informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Mar 13 2014, 7:53 AM Category: Tyranny/Police State Source: The Rutherford Institute Print

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Second Amendment Case, Refuses to Prohibit Police from Using Lawful Gun Ownership as a Trigger for "No-Knock" Police Raids


WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused 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. In denying a petition for certiorari in Quinn v. Texas, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially makes lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to weigh in on the case and protect Americans against encroachments on their Second Amendment rights.

“Whatever the issue might be, whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts, and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “The disconnect, of course, is that the Constitution establishes a far different scenario in which government officials, including the police, are accountable to ‘we the people.’ For it to be otherwise, for government concerns to trump individual freedoms, with government officials routinely sidestepping the Constitution and reinterpreting the law to their own purposes, makes a mockery of everything this nation is supposed to stand for—self-government, justice, and the rule of law.”

In August 2006, Collin County (Texas) police obtained a warrant to search John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might be in possession of controlled substances. The warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. Nevertheless, based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household, the SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises. 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. The raid resulted in police finding less than one gram of cocaine, which Quinn was charged with possessing.

Lower courts rejected Quinn’s objection to the “no-knock” entry on the grounds that because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home. Although established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates that police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry, police may disregard the knock and announce rule under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence or a danger that evidence will be destroyed.

In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.

Affiliate attorney James A. Pikl of Scheef & Stone, LLP, in Frisco, Texas, assisted the Institute in defending the rights of Quinn.

Case History

12/19/2013 • Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Ensure that Lawful Gun Ownership Is Not a Trigger for 'No-Knock' Police Raids

06/18/2013 • Citing 2nd & 4th Amendments, Rutherford Institute Asks Texas Appeals Court to Ensure that Lawful Gun Ownership Is Not a Trigger for 'No-Knock' Police Raids

Legal Action

Click here to read a copy of the petition for discretionary review in Quinn v. State of Texas.





Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Baby Clings to Life After Flash-Bang Grenade Lands in His Crib
- A Peace Officer Defies the "Blue Tribe": The Exile of Officer Cariol Horne
- For Punitive Populists, "Comply or Die" IS The "Law"
- Cop Stops Fellow Cop From Choking a Handcuffed Man, She Was Then Beaten and Fired
- Thieves Yell "Police" Before Invading Home, Shooting and Robbing Resident
- Cops Called For Wellness Check Beat Innocent Man, Pile On False Charges; Jury Exonerates, Twice
- Psychotic Vegas Cop Filmed Beating Man For Filming In Viral Video Queitly Hired By Another Dept.
- Ignorance Is No Excuse for Wrongdoing, Unless You're a Cop









Comments 1 - 7 of 7 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
dougo

Posted: Mar 13 2014, 10:26 AM

Link
68107 2 things are true,death and taxes.your death at the hands of the government payed for with your taxes.
Nickel's 2bits

Posted: Mar 14 2014, 12:22 AM

Link
7147 The article is correct that the presence of guns was used as a justification for no-knock. Which is odious. I don't like no-knock entry; I think it's dangerous for both police and citizens.

But the title is a scare tactic that implies the raid was because he owned guns.

POLICE DID NOT SEARCH HIS HOUSE BECAUSE HE HAD GUNS! POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT BECAUSE HE HAD GUNS!

Police got a warrant because his son was believed to have drugs in the house. The only thing the guns caused was the no-knock approach, because the police mistakenly believed that approach would make them safer. The court has upheld no-knock in the past, it's no surprise they refused to discuss it again.
Anonymous

Posted: Mar 14 2014, 5:28 PM

Link
10888 The title states the truth. The ownership of the guns IS what triggered the "no-knock" raid. Maybe it's time we approach law-makers to get this changed. But right now, what good would that do - we have entered the most lawless era in American History!!
Paul Bailey

Posted: Mar 14 2014, 9:50 PM

Link
76210 Frisco Texas Police have a habit of not following protocols.

They did not announce at my home either, in addition to other numerous breaches of proper police protocols.

Only recently have we found out they tampered with evidence.

see details at: (file 1 page 5 starts the grounds that detail the egregious abuses)

http://friscopaul.blogspot.com/2014/02/writ-of-habeas-frisco-police-department.html#links
Anonymous

Posted: Mar 15 2014, 1:47 AM

Link
7614 The need for assault weapons . . . obvious. Remember, just because someone yells police it doesn't mean that they are police. Finally, juries are more sympathetic to the living than the dead. Thus, if you possess firearms be proficient with them and ensure you are the last man breathing. No matter who is at fault, the jury will be more understanding of the man in court advancing his own defense than those pushing up daisies. In short, dead men do tell tales, but people seldom listen.
I could fault no man for killing another if both are fighting for their life to survive in mutual combat.
Anonymous

Posted: Mar 15 2014, 4:05 AM

Link
67161 This corrupt Government is not the United States anymore and it makes me ashamed to live here! To many people died to protect the constitution and now we the people need to get the guns out and take back our country by any and all means!!!
edcosman@thebluezone.net

Posted: Mar 16 2014, 5:58 PM

Link
6589 Just because the supreme court upheld no knock before doesn't mean they should have upheld it at all!
This is what they meant in heller, all rights have restrictions.
In other words, they are not rights, but rather grants of privilege, which can be extended, withdrawn, or transferred depending on the favored
constituency at the time.
God forbid that freemen should fall out of favor! But methinks we
already have.
Comments 1 - 7 of 7 Page 1 of 1


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

A Peace Officer Defies the "Blue Tribe": The Exile of Officer Cariol Horne - 12/19Baby Clings to Life After Flash-Bang Grenade Lands in His Crib - 12/20Cop Stops Fellow Cop From Choking a Handcuffed Man, She Was Then Beaten and Fired - 12/18For Punitive Populists, "Comply or Die" IS The "Law" - 12/19Thieves Yell "Police" Before Invading Home, Shooting and Robbing Resident - 12/18Psychotic Vegas Cop Filmed Beating Man For Filming In Viral Video Queitly Hired By Another Dept. - 12/17Cops Called For Wellness Check Beat Innocent Man, Pile On False Charges; Jury Exonerates, Twice - 12/17Ignorance Is No Excuse for Wrongdoing, Unless You're a Cop - 12/17

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top