The U.S. Supreme Court apparently has decided to let Americans choose between their Second and Fourth Amendment rights, leaving untouched a lower court decision that supported the use of a violent SWAT attack on a man’s home because authorities were concerned about the mere presence of a weapon.
Check it out:
The Rutherford Institute represented John Quinn, who was shot in the no-knock raid by officers because he thought his home was being invaded by criminals and reached for his weapon.
Attorneys with William Olson P.C. and the the United States Justice Foundation also submitted the friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Quinn.
They were appalled that the reason the officers chose to conduct a violent no-knock raid was based on the presence of a firearm, as if the weapon “could somehow load itself, disengage its own safety, open the door, and begin to fire at the police.”