Posted on 04/10/2020 3:45:00 PM PDT by rktman
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bizarrely ruled that Lori Rodriguez had no right to keep her firearms, though they also noted that there was nothing illegal about her buying a gun either. The court argued that because police believed that her husband (who according to Rodriguez did not have access to her firearms) could pose a threat to public safety, firearms that had been seized from their home when her husband was taken into custody under a mental health hold did not have to be returned to her.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
Crazy spouse, I knew it would come to this.
Hopefully the SC will do the right thing - they thankfully have on some very important 2A issues.
That is just nonsensical. Is logic now a dead trait? What? 1 + 1 = whatever my stupid biased mind says?
No court can rule on 2A no matter what ANYONE says.
President Trump’s makeover of the 9th cannot come to completion soon enough!
If they allow this it's scary because they could seize the firearms of someone whose crazy liberal sister-in-law says your 3rd cousin, twice removed, might pose a threat to public safety, yada, yada, yada...
Make the oath-breaking badge wearers a deal they couldn’t refuse.
A few years ago SCOTUS accepted a case from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court).The "SJC" had upheld the conviction of a woman (a domestic abuse victim) who possessed a stun gun contrary to state law.
The SJC ruled that state residents don't have a 2nd Amendment right to possess such a weapon because a) it didn't exist when 2A was adopted and b) it cannot be used by the military or "militia".
Bottom line: SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of the woman.In the decision narrative the SJC's ruling was called,at one point,"frivolous".
May be they will rule only women have a 2nd amendment right :)
“If they allow this it’s scary because they could seize the firearms of someone...”
Already happened in Florida. Fish camp owner Rick Rawlings was losing his business that had been in operation for a couple generations. State came in and established a No Wake, Idle Speed Zone on the St. Johns River for miles in each direction to protect the West Indian Manatee. He fought it for years, then fed up and on the verge of losing his business started disregarding it. He was cited so much he wound up with a Felony conviction. Its my understanding that his wife was prohibited from having a firearm in the house also.
Any one want to take the bet that if the Supreme Court rules in her favor that the police will be unable to find her guns, correction , that the police who now have her guns illegally in their private collections will be unwilling to to give them back so will say some how they were lost.............so sorry.
Guilt by association. Hopefully this one will go down 9-0 as well.
And to think the police can sell the guns and throw a party using the proceeds from the sale. That is if they don’t directly swipe the guns for themselves.
To keep arms = static possession of all required to defend oneself with a firearm.
To bear arms = kinetic display and USE of the kept firearm.
I can hear those gun's walking out of the police ultra-secure evidence room, as I type this. /s
What, you didn't know gun's & rifle's could walk, next your'll try and tell me an "SUV," can't drive all by itself. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.