SECOND AMENDMENT STRESS APPROACHING

Let me help you out

quote:

---

HIGHLIGHTS The case: In 2015, Edward Caniglia and his wife had an argument at their home in Cranston, Rhode Island. During the argument, Caniglia retrieved an unloaded gun from their bedroom. Mrs. Caniglia spent the night at a nearby hotel. The next day, Mrs. Caniglia called the police to request a wellness check on her husband and an escort to their home. At the home, the sergeant determined that Caniglia was imminently dangerous to himself and to others. The police requested that Caniglia go to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. Caniglia complied, alleging that he did so based on a promise from police that they would not confiscate his guns. The sergeant seized firearms and ammunition from the home. Later, Caniglia attempted to retrieve his firearms from the police department several times. His requests were denied. Caniglia filed suit in district court against the police department and city officials, alleging violations to the U.S. Constitution and to state law. The firearms were returned to Caniglia. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here for more on the background of this case. The issues: The case concerns the scope of police officers' authority for search and seizure and as community caretakers.[1] The questions presented: "Whether the 'community caretaking' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement extends to the home."[2] The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.[4] Timeline

---

Ballotpedia

quote:

---

Scotus will be taking up a case soon: Caniglia vs. Strom. Aricle by Evan Gerstman is significant explanation (sorry no link). Worth the time to check it out. See: Community Caretaking exception to 4th Amendment.

---

If someone is a danger to themselves or others, I generally don't have an issue with a person taken into custody and given due process to make a determination. Not sure why the guns would need to be taken as they person should be under supervision or locked up... pending due process. Looks like the wife gave them permission to take them as well.

quote:

---

Caniglia complied, alleging that he did so based on a promise from police that they would not confiscate his guns.

---

Nope.

One thing my wife and I have discussed. If anyone asks, we own no firearms.

quote:

---

If someone is a danger to themselves or others, I generally don't have an issue with a person taken into custody and given due process to make a determination.

---

Your scenario, assuming no law is being broken would go like this:

1. Take upset, law-abiding person into custody
2. Then give them due process

I don't know about all that.

You'd allow some random police officer to take you into custody so that you could THEN be given due process? Seems like the due process should come before the taking into custody.

quote:

---

If someone is a danger to themselves or others

---

Who determines this "danger" status? Johnny LEO who is likely the most unstable person in the room? The angry spouse? We all know how level an angry woman is. Who exactly has that authority?

quote:

---

Looks like the wife gave them permission to take them as well.

---

Well let's see, a pissed-off woman who wants to hurt her husband. Why not give away his shite...

What is the new legal precedent here? Is this the first time a wellness check resulted in guns being confiscated? Seems odd that THIS case is the one making it to the SCOTUS. And even more odd if they take up the case.

The guy had all the time in the world to cause himself harm and didn't. So what is the reason the officers felt it was necessary to remove him from the situation?

We had a family tragedy in our family around mental issues and guns. It's a problem I'd love to see resolved, but if the answer is anything remotely near punishing the 99.999% of the responsible gun owners to achieve the solution, it's a non starter.

Dumb arse for complying to mental health order. Tell the Sarg to contact your lawyer and go away. Once you to admit to mental health issues you are done.

We really need to know how crazy the Mrs. is.

Seriously. Some women are out of their everloving minds, and men have a right to protect themselves as much as women do.

Without knowing what she threatened him with (we'll never know) - there's no way to determine if this is not good, or REALLY not good.

Need more evidence. We used to lock crazies up in hospitals, but now they run for office on the Democrat tickets.

We don't know if he's crazy or how the police determined that.

Back The Blue

Notwithstanding all of the above comments concerning the elements of this case, the leftists are looking for 'THE' window through which they will legitimize searches for firearms that you may not disclose to them on the various forms they will send you to fess up what you have in your home. Once you take that position of not having any, they will begin the process of 'tracing', you know, like COVID tracing, anyone who has seen you exiting your home for the range or field with your rifle, tracers will report having seen you. More practically, Biden and company will regard firearms as a National Threat to Health (precipitated by the DOH or some other acronym heath department, and then the importance of Community Caretaking will be cited. On that basis, if police come to your house for ANY reason, and ask what you have regarding firearms, they will without a warrant search and then you are cooked..