This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 05/17/2021 10:08:06 AM PDT by xzins
by about an hour ago
The Supreme Court has dealt the Biden administration a defeat on a “caretaking” case. The case tested whether or not police could enter private property without a warrant if an individual was believed to pose a threat to himself or others.
In the case Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court ruled that “caretaking” did not justify entering a man’s home to remove firearms because he was believed to have expressed suicidal thoughts. The man was taken to a local mental health facility for psychiatric evaluation.
“Police entered the home under a ‘community caretaking’ exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes,” Forbes reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at trendingpolitics.com ...
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling was unanimous.”
Amazing
Exactly.
That struck me as really unusual. They must have traded off on a different case.
According to the article, the Supreme Court’s ruling was unanimous!
So maybe the quaint old Bill of Rights still has some life in it after all.
My sense is they traded off on another controversial area that we’ll find out about later.
I’ve gotten really cynical in my old age.
Even THEY realize how broadly weaponized this could be used.
Somebody known to be a drug user? No knock warrant to seize drugs? Sure, why not? They may use those drugs and harm themselves or somebody else. They could get behind the wheel!!! OMG!!! take their car too!
Parent shouts at a ref during kids soccer game? Other Parent “does not feel safe”? Raid the house! confiscate baseball bat, nail gun, 2*4s, all sharp and pointy things in the kitchen? Sure!
“objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety” This “Health and Safety” nonsense is how we got to the dictatorial circumstances we are in now, with all levels of government seizing powers they don’t have in the name of “health and safety.” The only “Safety” the government is to provide is to protect our borders and they are doing a piss-poor job of that.
If they traded off, I wonder of that means the upcoming abortion case will not have an outcome we like.
Don’t expect Democrat owned and operated police departments to be in any particular rush to tell their cops to stop and get a warrant before kicking in doors with this ‘health and safety’ pretext being tossed.
They still have lots of guns to illegally seize and lots of people to oppress with Soviet-style accusations of mental health problems.
Also of note, I don't see the NRA filing any Amicus Briefs or otherwise helping with this case, but I do see that the GOA and Second Amendment Foundation did.
I am glad that I trusted my instincts and passed up getting a lifetime NRA membership ...
UNANIMOUS! WOWIE! That’s one for the record book.
God Bless SC Judge Clarence Thomas! Wa-HOOOOOOOOOOO!
There’s no due process which is why I will never vote for these mental gun grabs without it. It’s unconstitutional and allows the corrupt to abuse citizens.
Could be. Or maybe one in the recent past that we didn’t like.
My sense is they traded off on another controversial area that we’ll find out about later.
The check and balance of our Republic is broken. The Supreme Court is the only check left.
We can always hope..
Good question. It makes sense what you say given what Justice Thomas wrote.
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.