Today is Tuesday, September 16, 2014rss RSS feed

By Dean Weingarten

The Meaning and Intent of the Second Amendment

The Meaning and Intent of the Second Amendment

Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten

Arizona - -(Ammoland.com)- In a case that brought shock-waves to the judicial establishment, an Arizona appeals court ruled that an officer could stop and disarm someone merely because they were armed.

Now the Arizona Supreme Court has reversed that ruling in a unanimous decision.   From azcapitoltimes.com:

Police cannot frisk someone they stop and question absent some “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

While this ruling applies only to Arizona,it was the United States Constitution and the fourth amendment that was cited, not the Arizona Constitution.  In a related event in Wisconsin, an open carry activist was instrumental in the repeal of a county ordinance which did not comply with state law.   The activist, William Polster, was legally carrying in a county park.   The local ordinance, which was clearly invalid by state law, was given as the reason for a deputy pointing a loaded rifle at Polster.    Polster recorded the entire event, and the county board said that they would repeal the ordinance and cease enforcement the next day.

The Arizona Supreme Court continued with this statement:

“When officers consensually engage citizens on the street without having any evidence of wrongdoing, the mere presence of a weapon does not afford officers constitutional permission to search weapons-carrying individuals,” she said. “To conclude otherwise would potentially subject countless law-abiding persons solely for exercising their right to carry a firearm.”

In the case of State of Arizona v. Johnathon Bernard Serna, the court makes it clear that two criteria must be met for a forced stop and frisk. First, the officer must have a reasonably articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Then, they must also have reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous. Both conditions must be met. Officers may ask people to consent to be disarmed; but the stop is not consensual if a reasonable person would believe that they would be allowed to leave the scene.

 

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 3 User comments to “Unanimous AZ Supreme Court: No Stop and Frisk for Being Armed”

    1. Arizona is absolutely awesome ! I’m native Texan and we have great 2A freedoms too,but AZ always takes it to the next level. A year ago I decided to get the AZ non-resident CCW in addition to TX,FL I have. From application to my mailbox it took 23 days. I don’t understand why people in socialist California don’t move to AZ in droves. I sure as hell would !

    2. ChicagoGuy on August 21, 2014 at 12:24 PM said:

      Meanwhile in Illinois, NRA recruits black man Otis McDonald for the Supreme Court. After the U.S. District Court in Chicago overturns IL’s concealed weapons statute in December 2012, NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde puts Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail into Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill, because the Chiefs of Police wanted it.
      Because NRA rat Vandermyde and his hick sponsor Phelps wanted to cut a deal with the anti-gun police unions, armed citizens must give up their right to remain silent, and their right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
      NRA made $1.3 MILLION on the Otis McDonald lawsuit, so bad laws make big money for NRA.

    3. Jay Warren Clark on September 8, 2014 at 3:18 PM said:

      The settlement the NRA made in New Orleans with the city over gun confiscation was a sellout and they lost me on that one. The thing is that the NRA is a big as a state and one doesn’t know who or what is behind their behavior. My guess is that it would be as difficult to contact them as it is to contact John McCain–our own son of Cain here in Arizona. Compromise everywhere is ugly and a betrayal of conscience. JWC

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • russell mccall: I would like a coupon sent to me for tc venture rifle I just bought thank you
      • Doug: I could be mistaken, but a straw purchase is buying a firearm for an know felon, not for a gift for family...
      • jimmy: This is a most delicious article because it’s written by a far left-winger from ProPublica. He points to...
      • terron Johnson: How much is the ron I g1 glockenspiel conversion kit?
      • John Zumrick: Lots of states have laws pertaining to temporary confinement of people who are thought to be suicidal....
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • AmmoLand Poll

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ
    13854464
    14464840