Does Exercising the Second Amendment Invalidate the Fourth Amendment?

By Dean Weingarten

Fourth Amendment
Does Exercising the Second Amendment Invalidate the Fourth Amendment?
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(  The Rutherford Institute is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, a case where 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 by the Supreme Court, the odds make it unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear it.    This  is an important case because of the precedent established.   About half of U.S. households have firearms in them.   If your home can be violently invaded because police have information to believe that you have a firearm in it, then about half the homes in the United States qualify, once any cause for a warrant has been issued.   If a random sampling of homes would show that one of two homes contain a firearm, and if a firearm is sufficient cause to do a violent home invasion as part of the service of a warrant (no knock warrant), then why would a risk adverse police administration risk “officer safety” half the time?   The logic would suggest that every warrant service should be a violent home invasion.

Combine this 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 the registry was to check to see if homes, to be visited by police, held firearms.   Further debate shows that this was not the case, but that does not mean that 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 the home, and the presence of a gun in the home is sufficient to justify a “no knock warrant”, then being on a gun registration list makes you a potential target  of such a raid.  Given events of the last year in New York, Maryland, and Colorado,  it is 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 not allowed to have”.

This adds a twist to the fact that gun registration is gun confiscation, even if it is in slow motion over 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 second amendment  freedoms.

Many will note that this is an incremental step on the slide that we are on, degrading all the protections in the Bill of Rights.

©2013 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.

  • 7 thoughts on “Does Exercising the Second Amendment Invalidate the Fourth Amendment?

    1. I thought this would be an interesting and thought provoking article, but instead it was purposely misleading and stoking the fears of so many Americans that people are trying to steal there guns. The warrant the police had was a valid warrant due to drugs, obtained lawfully and not having to do at all about guns. We have the second amendment, and most cops love it. To imply that this was a violation against the second amendment by way of the fourth amendment is dishonest, misleading, and adding fuel to a much burning anxiety and fear of having our right to bear arms being taken away. The police weren’t there to confiscate his legal guns, they were there because they had enough evidence that the son had a presumably size able amount of narcotics or something to that effect. You totally turned it into a more nefarious and alternatively motivated search. When you come across a judge who’s issued a warrant for the lawful possession of firearms, than we can have this talk. But all you did was change the entire thing around to make it seem they were there for the guns, which is an injustice to your readers because it seemingly confirms their fears of the government coming to take all guns from all citizens. It’s clearly not the case her, or in general. We have the second amendment, it’s not going anywhere. Shame on you for twisting this into anything more than a routine search warrant based on possession of a controlled substance. And they don’t give those unless they suspect large quantities of illicit chemicals. Normally suspected for drug trafficking. This is a good thing. Don’t make it something it’s not.

    2. It is time for citizens to apply “no-knock” to all levels of government, with the clear consequences thereof.

    3. There is no government. There is only a foreign invading hostile privately owned fascist corporation called: UNITED STATES INCORPORATED circa 1783, 1871, 1933, and is copyrighted, trademarked, and registered in Delaware as a foreign owned corporation with no authority or lawful/legal connection to the 50 state Republic stated even in its own corporate bylaws and business charter.

      This corporation has absolutely no lawful/legal authority or lawful/legal interstate nexus within the common law Constitutional Republic created by the founding fathers ratified in 1789.

      FBI, CIA, TSA, FEMA, DHS, DIA, DIS, BAFTE, IRS, DOJ, at al, are all “commercial departments”, of this privately owned corporation who ONLY represent this foreign owned corporation controlled and managed by yet another foreign owned corporation called: The International Federal Reserve Banking and Monetary System Incorporated, who is controlled by the International Monetary Fund Incorporated.

      Obama is CEO, an employee as is CON-gress, of this corporation, and they DO NOT represent YOU, only United States Inc., as Chief Executive Officer (a corporate title) and CON-gress as Board of Directors (a corporate title).

      All states are copyrighted, trademarked, and registered as sub-corporations to this entity as are all incorporated cities, counties and parishes.

      All police departments are commercial and are actually “Agents of Foreign Registry”, and represent a foreign corporate entity and NOT YOU!

      “They” are not here to “Serve and Protect” you … They are here ONLY to serve and protect the corporation.

      Police and all law enforcement are “commercial policy enforcers” to protect the investments of the corporation and its private shareholders only.

      The organic “original” Constitution of 1776, ratified in 1789, is not represented or recognized in a courtroom displaying a “gold-fringed corporate/military flag of occupation and receivership” unless the judge “allows” it to be.

      It was altered, usurped and hidden during the treasonous Act of 1871 and yet again under the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933. When both times USA Inc., went bankrupt.

      The CON-stitution that you see now is ONLY a private business charter that ONLY protects “We The People” who are the corporate shareholders of the foreign owned corporation, and DOES NOT represent YOU or the 50 state common law Republic in any fashion.

      Go into any courtroom displaying the gold-fringed flag and demand your “Constitutional Rights” … you will be harshly informed that YOU have no “Constitutional Rights” ONLY … “granted privileges” at the whim of the “court” that is also a private foreign owned corporation domiciled within the Financial District of London City, England!

      All attorneys, judges are forced by “foreign corporate fascist policy” to be members of the “BAR” i.e., “British Accredited Registry Inc.”, if they want to practice law in America without being thrown into a prison to rot.

      Since 1933, there is NO LAW. Only “corporate polices” as everything is now considered as being “commercial” under Admiralty Law Merchant Contract Law based on Roman Lex Fori fascist tyrannical law now known as: International Uniform Commercial Code.

      Why? Because there is no “government” … only corporations.

      So what does this all mean?

      Question: When did any of you reading this ever give your CONSENT with full and proper “contractual” disclosure to be subjugated, lorded over and ruled by a FOREIGN OWNED PRIVATE CORPORATION THAT HAS NO LAWFUL/LEGAL AUTHORITY while “pretending and lying” that its a lawful/legal governing body ???


    4. Jimmy, the felons and mentally ill already have guns if they want them. Congress can pass a law against breathing or gravity or making water dry they cannot change reality and having a law that can’t possibly be enforced is simple denial.

    5. NO , I advocate a FULL return the literal words and intent of the United States Constitution as written and explained by the founders and authors , all slime bucket legal jargon omitted and eliminated .( After the original convention ) .

    6. We gave up the 4th & 5th Amendments when we submitted to filing tax returns. You know the ones that you have to file but can be used in court against you. We also submit to being audited on the IRS’ whim. Bye, bye 5th. You let them confiscate your money (taxation). You give up your when privacy when you file. Now you don’t have a leg to stand on when they want to raid your house or confiscate your guns. Do you advocate stop & frisk? If you do you’re against the 4th’s protections. Liberty is a package. Stand for all of it or you stand for tyranny.

    Leave a Comment 7 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *