- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court case on 4th amendment and seizing guns
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:23 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:23 am
So Biden admin is encouraging the Supreme Court to uphold lower Court rulings on warrantless seizure of guns in a house for "community protection"
LINK
This case will have far reaching affects. Hopefully the SC does the right thing here.
LINK
This case will have far reaching affects. Hopefully the SC does the right thing here.
quote:
First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.
Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglia’s case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”
Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.
quote:
But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception,” their brief stated, “but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the Justice Department felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case.
quote:
As a fail-safe, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officers’ “actions did not violate any clearly established law so as to render the officers individually liable in a damages action.”
But the Biden Administration, along with the courts that have extended the community caretaking exception, overlook a key component of the Fourth Amendment: the Security Clause. After all, the Fourth Amendment opens with the phrase, “the right of the people to be secure.”
quote:
In an amicus brief, the Institute for Justice noted that “to the Founding generation, ‘secure’ did not simply mean the right to be ‘spared’ an unreasonable search or seizure” but also involved “harms attributable to the potential for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Expanding the community caretaking exception to “allow warrantless entries into peoples’ homes on a whim,” argued the IJ brief, “invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers” and would undermine “the right of the people to be secure” in their homes.
The IJ brief further argued that extending the “community caretaking” exception to the home would “flatly contradict” the Supreme Court's prior rulings, which “has only discussed community caretaking in the context of vehicle searches and seizures.” In those cases, “the animating purpose for the exception [was] to allow officers to remove damaged or abandoned vehicles that pose a risk to public safety.” By contrast, the IJ amicus asserted, “that justification is entirely absent” when it comes to homes.
“The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Joshua Windham. “A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”
This post was edited on 3/25/21 at 10:27 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:24 am to lsu777
I live in a gun sanctuary state.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:25 am to lsu777
Liberal Hank blamed this on Drumpf
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:25 am to lsu777
quote:
his case will have far reaching affects. Hopefully the SC does the right thing here.
They aren't courageous enough to do the right thing.
"Here are legitimate affidavits and facts proving fraud in the election."
SCOTUS: ".....crickets....."
Media: SCOTUS refuses to hear arguments, without giving statements.
Barrett, Kavenaugh, Gorsich have all been massive disappointments and failures. More reasoning why this country is no longer viable.
This post was edited on 3/25/21 at 10:27 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:25 am to lsu777
quote:
for "community protection"
Ah, the old public health defense. Used by communists since the beginning of time.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:28 am to ehidal1
quote:
for "community protection"
We need less protection of the community from the individual and more protection of the individual from the community.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:29 am to ehidal1
yea the whole "community caretaking exception" that was originally designed to allow officer to remove, i.e. tow cars broken down and left on the highway.
according to the biden admin...this 100% applies to entering a home and removing guns, because you know "community protection"
the fricked up part in the case is that the police seized the gun, the guy got released from the doctor sayign he was not sucidal, yet the police refused to give the guns back. He had to fricking sue to get them back.
Dont give a frickin inch, they will take a mile.
according to the biden admin...this 100% applies to entering a home and removing guns, because you know "community protection"
the fricked up part in the case is that the police seized the gun, the guy got released from the doctor sayign he was not sucidal, yet the police refused to give the guns back. He had to fricking sue to get them back.
Dont give a frickin inch, they will take a mile.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:30 am to lsu777
Since no knock warrants are considered civil rights violations, we now will have no warrant no knocks.
At least until the next Briana Taylor gets smoked.
At least until the next Briana Taylor gets smoked.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:30 am to lsu777
quote:
Hopefully the SC does the right thing here.
What is the point of gun rights if you're going to stand by and let the government violate them? It's immaterial what the SC says on this. The right is clearly enumerated.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:34 am to squid_hunt
well guess i should have looked a little further down. missed the other thread.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:37 am to squid_hunt
quote:
What is the point of gun rights if you're going to stand by and let the government violate them?
This is why they come for you individually... individuals standing up to the government will be handled harshly and made to look crazy... Also, the examples made will discourage others from defending their rights and property...
This is the reason for the drip drip... if they break shite loose wholesale, you are more apt to see groups rather than individuals...
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:53 am to lsu777
S
-L
--I
---P
----P
-----E
------R
-------Y
---------S
----------L
-----------O
------------P
-------------E
-L
--I
---P
----P
-----E
------R
-------Y
---------S
----------L
-----------O
------------P
-------------E
Posted on 3/25/21 at 10:55 am to lsu777
If we are depending on the judiciary to do do the responsible and constitutional thing, expect the worst.
This post was edited on 3/25/21 at 10:56 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:09 am to lsu777
I feel like I can speak for just about all law enforcement in red areas and say frick that!
Just go ahead and classify me as an outlaw with the rest of you degenerates. I ain’t taking shite or having shite taken.
Just go ahead and classify me as an outlaw with the rest of you degenerates. I ain’t taking shite or having shite taken.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:14 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
I feel like I can speak for just about all law enforcement in red areas
ummm...hate to break it to you, you dont speak for most and most will do what they are told. Been proven over and over.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:27 am to lsu777
quote:
By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,”
in a world where the government knew what the appropriate action was in every situation then I would agree, in sentiment, with this ruling.
In this world, where the government doesn't do a single thing "appropriately," you can mark me down in the "you can suck a dick" column.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:31 am to lsu777
How bout some “Community Caretaking” memes?
The article was kinda long and lacking humor.
The article was kinda long and lacking humor.
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:41 am to lsu777
The problem is that the police will be under attack about 15 seconds after they do NOT confiscate firearms in this sort of situation, if the person at issue commits an assault WITH those firearms.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
"Officer Jones, you were in the house 10m before the assault?"
"Yes."
"And you saw the firearms?"
"Yes."
"And you left them there?"
"Yes."
"Off with his head!"
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
"Officer Jones, you were in the house 10m before the assault?"
"Yes."
"And you saw the firearms?"
"Yes."
"And you left them there?"
"Yes."
"Off with his head!"
This post was edited on 3/25/21 at 11:44 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 11:47 am to lsu777
SIDE NOTE: The Institute for Justice cited above is a fantastic organization. It's well-run and pretty efficient with its funding. I give to them every year and recommend you consider it as well.
This post was edited on 3/25/21 at 11:48 am
Posted on 3/25/21 at 12:04 pm to lsu777
Interesting to note that The American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute and American Conservative Union Foundation all filed amicus briefs AGAINST law enforcement in this case.
The case that aligns the ACLU and Cato is already inherently interesting.
The case that aligns the ACLU and Cato is already inherently interesting.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News