United States v. Shaquille Robinson

Inigoes · Aug 23, 2016

United States v. Shaquille Robinson EnBanc

The CA4 is taking another gun case En Banc 09/22/16:

United States v. Shaquille Robinson

The previous decision: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902.P.pdf

previous MDS thread: https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=190271

DC-W · Aug 23, 2016

Interesting. Very interesting.

danb · Aug 23, 2016

This is not good, IMO. US v Black is 4th circuit precedent (see below!), and the opinion seems to squarely follow US v Black. Under US v Black, a tip that someone has a loaded gun in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven is not sufficient for a Terry stop (WVa allows both open and concealed carry).

en banc suggests they might overrule US v Black, which would also suggest a bad result on Kolbe.

W2D · Aug 23, 2016

Does Maryland have a "Duty to Inform" law? (That you have to tell the officer you are carrying during a traffic stop?)

press1280 · Aug 23, 2016

danb said:
This is not good, IMO. US v Black is 4th circuit precedent (see below!), and the opinion seems to squarely follow US v Black. Under US v Black, a tip that someone has a loaded gun in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven is not sufficient for a Terry stop (WVa allows both open and concealed carry).

en banc suggests they might overrule US v Black, which would also suggest a bad result on Kolbe.

What's odd is the anti judges made the right call while Niemeyer, who's a pro 2A judge IMO ruled the stop was OK.

DC-W · Aug 23, 2016

W2D said:
Does Maryland have a "Duty to Inform" law? (That you have to tell the officer you are carrying during a traffic stop?)

No, but you must present the permit if requested.

danb · Aug 23, 2016

press1280 said:
What's odd is the anti judges made the right call while Niemeyer, who's a pro 2A judge IMO ruled the stop was OK.

Not odd. This is not really a 2nd amendment case as much as its a 4th amendment case. Many judges who uphold the 2nd will vote to abridge the 4th, and vice versa.

It's hard to tell whether the anti's made this decision because they were following the US v Black 4th circuit precedent, or whether they also happened to agree with that opinion. There were a few places I thought that the majority opinion was worded in a way that essentially telegraphed how to overturn US v Black, and get a different result. The dissent was kind of a mess. I have not read the cert briefs, maybe there is something compelling there. I honestly don't understand why they took this case en banc, except to curtail US v Black.

ETA: One might say Black related to open carry, while this case involves concealed carry. True, but I suspect this case won't revolve around that detail.

Nobody · Aug 23, 2016

DC-W said:
No, but you must present the permit if requested.

Do you have a source for this information. Not doubting you....well maybe a little but would like to see statute

Nobody

DC-W · Aug 23, 2016

Nobody said:
Do you have a source for this information. Not doubting you....well maybe a little but would like to see statute

Nobody

http://handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf

Must Inform Officer Immediately on Contact By Law?
“NO”
Public Safety § 5-308. Possession of Permit Required
A person to whom a permit is issued or renewed shall carry the permit in the person's possession whenever
the person carries, wears, or transports a handgun.

Note: You would have to present it on demand.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=5-308&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

§5–308.
A person to whom a permit is issued or renewed shall carry the permit in the person’s possession whenever the person carries, wears, or transports a handgun.

esqappellate · Aug 26, 2016

danb said:
Not odd. This is not really a 2nd amendment case as much as its a 4th amendment case. Many judges who uphold the 2nd will vote to abridge the 4th, and vice versa.

It's hard to tell whether the anti's made this decision because they were following the US v Black 4th circuit precedent, or whether they also happened to agree with that opinion. There were a few places I thought that the majority opinion was worded in a way that essentially telegraphed how to overturn US v Black, and get a different result. The dissent was kind of a mess. I have not read the cert briefs, maybe there is something compelling there. I honestly don't understand why they took this case en banc, except to curtail US v Black.

ETA: One might say Black related to open carry, while this case involves concealed carry. True, but I suspect this case won't revolve around that detail.

Here is the petition for rehearing en banc that was granted. It will explain why they granted rehearing. This has a win for the government written all over it. The only question in my mind is how they write the opinion.

danb · Aug 26, 2016

esqappellate said:
Here is the petition for rehearing en banc that was granted. It will explain why they granted rehearing. This has a win for the government written all over it. The only question in my mind is how they write the opinion.

Indeed, it does.

thanks!!

Inigoes · Sep 27, 2016

Case was supposed to be reheard 9/22/2016

Anyone know when the audio is going to be available?

press1280 · Sep 27, 2016

Inigoes said:
Case was supposed to be reheard 9/22/2016

Anyone know when the audio is going to be available?

Right here: http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/14-4902-20160922.mp3

Inigoes · Sep 27, 2016

Thank you

it is interesting listen. The Judges are going at each other, more than asking questions of the lawyers.

Inigoes · Sep 27, 2016

esqappellate said:
Here is the petition for rehearing en banc that was granted. It will explain why they granted rehearing. This has a win for the government written all over it. The only question in my mind is how they write the opinion.

Listen to the argument.

the judges were all over the place. By the sound of it, they want to uphold US v BLACK.

the judges are all wrestling with police receiving a tip that a fella is armed, and then responding because of the tip in a post Heller/McDonald world.

it was like listening to MDSers banter. lol

esqappellate · Sep 27, 2016

Inigoes said:
Listen to the argument.

the judges were all over the place. By the sound of it, they want to uphold US v BLACK.

the judges are all wrestling with police receiving a tip that a fella is armed, and then responding because of the tip in a post Heller/McDonald world.

it was like listening to MDSers banter. lol

Really interesting argument. The gov's case really unwound when they got to the 2A

danb · Sep 28, 2016

The oral argument was difficult to dissect. The only interesting thing I learned was that the stop in Terry was consensual, it was mostly about the frisk.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree that an encounter with an officer is inherently dangerous these days, whether the person is armed or not.

GTOGUNNER · Sep 28, 2016

This one would be a nice win. The state didn't articulate well and seemed to take both sides of his argument when questioned.
I doubt it will stop at the 4th regardless of the decision.

Elliotte · Sep 29, 2016

Inigoes said:
Listen to the argument.

the judges were all over the place. By the sound of it, they want to uphold US v BLACK.

the judges are all wrestling with police receiving a tip that a fella is armed, and then responding because of the tip in a post Heller/McDonald world.

it was like listening to MDSers banter. lol

It was really interesting to listen to the discussion. It sounded like for much of the discussion everyone was approaching it as a 4A matter only when a huge aspect of the case is 2A. Does lawfully exercising a right make a person dangerous?

Inigoes · Jan 23, 2017

Opinion today, Affirmed

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902A.P.pdf

In sum, individuals who carry firearms--lawfully or unlawfully--pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainee’s possession of a firearm poses a categorical “danger” to the officers.

Click to expand...

The 4CA doesn't trust you with a firearm!

The majority’s rule is bright-line and broad: Any citizen carrying a gun in a public-carry jurisdiction is “armed” and also per se “dangerous” under Terry, regardless of surrounding circumstances.

United States v. Shaquille Robinson

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Attachments

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Head'n for the hills

President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics