Judge Gorsuch is Not a Friend of Firearm Owners, Really Bad News

[Contumacious]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

 

[Rustic]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Neil Gorsuch's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court

 

[Missourian]

 

[Contumacious]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

NRA-ILA | NRA Applauds Neil Gorsuch's Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court

I am a member of the 2A Foundation.

The NRA shows again that it is worthless . They should have researched this issue before nominating him.

Really bad news.


.

 

[Rustic]

Neil Gorsuch, Guns & the Second Amendment: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

 

[Spare_change]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

Amazing .... you can't even make shit up and get it right.

Back to the drawing board ...

 

[Contumacious]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

Amazing .... you can't even make shit up and get it right.

Back to the drawing board ...

Amazing .... you can't even write an appropriate response and get it right.


.

 

[Contumacious]

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

 

[Missourian]

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

I've read Rodriguez...have you.

 

[oreo]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

I am loving every moment of this--LOL

 

[Contumacious]

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

I've read Rodriguez...have you.

OK turd face, what's your take?

If your are in FACT a gun aficionado, and UNDERSTAND English, tell me why you are not concerned?


.

 

[OKTexas]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

If that's the worse thing you have, I don't see a problem with his confirmation.

 

[Missourian]

If your are in FACT a gun aficionado, and UNDERSTAND English, tell me why you are not concerned?


.

RODRIGUEZ was a convicted felon in possession. The 4th Circuit came to the same conclusion in the same kind of case...Robinson...ALSO a felon in possession. It wasn't just that either was armed...it was their reaction when confronted by the officer. Had these cases been of CCWs wrongly detained...IMO...the results of the cases would have likely been very different. The police made the case that they were correct in both cases, that the firearms possession was unlawful, and that tipping their hand before having Robinson and Rodriguez in custody and disarmed would have put the officer in danger. And they were correct.

About six months ago, I was pulled over for having a brake light out. In Missouri, we have a safe traveler law...anyone who may lawfully own a firearm may carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle unconcealed at any time...no CCW necessary. I had a loaded Taurus Judge on the light tan seat next to me. It's huge...blued, 3 inch cylinder and 6.5 inch barrel...not a chance he didn't see it. And he never even mentioned it...and neither did I. He asked for my license and proof of insurance, asked me to get the light fixed, and I was on my way. THAT is why I'm not worried.

 

[OKTexas]

According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

That is nothing more than a opinion on the opinion, it does not say that in the opinion.

 

[Missourian]

I am loving every moment of this--LOL

Poor Oreo...not only was your candidate totally rejected by the GOP...the guy who beat him is President of the United States. That's got to be hard on a guy.

 

[The Professor]

I don't think this decision will have any negative impact upon lawful gun owners. My conclusion is based upon the following relevant facts of the case according to the link you provided:

“At the commencement of their encounter, Officer Munoz knew Defendant was carrying a concealed handgun in his back waistband. Officer Munoz saw the handgun because Defendant was bending over stocking shelves. The only express element of the crime of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, as defined in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–7–2(A), that Officer Munoz lacked personal knowledge of bore upon the handgun's condition. Was the gun loaded or unloaded? See N .M. Stat. Ann. § 30–7–2(B) (carrying an unloaded firearm does not violate § 30–7–2(A)). But Officer Munoz did not have to be certain the handgun was loaded to justify Defendant's seizure; he only had to reasonably suspect the gun was loaded. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. “Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972). Necessarily then, neither does the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion require such evidence.

“A prudent officer under the circumstances confronting Officer Munoz could reasonably suspect Defendant's handgun was loaded rather than waiting to find out, thus providing the officer all the suspicion he needed to seize Defendant based on a violation of § 30–7–2(A). One of the basic rules of gun safety promulgated worldwide is to “[a]ssume every gun to be loaded ․ and treat it accordingly.” Int'l Hunter Educ. Ass'n, Firearm Safety: Basic Safety Rules, homestudy.ihea.com/firearmssafety/ 01actt.htm (visited December 12, 2013). Moreover, that Defendant's handgun was probably loaded is simply a “common sense conclusion[ ] about human behavior” that Officer Munoz reasonably could draw from the fact Defendant sought to conceal the gun on his person. Cortez, 449 U .S. at 418. (Defendant has never suggested he was openly carrying the handgun). The principal purpose of carrying a concealed handgun is to assail another or defend oneself. An unloaded firearm serves neither of these purposes well, making the fact that Defendant's handgun was loaded a distinct possibility.”

According to the link, Officer Munoz knew defendant had a concealed weapon and logically assumed it was loaded. He had the right – in fact he had the duty – to determine if the defendant had a permit. Since the officer did not know anything about the defendant, he removed the gun from the defendant's waistband as a safety precaution.

