the foreseeable future".

I can go back to a few threads and quote some examples if you like. But they can't be hard to find.

 

[arthwollipot]

Revisiting the OP after reviewing the case: I think this is inaccurate. The Supreme Court ruled that the search was legal, because it followed from an arrest which followed from discovery of an outstanding warrant.

That is an interpretation that is in conflict with that of Justice Sotomayor and two other Justices. But it is in keeping with the interpretation of the other 5, so apparently that's the way it works now.

And since the OP suggests a linkage to the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to see that linkage supported with evidence and logic, because right now their isn't any.

The link is that Justice Sotomayor and two other Justices interpret the decision as being in conflict with the Fourth Amendment, so it's not hard to imagine another Supreme Court decision being in conflict with the Second.

 

[theprestige]

Unless the court has always ruled unanimously on second amendment questions (have they? I don't know), you can probably find much more obvious support for the scenario you imagine.

ETA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

You're right. It's not hard to imagine at all.

 

[Ranb]

I agree. But I frequently read - and reading it again prompted me to post this thread, having seen the article some days before - that the 2nd Amendment "will never be repealed". I had an argument recently with someone who used the term "never" but when I called them on it, they restated it as "in the foreseeable future".

I can go back to a few threads and quote some examples if you like. But they can't be hard to find.

I'll agree that someone said that, maybe even me.

But why go to the trouble to repeal it when you can legally (with the court's blessing) ignore it? Although it has been used to ease some restrictions like the handgun ban in DC, the authorities in DC have managed to put additional restrictions in place since then as far as I know.

Lawmakers can ban a certain gun or accessory but with the collusion of the police, let those in power or with a certain celebrity appeal (like David Gregory) slide. If the higher ups are confident that the law doesn't apply to them, then they need not worry about the consequences. I saw this first hand in WA when silencer use was banned from 1934 to 2011. The police and some licensed dealers simply did as they wished without fear of arrest unlike us little people.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

The stop was unconstitutional. The police didn't have reasonable suspicion. That hasn't changed.

The main issue is that the drug evidence from the unconstitutional stop was admissible since they discovered a valid unrelated warrant and arrested the guy.

As I understand the attenuation issue in this case - there was an unconstitutional investigatory stop, but was "no flagrant misconduct" by the police. So when they incidentally found he had a warrant for a traffic violation, the subsequent arrest was valid. They then discovered the guy has meth on him after arrest for the traffic warrant. The were plenty of precedent citations w/ detailed conditions in the opinion.

Gives me a little heartburn wrt the potential for abuse (who defines flagrant?), but it seems reasonable on the surface.

It does what it was inteneded to do, enable police to do more fishing expeditions as nothing bad will happen to them from simply violating someones constitutional rights by the stop.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course they're wrong. The federal government has required individuals to beg their local sheriff for permission to own various guns since 1934. State and local governments have been banning or severely restricting guns based on their own prejudices (which sometimes have nothing to do with crime control) for decades all with hardly any interference from the feds. This is why I've never (or very rarely) used the 2nd as an argument on gun control; it is too often simply ignored.

Ranb

It really is a poorly worded run on sentence.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It really is a poorly worded run on sentence.

Poor grammar should not be rewarded.

 

[theprestige]

I'll agree that someone said that, maybe even me.

But why go to the trouble to repeal it when you can legally (with the court's blessing) ignore it? Although it has been used to ease some restrictions like the handgun ban in DC, the authorities in DC have managed to put additional restrictions in place since then as far as I know.

Lawmakers can ban a certain gun or accessory but with the collusion of the police, let those in power or with a certain celebrity appeal (like David Gregory) slide. If the higher ups are confident that the law doesn't apply to them, then they need not worry about the consequences. I saw this first hand in WA when silencer use was banned from 1934 to 2011. The police and some licensed dealers simply did as they wished without fear of arrest unlike us little people.

