The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to Joe Biden and gun-grabbing progressives everywhere with a unanimous decision on a touchy case.
In what was a busy Monday morning for the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of a Rhoden Island man who said that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police entered his home and seized his guns while not having a warrant, Forbes reported.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.
The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. more
Red Flag laws were unavailable for comment.
Someone better make sure Red fag Dan Crenshaw reads this ruling.
Effin A!
Giving “Red flag” laws a “Black flag” warning.
What? Roberts didn’t rule against conservatives? Looks like Gishlaine Maxwell might be ready to cut the goods loose on Roberts. Look what it did to the Gates marriage. Tick tock.
Now that the home is protected we need a ruling to protect our bodies from forced vaccines. Biden is saying those unvaccinated will pay a price.
It’s clear that this went to the supremes as a 4th amendment case, but I would have liked to see the 2nd amendment referenced as support for the ruling.
Has Crenshaw changed his tune? I recall when Red Flag was a big topic, was it 3 years ago? I was open to the discussion… until I got a bit more input and considered it more, when I realized how incredibly dangerous and unconstitutional it is.
But for that reason I am willing to hear people out and see whether they are willing to make the journey I made, on any topic.
Crenshaw also more recently suggested a willingness to ‘combat climate change’, which, same deal.
Will this ruling actually prevent future actions of this kind or just result in the offending authorities being told “Naughty, naughty, you shouldn’t have done that” after the fact?
…so STFU, Ohio Democrat Governor DeWine…
LCD
I follow a lot of the Seal Teams guys in IG. Not one of them likes Crenshaw. In fact a few of the have a very strong dislike for him and claim they never trusted the guy while they were deployed.
Delineating vehicles from residences in codifying search and seizure laws is nothing new or ground breaking, all they did was back precedent.
And this ruling does not address red flag laws one bit. Requiring one extra hurdle, getting a warrant, which is really pretty simple to do, does not mean that they will not come after your guns in the future. They will get their warrant and then take your guns.
Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Red flag laws are a direct affront to this ruling.
rich taylor
There were proposed Red Flag laws that did not require a court order to take your guns. I believe these would be impacted by the ruling.
Not that I am happy with any kind of red flag law, requiring a warrant would at least require someone to put his name on the dotted line as opposed to some proposals where everyone could point at someone else and say “He did it!”
@RadioMattM
Someone (the judge overseeing the court that is hearing the petition)already puts his name on in it if he grants the petition. Putting his name on a warrant would be incidental.
This ruling does not address the constitutionality of Red Flag laws in general. I suspect a challenge is working it’s way up the courts but SCOTUS needs to put the kabash on ALL Red Flag laws, the sooner the better.