- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:43 pm to AMS
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:43 pm to AMS
quote:
Thats kinda what im saying, its not the consent or lack of warrant at issue.
its the scope of community caretaking doctrine which was originally aimed at vehicle 4th ammendment rights and if/what circumstances does it is extendable to the home.
Agreed. And it appears as if the only time this issue has come up in the SCOTUS has had to do with searches of automobiles and not homes, and precedent has shown that searching vehicles w/o a warrant provides a lot more leeway under 4th Amendment protections than warrant-les searches of homes. I do, however, think the Court ruling that the consent was legally negated is very significant here. There was no immediate threat of harm as the husband had already been taken away and detained. It wasn't an inventory search of an impounded vehicle. It wasn't in the course of providing emergency aid. And there was no public servant exception (public servants having fewer rights to privacy re searches than private citizens do). There's just not any SCOTUS case law on this being applied to a search of a home
0
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:44 pm to wryder1
There's so much wrong in that case, it should have never made it to the Supreme Court
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:45 pm to Crimson Wraith
Todd Masson the fishing guy?
Marsh Man?
Marsh Man?
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:46 pm to texridder
quote:
If you're in a state militia.
You are one stupid motherfricker.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:48 pm to SCLibertarian
Significant majority are, no doubt. Worrisome is if they are instructed in a way to infringe on our ownership in a way that the SCOTUS says is ok, the good guys will follow the orders, what a mess of a shite show that would be. Their jobs depend on their following those orders, doubt they would be principled enough to stick to core beliefs, they have families to feed.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:50 pm to Boogalie
quote:
Significant majority are, no doubt. Worrisome is if they are instructed in a way to infringe on our ownership in a way that the SCOTUS says is ok, the good guys will follow the orders, what a mess of a shite show that would be. Their jobs depend on their following those orders, doubt they would be principled enough to stick to core beliefs, they have families to feed.
This case before the SCOTUS really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You could replace guns in this scenario with drugs and the same constitutional issues are present. This is a 4th Amendment case. There really isn't anything about this case that would likely result in having any effect on the 2nd Amendment
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 6:51 pm
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:07 pm to texridder
quote:
If you're in a state militia.
Read up on the Militia Act of 1792 then get back to us.
quote:
Why do you dolts keep repeating that? Even Scalia said it wasn't absolute.
And none of that entails every damn restriction leftists like you support.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:08 pm to wryder1
quote:
Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant
Um what the frick?
How is this even a debate?
No you cannot enter a home without a warrant to seize property
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:11 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Any conservatives on here still think cops are the good guys?
Yes because I don't ignorantly make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:12 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Hell there Sotomayor and Kagan are 100% all in for the totalitarian left. So we are at best down 2-0 before the case is even heard.
And the irony is, this bullshite will certainly affect blacks disproportionately. For now anyway.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:18 pm to wryder1
quote:
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant
This is being overdramatic.
More Accurately:
quote:
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether A Last-Straw Argument Between Husband and Wife Is Legally Divorce
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:21 pm to dcrews
quote:
Yes because I don't ignorantly make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.
And when this becomes constitutional and the community care doctrine usurps the 2nd Amendment, the cops will come after people like you first, since you blindly back the blue.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:39 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Any conservatives on here still think cops are the good guys?
All the time? No. In literally every instance that BLM screams about? Yes.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:40 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
And when this becomes constitutional and the community care doctrine usurps the 2nd Amendment
Why do you keep thinking this is aimed at the 2nd Amendment? This is very clearly a 4th Amendment issue. Guy uses gun to intimidate wife, which is a form of domestic assault. WIfe calls police. Husband is apprehended and transported elsewhere. Police then lie and tell wife that husband consented to search and seizure of his guns. Police do just that. Now, paint this as domestic situation and husband is, instead, tweeked up on drugs. Police lie and tell wife he consented to them seizing his drugs. Same exact issues are in play. This is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment. It is an attack on our 4th Amendment protections against warrant-less searches and seizures globally. Just because guns happen to be involved doesn't mean 2nd Amendment issues are being litigated or are even in play. This is about whether or not law enforcement can use the "community caretaking doctrine" to extend towards warrant-less searches of homes. This case is in the same grouping with other 4th Amendment cases that dealt with stop-and-frisk searches, searches incident to arrest, etc, not 2nd Amendment issues.
It's a significant issue that needs to be heard, but this is not about our right to bear arms
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:42 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Typical sloth-minded response. You ignored the fact that Scalia said that the right to bear arms was not absolute.
It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia, you fricking retard.
So, does that mean you think Scalia is a retard, too?
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:47 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:You are one chickenshit air-head --- with nothing to say.
You are one stupid motherfricker.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:53 pm to texridder
quote:
You ignored the fact that Scalia said that the right to bear arms was not absolute.
So, does that mean you think Scalia is a retard, too?
What a strawman
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:01 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Fascinating time
That's a rather odd word choice. Remind me not to jump in to a foxhole with you.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:07 pm to texridder
quote:So in your mind... the 2A established secondary armies in addition to the army already established in Article 1 Section 8? And it’s the only amendment in the bill of rights to expand power not limit it.
If you're in a state militia.
Because that’s what one would have to believe to believe the intent of the 2A was to require joining an militia organized by the state.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:14 pm to texridder
quote:
It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia, you fricking retard.
—————
Typical sloth-minded response. You ignored the fact that Scalia said that the right to bear arms was not absolute.
at least he responded to the argument rather than trying to change it to another strawman. 
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News