He cares about donald. Let me ask you, because the times of said that they talk to lawyers and if he did have a billion dollar loss that all of this would be legal. They also done a that he actually did it. Assuming he did dino vanunu pays more taxes than they have to . That is not the point. The point here is his idea of fixing the tax code is to take care billionaires and his losses were something he used to avoid taxes but those losses represent real pain to many people who never got paid. He said that he uses bankruptcy as a business tool. To bring personality into it, hillary. Your husband has a history and your history of attacking women the only womens victim she doesnt believe at the one to say theyre victimized by her husband. We of 20, 30, this is come up in campaigns of the past House Republicans pursuing it. Your advisors when you thinking of running for senator said it would been a bad idea to bring it up. A bad idea tois focus on his personal empanada batted to point out her hypocrisy. Is attacking donald trump about he deals with women, respond by how she does which is to take money from governments womenill women and stone and that have women that can drive cars. Not just money, millions and tens of millions of dollars from countries in which women are treated like property and killed and get raped. Dont, basically, it is lecture me on feminism, hillary because you are a phony. Tweeted thismp comment i know our complex tax laws better than anyone was ever run for president and and the only one who can fix them. Ahead of tuesdays Vice President ial debate we take a look back at the candidates virginia senator tim kaine and indiana governor mike pence using the cspan video library. I have turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting or a weather emergency or famine. I have seen the stories and there will be more of them. There was something in the story asserted that was different and it was you, your spirit even in a dark day of optimism. The presidency is the most visible thread that runs to the tapestry of the american government. More often than not for good oriole it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential. Its requirements and the outset and by definition impossible for mortals to for phil without fulfill without humility a look at it met of the Vice President of debate monday night on it on eastern on cspan. Watch anytime on cspan. Org and listen at 8 00 p. M. On the cspan radio app. Now, the Fourth Circuit court of appeals in Richmond Virginia hears oral argument in the case examining police stop and frisk policies in West Virginia with the incident took place. The law allows citizens to arm themselves with concealed guns but the court said previously world that Police Officers must have a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous before frisking them. This is an hour and 10 minutes. Good morning, counsel. I hope youre ready. Mr. Compton may it please the court. My name is Nicholas Compton and i represent shaquille robinson. Id like to reserve seven minutes for rebuttal which i see the clerk has done. Thank you, your honor. Your honor, the facts in this case are not in dispute. On march 24, 2014, the Jefferson County, West Virginia, Sheriffs Office received an anonymous tip that an africanamerican male was in the parking lot of the 7eleven in ranson, West Virginia, loading a firearm, concealing that firearm in his pocket and then entering a bluishgreen toyota camry driven by a white female and heading out of the 7eleven parking lot south on north mildred street. Upon receiving that tip, officer Kendall Hudson and chief Robbie Roberts of the Jefferson CountySheriffs Office left the station and went to track down this bluishgreen toyota camry. Officer hudson came upon the camry on north mildred street, stopped the vehicle for a seat belt violation. He exited his vehicle, drew his weapon upon exiting the vehicle and approached the drivers side. When he approached the drivers side he asked for the drivers license and he questioned the driver. In your view over here in your view, when the officer stops a car with probable cause and the driver of the car has a concealed weapon permit, does that make does that make the stop less dangerous or more dangerous . Mr. Compton i dont believe it makes the stop any more or less dangerous, your honor. Judge shedd so it doesnt matter . Mr. Compton well, its not like it doesnt matter. Judge shedd it sounds like what you said. No, i mean as far as making to more or less dangerous. Mr. Compton which is a fact to consider. Judge shed does it make it more dangerous or less dangerous . Mr. Compton i think in this instance, when you factor judge shedd im talking generally. Mr. Compton if they are complying with the law of the state judge shedd we dont know that. We know if he has a concealed weapon permit. Mr. Compton if he has a concealed weapon permit and that permits him to carry that weapon legally, then i think that does that would take away from the factors that the officer has to the officer doesnt know. The officer on the street making the stop. Mr. Compton he may not know he has a permit and that in states where you are required to have a permit, the default is not the default standard is not you are possessing it illegally without a permit. Even if he does, if the stop is legal, i know you described pretextual, there is no dispute the stop was legal. Mr. Compton there is no dispute it was legal. Judge diaz and a gun is no less dangerous. Mr. Compton every firearm has some aspect it could be used in a manner that could cause harm. But i dont believe that is just one factor to consider when trying to determine the dangerousness aspect of the armed and dangerous to do the patdown search. We probably would spend our time better by getting directly to the issue. You mentioned pretextual. Thats not an issue. You dont have to go there. This case really comes down to the whole