- 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 8:26 pm to lsufball19
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:26 pm to lsufball19
quote:
This case before the SCOTUS really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
The 4th Amendment is effectively dead. The exceptions have gobbled up the rule when it comes to prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This case isn't just about legalism, it's about how an expansive reading of the community care policy will be used to disarm the American public.
1
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:31 pm to wryder1
quote:
community care exception
It even sounds like open communism.
ACB and the others better come through on this.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:33 pm to texridder
quote:
texridder
There is NO DOUBT you are the lowest IQ poster on this entire site you fricking jackass
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:37 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
it's about how an expansive reading of the community care policy will be used to disarm the American public.
So you think the SCOTUS will interpret the community care doctrine to mean police have the universal power to just walk up to anyone's door, walk into their homes, and seize their guns because a police officer in this case lied to about consent to gain access to seize property from someone's home? Is that what you really think?
Now, if you're worried about eventual strict gun legislation surviving SCOTUS scrutiny and thereafter whether police can enter your home to seize your illegally possessed firearms, then ok let's talk. But that's still a 4th Amendment issue.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:46 pm to texridder
quote:
Typical sloth-minded response. You ignored the fact that Scalia said that the right to bear arms was not absolute.
No shite. We've got 3 NFA's in place right now. That's more than enough.
quote:
, does that mean you think Scalia is a retard, too?
Sure
Posted on 2/6/21 at 10:14 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
At some point you have enough guns and should invest primarily in ammunition.
Well yeah it would be irresponsible not to do that too.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 10:39 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
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.
I don't blindly back the blue, nor do I support opposition to the 2nd amendment.
But it's stupid to just say all cops aren't trustworthy over an article.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:24 pm to upgrayedd
I also love to make sure they remember the preamble, along with the 2nd and 3rd word.
The people.
The people.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:43 pm to lsufball19
If they rule that this is legal, they might as well put the Constitution in a shredder and save everyone the time and effort for still believing it still matters in this country.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:47 pm to Malik Agar
The government has free rein on anything it seems a public health hazard. Welcome to clown world.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:48 pm to Manarchist
quote:
public health hazard
The government is a public health hazard.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:49 pm to Malik Agar
If it saves one life, (insert authoritarian edict here).
Posted on 2/7/21 at 4:38 am to Manarchist
The Court will allow the securing of the firearm because of irresponsibility of the gun owner (bringing it into a domestic situation). They won't allow any cop at any time to just walk into your house and take your guns. You have to slip up and if they are called to respond, they will allow the cops to secure the firearm based off of caretaking of the community.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 4:51 am to 3D
The question will be how many cops will actually search for guns vs how many cops will come in and look down at the floor for a second and say they searched and didn’t find anything.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:26 am to lsufball19
quote:
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
Unfortunately the plaintiff is trying to make it a 2A issue and the SCOTUS could wiggle it into one.
Personally the only thing the cops did wrong was not giving the guns back a few days later when the wife requested them. The court ruled that this was a 14th Amendment violation (Due Process) because the cops insisted they needed a court order to give the guns back. One could argue that this violates the 2A as well, but the 14A would be enough. Either way, the cops were wrong there.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:30 am to wryder1
this has probably already been said, but I will sY it anyway
if this is ok, that means police can enter your home whenever they want for any reason they want under the guise of whatever they say.
if this happens communism takes a huge leap forward
if this is ok, that means police can enter your home whenever they want for any reason they want under the guise of whatever they say.
if this happens communism takes a huge leap forward
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:35 am to Kirk Herbstreit
quote:
The question will be how many cops will actually search for guns vs how many cops will come in and look down at the floor for a second and say they searched and didn’t find anything
Cops are going to do what they are told. Most of them have the mindset of them vs us, just like the rest of the people in government. If they decide guns are illegal, cops will standing at your door.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:35 am to Manarchist
quote:
The government has free rein on anything it seems a public health hazard. Welcome to clown world.
Many already classify guns a health issue. One of Biden's top cabinet picks does.
So yes, not only bus that slope slippery, but it just got Crisco poured all over it.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:37 am to wryder1
This is a 4th amendment issue, not a 2nd. And really the major fault was in not giving the guns back. There’s extensive and clearly established precedent for temporarily removing firearms from the home in situations like this.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 7:38 am to wryder1
They'll rule against Mr. Caniglia 5-4. Roberts will be the tiebreaker.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News