Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny recently enacted a department policy that can only be described as draconian. Using a ridiculously broad interpretation of the Constitution, the lawman took the right upon himself to conduct warrantless searches of gun shops to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Anyone with the most elemental knowledge of the Fourth Amendment knows this is far outside the bounds of law, but not Kilkenny. He believed his badge afforded him the right to search all 92 federally licensed gun dealers in his county to enforce statutory compliance.
However, less than a week after the legal filing, the sheriff announced he will halt the warrantless searches until the litigation is resolved.
The SAF issued a statement regarding the clear victory for constitutional rights.
“One week after the Second Amendment Foundation challenged Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, the sheriff has agreed to a court ordered stay enforcement of his policy of inspecting gun shops without a warrant.”
In the Friday filing, Kilkenny agreed to stay enforcement of the controversial protocol but declared he “intends to respond in opposition to the Petition for Review, and this stipulation shall not be interpreted as a waiver or limitation on the Sheriff’s ability to oppose and raise his defenses to the substance of the Petition.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut hailed the action as a triumph for personal liberties.
“We’re delighted that Sheriff Kilkenny has agreed to pull back from enforcing his policy of conducting warrantless searches of licensees.” Kraut called respect for constitutional rights “paramount” and noted that the litigation process may be lengthy.
However, licensees in Montgomery County will not have to worry about their freedoms being trampled by overzealous authorities while the case is heard.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the importance of the legal challenge working its way through the courts in a timely fashion. What is clear, he observed, is that during this process, “no actions should be taken which remotely suggest this policy is okay and will ultimately prevail.”
Gottlieb added, “A warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment, and that is never okay.”
And that is the point of gun rights advocates arguing against this clearly unlawful action. The Constitution is brilliantly vague in many areas, leaving issues open for judicial review and setting the stage for future changes. In others, however, it is quite simple and crystal clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In the plainest vernacular, there are to be no “fishing expeditions.”
This Pennsylvania sheriff took the right upon himself and his department to, without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation, conduct searches and seizures.
The most cursory glance at the Fourth Amendment should have been enough to forewarn law enforcement that they were stepping far beyond their legal bounds, but apparently it was not.
Whatever the underlying motivation, this act is blatantly unconstitutional to even the untrained eye. The SAF is to be commended for stepping up and putting a stop to this practice, and the progress of the case bears close observance.