If a policeman did that to me under the same circumstances, I wouldn't have minded. I would have told him I had a concealed carry permit and asked him if I could remove my wallet to show it to him. When he saw my permit he would return the weapon to me immediately. That's the way things are supposed to happen.

Lawful gun owners obey the laws. They have no fear of being arrested or having their guns confiscated if they are carrying legally. Concealed-carry law can be complicated, so if you ever consider carrying you must be an expert on the laws in your state. In Florida where I live even if you have a permit you cannot carry a weapon into a place whose primary purpose is serving alcoholic beverages. This means that you can carry into a liquor store since they sell liquor but don't serve it. You can also go into a restaurant and order a drink with your dinner since the primary purpose of the restaurant is to serve food, not alcohol. However, if you go into the bar to have a plain coke you have broken the law.

Once I went to a restaurant that had a waiting list. The waiter told me that I could go into the bar and have a drink while I was waiting to be called. I told her I was carrying a weapon and could not go into the bar area. She simply smiled and told me that I would have a table shortly.

Another time I went to purchase a bottle of vodka from a bar/liquor store. The liquor store had two entrances, one from the outside and the other inside through the bar area. The outside door was locked so a knocked on the door to get the clerk's attention. He motioned for me to go around through the bar area. I told him I was armed and was not allowed to go into the bar, not even for a moment. He let me in through the outside entrance and everything was fine.

Conclusion. The Court's decision was well-written and its analysis of the law was thorough, exhaustive and scholarly. The decision has no effect on legal gun owners. Legal gun owners obey the law and they expect the police to enforce the law. In the cited case, it turned out that the defendant was a convicted felon, did not have a permit and the gun he had was stolen. The caution exercised by Officer Muzol was appropriate.

 

[Spare_change]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

Amazing .... you can't even make shit up and get it right.

Back to the drawing board ...

Amazing .... you can't even write an appropriate response and get it right.


.

You know, you're right .... I think an "appropriate" response would be ... well .... appropriate.

The simple facts of the matter is that you, and other so-called progressives, don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know you're supposed to hate whomever Trump appointed. You know that it is your responsibility to scream, holler, and stamp your feet in a mindless, thoughtless objections to a jurist whose only "crime" is to be selected for the SCOTUS by Donald Trump.

So, what do you do? Do you investigate the judge? Do you look at his resume, his experience, his past? No. Instead, you run to Google intent on finding something - anything - that could possibly be used to smear the candidate. You've done this for 2 years now - simply switching from one candidate to another. Now, it's Gorsuch's turn.

But - lo and behold - you couldn't find anything. So, you dig a little harder. Still, nothing ..... but, does this impact your opinion of the judge? Nope. You are NOT going to let facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.

Finally, on about page 13 of your search, you find an article from an alt-left loon who intentionally misinterprets the case you cite. Then, he seasons his so-called story (boy, is he ever right there!) with lies and personal opinion (which seem to be synonymous with progressives).

But, of course, you being the mature, reasoned adult that you are, you investigate the article. You do a diligent research and you, of course, find that the author of the hit piece got it wrong.

What? You didn't do the research? Seriously? You just accepted it carte blanche? Because it fit your political narrative? Wow.

Had you done your research, you would have realized that the case had absolutely nothing to do with the gun. The question at hand was whether a police officer had the authority to take control of a potentially dangerous situation, up to and including demanding that the person confronted relinquish his weapon. The court found, rightly, that the officer not only had a right, he had the responsibility, to control the situation, and minimize danger to himself and bystanders.

In summary, you acted like a petulant little child, intentionally spreading lies, to try to bolster a weak and floundering attack on Donald Trump. You intentionally lied to everybody on this Board. You intentionally besmirched the judge for no reason other than your personal political agenda, and you did with lies and innuendo.

You owe everybody an apology.

That sounds .... uhhhh .... appropriate, to me.

 

[Contumacious]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

Amazing .... you can't even make shit up and get it right.

Back to the drawing board ...

Amazing .... you can't even write an appropriate response and get it right.


.

You know, you're right .... I think an "appropriate" response would be ... well .... appropriate.

The simple facts of the matter is that you, and other so-called progressives, don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know you're supposed to hate whomever Trump appointed. You know that it is your responsibility to scream, holler, and stamp your feet in a mindless, thoughtless objections to a jurist whose only "crime" is to be selected for the SCOTUS by Donald Trump.

So, what do you do? Do you investigate the judge? Do you look at his resume, his experience, his past? No. Instead, you run to Google intent on finding something - anything - that could possibly be used to smear the candidate. You've done this for 2 years now - simply switching from one candidate to another. Now, it's Gorsuch's turn.

