The Rutherford Institute is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, a case in which the lower courts have held that the exercise of the Second Amendment is cause to invalidate the protection of the Fourth Amendment. From the Rutherford Institute . . .
WASHINGTON, DC — Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court 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. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. 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. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court hears only a small number of cases each year. Much as I would like to see this case settled at that level, the odds make it unlikely that the SCOTUS will hear it. This
is an important case because of the precedent established. About half of U.S. households have firearms in them. If a random sampling of homes shows that one of two homes contain a firearm, and if a firearm is sufficient cause to execute a violent (no-knock) home invasion as part of the service of a warrant, then why would any risk-adverse police force put “officer safety” at risk half the time? Logic would suggest that every warrant service should be a violent home invasion.
Then combine that stance with registration lists, which anti-rights advocates claim will be used to “protect police officers.” Advocates of the recently abandoned Canadian gun registry claimed that a major use of that registry was to check to see if homes to be visited by police held firearms. It was ultimately shown that was not the case, but that doesn’t mean a registry would not be used that way. Registration lists are already being used to confiscate firearms in California.
If the police have a list showing that there is a gun in a home, and the presence of a gun in the home is sufficient to justify a no-knock raid, then being on a gun registration list makes you a potential target. Given events of the last year in New York, Maryland, and Colorado, it’s easy to believe that you, or a gun you own, could be legislated into a group of either people banned from having guns or guns that people are prohibited from owning.
The fact is that gun registration is gun confiscation, even if in slow motion over an extended period of time. With the precedent set by this case, gun registration presents a risk of violent home invasion by police. Second Amendment defenders have been saying this for some time, as have some of the more candid opponents of RKBA freedoms.
©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.