Maybe the 2nd isn't as fixed as all that...

The Supreme Court has just ruled that evidence obtained in an illegal search can be used against you.

The case involves a person who was stopped by police on suspicion of illegal drug activity - a stop that was later deemed unlawful by state authorities. The police then found an outstanding warrant for the man on a minor traffic violation, arrested and searched him, and found drugs on his person.

Many A2AAs here and elsewhere are convinced that the 2nd Amendment is more-or-less inviolable, and that there is no chance in the foreseeable future that it will ever be changed or repealed. But if the Supreme Court can treat the 4th Amendment so casually, what's to stop them from treating the 2nd in the same way?

This ruling drew a strongly-worded dissent from Justice Sotomayor, which you can read in its entirety here.

Quote:

Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

There are a lot of ways in which this was an awful decision by the Supreme Court. But it illustrates that just because it is in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean that it can never be altered, as A2AAs here and elsewhere are fond of suggesting.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/28RuHRs