TexasCHLforum.com

This happened in Collin County, so I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before

http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4 ... rs/186627/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know, if the LEOs can strip the 4th amendment rights from an individual because they think there are firearms in the home -- it then is a small step to doing it because there MIGHT be firearms. And then the 4th would be completely useless.

sjfcontrol wrote:This happened in Collin County, so I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before

http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4 ... rs/186627/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know, if the LEOs can strip the 4th amendment rights from an individual because they think there are firearms in the home -- it then is a small step to doing it because there MIGHT be firearms. And then the 4th would be completely useless.

I think you are misrepresenting the event. The police had a warrant. Any violation is a court issue, not a LEO issue. The warrant may have been issued in error.

jbarn wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:This happened in Collin County, so I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before

http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4 ... rs/186627/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know, if the LEOs can strip the 4th amendment rights from an individual because they think there are firearms in the home -- it then is a small step to doing it because there MIGHT be firearms. And then the 4th would be completely useless.

I think you are misrepresenting the event. The police had a warrant. Any violation is a court issue, not a LEO issue. The warrant may have been issued in error.

OK. Doesn't change the problem. Strike "LEO" and replace with "COURTS".

I don't like the conclusions the article draws/infers. It stated that a no knock raid can be executed on anyone who owns a gun. This is simply not the case. There has to be PC in order for the warrant to be issued in the first place. In would appear in this case that the warrant was justified.
So the question then becomes if a warrant is issued and there is evidence of firearms on the property is a no knock entry justified? This is very different than the suggestion that police can barge into your home just because you own guns.
BTW, I'm not a fan of no knock entry.

Wouldn't police assume every house has firearms in it?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Wouldn't police assume every house has firearms in it?

That's the gist of it....
Now EVERY warrant can be no-knock. Just claim the person owns a gun. That is now sufficient cause for a no-knock.

This is a "2-Fer" for me.

Here is another fine example where suspicion of drugs leads to heavy police action. I understand drugs are illegal and I don't condone their use. But is SWAT really necessary for enforcement of these laws? The article suggests that the police knew that the son wasn't home at the time of the raid. If this is true and the son and his drug use was the reason for the warrant, it makes the situation that much worse.

This seems to be yet another example of where the knock-less action actually endangered police lives rather than protecting them. It seems to be a big leap that an otherwise law abiding father would resort to shooting police in order to protect his son. There are a string of questionable assumptions to get to that point. Did the father know about the son's drug use? Is the father so willing to protect his son that he is willing to start a gun fight with police to do it? I completely understand that there are idiots who will lead police on wild car chases and that those almost never end well for the fleeing suspect. But unless the father has a history of criminal behavior, as is the case with many of the car chase suspects, it seems to be an overreach to suggest that he would instantly turn into a criminal because of the police warrant.

I agree with the reason for filing the case. It suggests that I or anyone else who owns guns is a latent criminal, just waiting to use those guns against police. I see that as an extension of the thinking by some chiefs of police that citizens shouldn't have guns in the first place. I'm actively trying to expand the Argyle School District's program of allowing teachers to have guns in schools and am being met by fierce resistance by several chiefs of police involved. Their resistance goes well beyond the fact that schools are involved and revolves around officer safety, the core concept in this matter. When law enforcement management uses that concept as a premise, we have a lot more to fear for our 2nd Amendment rights than the Brady bunch or Mayor Bloomy.

When my stepson lived at home, and was having problems understanding that license, registration, and insurance were necessary for using his vehicle on the public highway, I was also concerned that his other illicit activities might draw the attention of our local LEOs (when they did arrest him, they did it at his work [place) I made sure to let several contacts (friends and acquaintances from Citizens' Police Academy) among them know that I would not appreciate raids on my house and that if they wanted him I would be happy to supply my own zip ties and just leave him in the yard for them to pick up and let them in to search. He doesn't live here any more.

That said, this is a pretty old case to be bringing up at this point. SCOTUS recently refused to hear the case, which was admittedly kind of weak, so the issue remains unsettled, not settled in favor of no knock raids.

jimlongley wrote:That said, this is a pretty old case to be bringing up at this point. SCOTUS recently refused to hear the case, which was admittedly kind of weak, so the issue remains unsettled, not settled in favor of no knock raids.

If every court along the way said the no-knock was justified and SCOTUS let it stand without hearing it, that seems fairly "settled" to me.

sjfcontrol wrote:

jbarn wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:This happened in Collin County, so I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before

http://www.mintpressnews.com/does-the-4 ... rs/186627/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know, if the LEOs can strip the 4th amendment rights from an individual because they think there are firearms in the home -- it then is a small step to doing it because there MIGHT be firearms. And then the 4th would be completely useless.

I think you are misrepresenting the event. The police had a warrant. Any violation is a court issue, not a LEO issue. The warrant may have been issued in error.

OK. Doesn't change the problem. Strike "LEO" and replace with "COURTS".

Mission creep. No knock warrants were justified on the basis that quick entry was required to prevent the destruction of evidence. The idea that the presence of a gun justifies a no knock entry is absurd, since the person inside has to make a split second decision, possibly while still groggy after being awakened, and it increases the risk of unnecessary violence. And it's even more absurd if the entry is for drugs, since a drug dealer has good reason to believe he is being attacked by rivals. I think the objective here is not public safety or officer safety, but the further demonization of gun ownership. This is an anti-gun measure disguised as a warrant issue.

The article is pretty weak in facts and misleading. In reality they probably were on a search for possession for SALES ( not possession like they indicate) which is a lot different. People that sale drugs tend to be violent. I would also like to know what drug. People on meth react a lot different then people smoking weed. They have also conveniently left out his criminal history, if any. The father was a CHL holder, but the target of the warrant was the son. I tried finding the affidavit for the search warrant but couldn't. I did find their brief, which is of course one sided with their view. It also doesn't prove or disprove if this was a no knock warrant. People often get them confused. Regardless enjoy the read:

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/firea ... 0brief.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:Mission creep.

Exactly.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Mission creep.

Exactly.

TAM -- I think this is the SHORTEST response by you I've ever seen!!!

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Mission creep.

Exactly.

Wait... Who are you and what have you done with our friend The Annoyed Man!?!?

We will pay any ransom! As long as you take Iraqi Dinars...

I don't do drugs... I don't engage in any illegal activities that would draw attention to me... I live in an upscale community (whose worst gang related feature is that it is infected with HOA Nazis)... As such, if someone is breaking down my door, I'm going to automatically assume that it is a home invasion and I will be shooting -- especially if they do it when I'm sleeping. If they are cops, they can try calling or knocking first and I will either meet them outside to discuss whatever they might have a concern with or if they have a warrant, I'll invite them inside to discuss it. If they'll be civil with me, I'll be civil with them.