Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You really think those two judges (I would say 3 judges) were trying to erode constitutional rights?

Why don't you read their opinion? It is in the link Jerome provided. Instead of making unsubstantiated attacks assuming you know who you are attacking and then using the cop out of RINO when they turn out to be republicans.

Instead of making your usual baseless assumptions and baseless accusations, why don't you for once pony up with something of reasonable substance?

To wit, explain why you think those lower judges made their decisions in direct contradiction to what the nine Supreme Court Justices unanimously determined.

It is all too clear from the decision of the latter that those earlier summary judgments would further erode constitutional limits. But you are free to explain why you erroneously believe that is not true.

 

[Jerome]

Policy of "senatorial courtesy" is how these two got their presidential judicial nominations in the 1980s & early 90s .

Selya was crony of liberal Republican Senator John Chafee.
Souter was "best friend" of liberal Republican Warren Rudman.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Here is an article from the plaintiff's legal team:

 

[Reynolds]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.

According to Caniglia v Strom, a lower court had previously determined that police confiscating the guns without a warrant fell under the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, but a 9-0 vote from the nation’s top court struck down that ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court, stating that law enforcement can execute “many civic tasks in modern society,” but there is “not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.”


Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote

 

[Reynolds]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.

According to Caniglia v Strom, a lower court had previously determined that police confiscating the guns without a warrant fell under the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, but a 9-0 vote from the nation’s top court struck down that ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court, stating that law enforcement can execute “many civic tasks in modern society,” but there is “not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.”


Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote

It's actually a 4A victory. Nothing to do with 2A really.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes, this was a 4th Amendment-focused case. However, it has implications in regards to Red Flag laws. Which use much the same language as the State of Rhode Island used in its defense.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, this was a 4th Amendment-focused case. However, it has implications in regards to Red Flag laws. Which use much the same language as the State of Rhode Island used in its defense.

Yes, Red Flag laws are scary for what they mean/do.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In his separate opinion, Alito may be inviting challenges to “red flag” laws.

4. This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum.Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021);Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under theFourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.​