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

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

Good news.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It does seem like a pretty clear case. How did it make it to the Supreme Court?

Getting a warrant in this type of situation shouldn’t be the hardest thing for the police to do.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

 

[Jerome]

Interesting that retired Justice David Souter was on the Court of Appeals three-judge panel that ruled for the police officers:

govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca1-19-01764/USCOURTS-ca1-19-01764-0/summary

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
March 13, 2020
OPINION issued by David J. Barron, Appellate Judge; David H. Souter,* Associate Supreme Court Justice and Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge.
*Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.

 

[Roy]

WOW! Unanimously, huh? How did that ever happen? I am glad for it, but at the same time it makes me wonder what the liberal justices were thinking. Were they worried that antifa would lose their guns?

 

[Scott Downey]

I get so tired of the nanny state we live in.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

WOW! Unanimously, huh? How did that ever happen? I am glad for it, but at the same time it makes me wonder what the liberal justices were thinking. Were they worried that antifa would lose their guns?

Yeah, don't ever trust those clocks running backward, no matter how often they're right.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It does seem like a pretty clear case. How did it make it to the Supreme Court?

Getting a warrant in this type of situation shouldn’t be the hardest thing for the police to do.

Good point and good question. Perhaps they were hoping this would further erode constitutional rights.
For those paying attention, just that sort of thing has been happening for quite some time here.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

"Mama mia! No, of course I'm not suicidal—I'm Italian!"

 

[Gold Dragon]

Good point and good question. Perhaps they were hoping this would further erode constitutional rights.
For those paying attention, just that sort of thing has been happening for quite some time here.

By "they" do you mean Republican appointed (George HW) retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter and Republican appointed (Reagan) Federal Judge Bruce Selya who were two of the three who ruled on the Federal Appeal as pointed out in Jerome's post?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

By "they" do you mean Republican appointed (George HW) retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter and Republican appointed (Reagan) Federal Judge Bruce Selya who were two of the three who ruled on the Federal Appeal as pointed out in Jerome's post?

This is covered periodically. One, Bush is RINO at best. Two, appointees cannot be delineated based strictly on party nomination, meaning some are compromises. Some are really bad compromises. You'd have to dig deeper. "They" goes deeper than superficial party affiliation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is covered periodically. One, Bush is RINO at best. Two, appointees cannot be delineated based strictly on party nomination, meaning some are compromises. Some are really bad compromises. You'd have to dig deeper. "They" goes deeper than superficial party affiliation.

So "they" are the RINOs. Got it.

And which president's appointees are RINOs? I'll assume Trumps appointees are not in your formula.

George W
George HW
Reagan
Ford
Nixon

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

So "they" are the RINOs. Got it. ...

LOL. And you're one of the ones that laments the supposed poor reading comprehension of others. "Physician, heal thyself."

 

[Gold Dragon]

LOL. And you're one of the ones that laments the supposed poor reading comprehension of others. "Physician, heal thyself."

I'm being facetious but do you see the point I am trying to make?

 

[Revmitchell]

LOL. And you're one of the ones that laments the supposed poor reading comprehension of others. "Physician, heal thyself."

your the one that responded to him. Now take your medicine like a good boy.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'm being facetious but do you see the point I am trying to make?

LOL. Assuming your frequent ridiculous posts are attempts at being facetious often leads to disappointment. At least you've admitted it for once. Thanks.

 

[Gold Dragon]

your the one that responded to him. Now take your medicine like a good boy.

Have your spoon full of sugar first.

LOL. Assuming your frequent ridiculous posts are attempts at being facetious often leads to disappointment. At least you've admitted it for once. Thanks.

I'll spell it out for you.

Arbitrarily assigning the label of RINO whenever you don't like something a republican has done, or something their appointer has done is just an overly convenient cop out to avoid any accountability.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'll spell it out for you. Arbitrarily assigning the label of RINO whenever you don't like something a republican has done, or something their appointer has done is just an overly convenient cop out to avoid any accountability.

"Riiight." Now, back to the real issue that you seem determined to avoid after raising it, namely the attempts to further erode our constitutional rights here which are real and ongoing. The question still remains how the previous judges could be so far off base, as in far left field, when all of the data pointed to the right decision.

 

[Gold Dragon]

"Riiight." Now, back to the real issue that you seem determined to avoid after raising it, namely the attempts to further erode our constitutional rights here which are real and ongoing. The question still remains how the previous judges could be so far off base, as in far left field, when all of the data pointed to the right decision.

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.