But - lo and behold - you couldn't find anything. So, you dig a little harder. Still, nothing ..... but, does this impact your opinion of the judge? Nope. You are NOT going to let facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.

Finally, on about page 13 of your search, you find an article from an alt-left loon who intentionally misinterprets the case you cite. Then, he seasons his so-called story (boy, is he ever right there!) with lies and personal opinion (which seem to be synonymous with progressives).

But, of course, you being the mature, reasoned adult that you are, you investigate the article. You do a diligent research and you, of course, find that the author of the hit piece got it wrong.

What? You didn't do the research? Seriously? You just accepted it carte blanche? Because it fit your political narrative? Wow.

Had you done your research, you would have realized that the case had absolutely nothing to do with the gun. The question at hand was whether a police officer had the authority to take control of a potentially dangerous situation, up to and including demanding that the person confronted relinquish his weapon. The court found, rightly, that the officer not only had a right, he had the responsibility, to control the situation, and minimize danger to himself and bystanders.

In summary, you acted like a petulant little child, intentionally spreading lies, to try to bolster a weak and floundering attack on Donald Trump. You intentionally lied to everybody on this Board. You intentionally besmirched the judge for no reason other than your personal political agenda, and you did with lies and innuendo.

You owe everybody an apology.

That sounds .... uhhhh .... appropriate, to me.

No, this is an appropiate response.

I believe that Gorsuch is bad for 2A and 4th Amendment Jurisprudence.

How many progressives give a shit about protecting gun rights? None.

So you don't know what the fuck you are taliking about.


It is bad, very bad case law for the courts to tell police officers that from a Fourth Amendment standpoint that they may presumed


1- that an armed individual is armed and dangerous
2- that an armed individual is engaged in clandestine actions
3- that the armed individual waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad news.

.

 

[Spare_change]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2203.
Decided: December 31, 2013
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.*Scott M. Davidson, The Appellate Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant–Appellant. James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff–Appellee



*********************************************


According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.


____________________________

We must demand that the Republican majority overturn the Rodriguez case. I don't see how DJT missed this.


.

Amazing .... you can't even make shit up and get it right.

Back to the drawing board ...

Amazing .... you can't even write an appropriate response and get it right.


.

You know, you're right .... I think an "appropriate" response would be ... well .... appropriate.

The simple facts of the matter is that you, and other so-called progressives, don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know you're supposed to hate whomever Trump appointed. You know that it is your responsibility to scream, holler, and stamp your feet in a mindless, thoughtless objections to a jurist whose only "crime" is to be selected for the SCOTUS by Donald Trump.

So, what do you do? Do you investigate the judge? Do you look at his resume, his experience, his past? No. Instead, you run to Google intent on finding something - anything - that could possibly be used to smear the candidate. You've done this for 2 years now - simply switching from one candidate to another. Now, it's Gorsuch's turn.

But - lo and behold - you couldn't find anything. So, you dig a little harder. Still, nothing ..... but, does this impact your opinion of the judge? Nope. You are NOT going to let facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.

Finally, on about page 13 of your search, you find an article from an alt-left loon who intentionally misinterprets the case you cite. Then, he seasons his so-called story (boy, is he ever right there!) with lies and personal opinion (which seem to be synonymous with progressives).

But, of course, you being the mature, reasoned adult that you are, you investigate the article. You do a diligent research and you, of course, find that the author of the hit piece got it wrong.

What? You didn't do the research? Seriously? You just accepted it carte blanche? Because it fit your political narrative? Wow.

Had you done your research, you would have realized that the case had absolutely nothing to do with the gun. The question at hand was whether a police officer had the authority to take control of a potentially dangerous situation, up to and including demanding that the person confronted relinquish his weapon. The court found, rightly, that the officer not only had a right, he had the responsibility, to control the situation, and minimize danger to himself and bystanders.

In summary, you acted like a petulant little child, intentionally spreading lies, to try to bolster a weak and floundering attack on Donald Trump. You intentionally lied to everybody on this Board. You intentionally besmirched the judge for no reason other than your personal political agenda, and you did with lies and innuendo.

You owe everybody an apology.

That sounds .... uhhhh .... appropriate, to me.

No, this is an appropiate response.

I believe that Gorsuch is bad for 2A and 4th Amendment Jurisprudence.

How many progressives give a shit about protecting gun rights? None.

So you don't know what the fuck you are taliking about.


It is bad, very bad case law for the courts to tell police officers that from a Fourth Amendment standpoint that they may presumed


1- that an armed individual is armed and dangerous
2- that an armed individual is engaged in clandestine actions
3- that the armed individual waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad news.

.

Surely, you jest .... even rrdean can't distort the truth THAT much.