[rktman]

Let me put that out there again: "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." Uh? What? Illegal search and seizure? Minor infringing going on? But, Cali and 9th circus.... Will SCOTUS do the right thing?

[Clutch Martin]

Crazy spouse, I knew it would come to this.

[AAABEST]

I thought I read that the 9th Circus was getting fixed?

Hopefully the SC will do the right thing - they thankfully have on some very important 2A issues.

[A Navy Vet]

"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."

That is just nonsensical. Is logic now a dead trait? What? 1 + 1 = whatever my stupid biased mind says?

[Oscar in Batangas]

President Trump’s makeover of the 9th cannot come to completion soon enough!

[libertylover]

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.

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...

[GreyHoundSailor]

Make the oath-breaking badge wearers a deal they couldn’t refuse.

[Gay State Conservative]

Just a reminder to Freepers...a message of hope:

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".

Caetano v Massachusetts

[Mastador1]

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.

[jimmygrace]

Guilt by association. Hopefully this one will go down 9-0 as well.

[Revel]

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.