budge about a concealed weapon. I dont know what that means the term conceal weapon if you can possess the gun lawfully and walk out with it or even if its concealed, the question is, do you have to show a permit in an instance or is it presumed that you have one . It really comes down to the question of having a gun by having a gun, is that does that mean you are armed and dangerous, at least from my perspective . And i dont know what the implications beyond this case means by that. Mr. Compton i dont think having a gun means necessarily other than you are armed. I dont believe in and of itself possessing a gun, particularly when you are possessing a gun legally under the laws of the state, either by permit, concealed or by open carry or as is now the law in West Virginia concealed without a permit which is i will ask one question. I understand that position, but why is it safety for these officers, really the paramount concern here . I mean, if hes got a gun, the safety of an officer, we know the statistics in terms of officers being shot. We know the probability how things can happen. How is it we can say if he has a how is it we can say if he has a tip, this guy has a gun, he stops him, pretextual or not, why is it that point that something further like a frisk cant happen . Mr. Compton we are all concerned with officers safety. Its no just the safety of the officers. Its the safety of everybody there. Mr. Compton thats correct. Safety with the fellow with the gun too. Mr. Compton thats correct, your honor. And the person in the car. Everybodys safety is of concern. What can state law have to do with this . The standards here is fixed by the Supreme Court of the united states. Mr. Compton i think state law goes to, your honor it doesnt change the supremacy clause. It doesnt change the decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Compton they cannot, your honor. They cant. So how could it have anything to do with it . Mr. Compton it goes to whether or not the state legislature can make a determination as to whether or not its citizens are legally allowed to possess a firearm and what circumstances. If they are not if they possess a firearm openly and are not committing a crime by doing so, then that takes away from the dangerousness aspect of it. Mr. Compton, but arent you ignoring the facts of this case . You said if they possess a gun openly, this man was concealing a gun and we have the factual circumstances of the case that provide the Additional Information that he was loading a firearm in a public place in broad daylight at, what, 2 30 in the afternoon, and he then concealed the weapon on his person. Now, why isnt that indicative of suspicious behavior irrespective of any laws allowing him to carry a gun . Mr. Compton because none of that is illegal activity in West Virginia, your honor. It doesnt have to be illegal to incite reasonable suspicion. All the police have to do, as i understand the laws of frisking, stopping and frisking, the police, when you are talking about a stop, the police are looking for evidence of illegal activity and thats one thing. I think thats what youre pointing to, but when you talk about whether they have a right to frisk somebody whom they lawfully stopped, you are not talking about illegal activity. Youre talking about someone is armed and dangerous. Isnt that correct, under the Supreme Court los angeles the breakdown of those two concepts . If so, why isnt this indicative that somebody may be dangerous . That this conduct of loading a weapon in a public place, in a high crime area, why isnt that something more than just a citizen arming himself . Mr. Compton i think your honor has stated it correctly, but i think illegal activity, yes, goes to the first part, can you stop . Its also a factor to consider. We dont have to consider the illegal aspect of gun ownership in this case and whether its lawful or not because there was a reason for the stop. And thats conceded in this case. That the stop was valid, correct . Mr. Compton correct. Judge keenan and then we look to the frisk. We look to whether this person was armed and dangerous. There is certainly he was armed. And why isnt their suspicion of dangerous activity when youre loading a gun, again, in a public place, in a place where drug activity is apparently frequently conducted . Mr. Compton your honor, i am not saying its not a factor to consider in the dangerousness aspect. It is a factor to consider, but if the what how do you consider . And this goes back, i think, to judges original question. You said in response to a question of whether one makes it more or less dangerous, that it was a factor to consider. It would be helpful for me to understand or to have you play out how you would consider the fact that the person was armed. And who is supposed to be considering this, the officer making the stop or is it a judicial determination . Mr. Compton i think the officer has to consider the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop. The officer has done a legal stop because of the seat belt. He has information that this individual is armed. So we have the stop and the armed part of the armed and dangerous. So now he has to consider the the factors that make that could make him dangerous. One of those is this guy has a gun. What is he doing with that gun . Has he pointed at somebodys head . Is it illegal . Did he hold somebody up with it . Did he rope a bank . Thats illegal activity. To follow up on judge duncans question, it seems to me what youre saying, all this factor or consider, youre leaving officers completely at sea and i dont understand, this is a rapidly evolving situation and you dont know, you know, when its going to turn hostile or deadly, and all youre saying is, well, its a fact to consider and everything. Thats no help in the practical situation on the road. There are factual aspects to this question. The facts, question go into whether theres