This suggests a two-ended approach to realize arth's goal. At the one end, the Supreme Court could issue rulings that strengthen a gun-control interpretation, safeguarding it against constitutional challenge through established precedent.

At the other end, lower authorities could simply ignore the Amendment and infringe on the enumerated right regardless. Any infringements that do not make it to the Supreme Court are the de facto law of the land anyway. It would be interesting to see what kind of ethical justification might be offered for this kind of behavior.

Anyway, regarding the case in the OP, it seems less and less significant the more and more I think about it. I don't think it overturns the 4th Amendment at all. I don't think it even really jeopardizes the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine (or whatever it's called). It really seems to simply add some clarity to one of the more ambiguous areas of the 4th's interpretation.

Even though I remain dubious about the propriety of letting the state keep the fruits of an arrest warrant, in the case where the warrant was discovered through an unlawful fishing expedition, I do not see in this ruling a drastic re-interpretation of the 4th in principle or in practice.

Also, Justice Sotomayor's "Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language" is to me a red flag. I'm reminded of the astrophysics crackpots who insist we don't need to see any math, to understand how their (math-free) explanation of gravity is better than the mainstream explanation.

The ruling isn't Sotomayor's summary. It's the technical language itself. Lower courts, prosecutors, defenders, and police departments will not be "soothed" by the technical language. They will study it, interpret it, and implement it. Sotomayor's dissent should open on the same technical legal basis as the court's ruling itself.

 

[theprestige]

It does what it was inteneded to do, enable police to do more fishing expeditions as nothing bad will happen to them from simply violating someones constitutional rights by the stop.

How do you figure? As far as I can tell, the Court's decision doesn't even touch the question you raise. In fact, it looks like the Court's decision means that the cop could be punished for the unlawful detention, and the state could keep the fruits of the arrest, as two legally unrelated events.

Nothing I can see in this ruling seems to give cops any protection if they unlawfully detain a citizen. Where do you read that intent?

 

[Border Reiver]

Another interpretation is that it meant "well-equipped" AND "well-trained." After all, if they were supposed to serve as a military force, they would have had to have suitable, approved weapons and military training. Both "well-equipped" and "well-trained" would certainly be subject to interpretation by authority, not something a citizen could decide for himself.

Maybe that's the solution: Every firearms owner should be required to complete three months of Army basic training, followed by group drills every second weekend for life. After all, you never know when those crazy Canadians might come rushing across the border.

That only happens during really heated Stanley Cup finals...

Or if we need to pull Defense Scheme No.1 out of storage because Trump became POTUS.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll agree that someone said that, maybe even me.

But why go to the trouble to repeal it when you can legally (with the court's blessing) ignore it? Although it has been used to ease some restrictions like the handgun ban in DC, the authorities in DC have managed to put additional restrictions in place since then as far as I know.

Lawmakers can ban a certain gun or accessory but with the collusion of the police, let those in power or with a certain celebrity appeal (like David Gregory) slide. If the higher ups are confident that the law doesn't apply to them, then they need not worry about the consequences. I saw this first hand in WA when silencer use was banned from 1934 to 2011. The police and some licensed dealers simply did as they wished without fear of arrest unlike us little people.

Ranb

Ignoring the law isn't the same thing as having a Supreme Court decision setting a formal, legal interpretation of the Amendment.

 

[theprestige]

Ignoring the law isn't the same thing as having a Supreme Court decision setting a formal, legal interpretation of the Amendment.

Like Heller, for example?

But I think Ranb is advising you that perhaps Supreme Court rulings are not the most rapid, nor the most effective path to gun control in the US, and that perhaps your focus on them is misguided.

 

[arthwollipot]

Like Heller, for example?

Yes, exactly like that.

But I think Ranb is advising you that perhaps Supreme Court rulings are not the most rapid, nor the most effective path to gun control in the US, and that perhaps your focus on them is misguided.

My focus in this thread, because topic. You of all people ought to know that where gun control is concerned, my focus is diffuse and wide-ranging. You ought to know because I've explained it to you, several times.