reasonable suspicion for a stop, and then there are the facts which go into the question of whether theres reasonable suspicion to believe someone is armed. But once you have reasonable suspicion to believe those two things, the Supreme Court has said numerous cases that the frisk can then proceed as a protective measure and something thats designed to lessen the tension of the situation and lessen the prospect or possibility theres going to be what none of us want which is the use of lethal force. And instead of this fairly relatively clear path, youre just throwing up factors toe consider and i can only factors to consider and i can only imagine an officer scratching his head by the side of a road and wondering whether he can take the step of assuring himself that the situation is not potentially lethal before he goes forward. What are you leaving officers with . How is this going to be taught to them . How is this going to be communicated to them . Mr. Compton i think it has to be communicated to them very carefully because i think they are tasked with making a decision, a very important decision whether to interfere with the personal liberty of an individual who they wish to stop for whatever reason and then put hands on. I think thats a very important decision. Does the presence of the gun change that calculus . Does the presence of a gun change that calculus on what an officer can and should do . Mr. Compton it can. It is a factor to consider in terms of the dangers. Judge shedd listen, does it alone change it . Mr. Compton i dont think alone. I dont think having the firearm alone, particularly when you are in a situation, as we have described, where the judge shedd your view is when an officer stops a person legally, the officers approach should be the same to the driver when the driver when he knows the driver is unarmed and when he knows the driver is armed . Mr. Compton in situations, your honor, when judge shedd not situations. It should be exactly the same and the officer should just simply ignore the fact there is a weapon present. Mr. Compton if its in the jurisdiction where the individual is allowed legally to possess a firearm, the what youre saying is different in West Virginia than it is perhaps in maryland or pennsylvania or virginia, all those are very close by. So he has to know which jurisdiction he is in and the state law. So youre saying the West Virginia legislature could change the Supreme Court decisions and the constitution. What do you do with the supremacy clause . Mr. Compton no. Judge king well, West Virginia law cant have anything to do with it. Mr. Compton i think, sir, in terms of the calculus. I think the panel of the majority was alluding to this when they said in he has to be looking out for the safety of himself and everybody else there in order to carry out his duties. Mr. Compton yes, sir. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said in terry v. Ohio and michigan v. Long and case after case after case that, yes, the frisk is, as you said earlier, an indignity. Theres no question about that. But it serves in many, many cases to deescalate the situation and lessen the tension. Thats what you want to do here is to the degree you can lessen the tension so that the use of lethal force, which is something no one wants, will prove unnecessary, that an officer will be simply not as uptight and everybody will be not as uptight if they know theres not a chance of gunfire breaking out. So the Supreme Court cases talk about this in terms of a deescalation measure and taking some of the tension out of the situation because its the tension that leads to the worst of all outcomes which is the use of this lethal force. How can we come back to judge kings question. How can we question that sort of rationale that has been given us in case after case after case . We dont have that authority. Mr. Compton your honor, i understand the court saying that what we have to were trying to deescalate the situation here, but when an individual is exercising a right that they have given to them by the legislature of the state that they are in, i dont see how infringing upon that right in some way by padding them down, what happens if they find the gun when they pat them down . They dont just let them keep it, which they are allowed to do. The officer then takes the gun all of because, for instance, a seat belt violation. Certainly you are saying the state can grant a right that the Supreme Court cant restrict . Mr. Compton no, your honor. I am not saying that West Virginia has the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Youre saying they could modify it. Youre saying they circumscribe it and they can. Mr. Compton im not suggesting that. Judge king you are saying thats a factor they have to take into account. Mr. Compton well, under the standard. Judge king the local ordinance or the local statute, when the officer is trying to determine to frisk somebody, hes legitimately stopped on the side of the road. And here he knows he has a loaded firearm in his belt. Mr. Compton, is it part of your answer for 200 years states have been recognized to create privacy interests, and when a state legislature creates a privacy interest in the possession of personalities, such as a handgun, that personality is entitled to exactly the same protection that any other person who is on the possession of a citizen of West Virginia and that therefore state law has everything to do with whats protected under the Fourth Amendment, isnt that right . Mr. Compton i think thats right and clearly the court has articulated it a lot better than ive been able to for the last several minutes. Let me followup on that, too, because i think there is another right and you havent mentioned the words Second Amendment just yet and yet there is a string of cases that is increasingly allowed for citizens to possess guns and to possess them in Public Places that have been state laws hav