Oops! That was the UPS guy.
Posted on 05/17/2021 6:54:04 PM PDT by Hojczyk
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments in a case from Rhode Island that police should be allowed to enter homes without a warrant to seize handguns.
The ruling in the case, Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, came May 17.
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America and the affiliated Gun Owners Foundation, praised the new decision.
“The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun grabbers across the nation,” Pratt said.
The case came before the high court for oral argument two months ago as President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats began pressing for aggressive new restrictions on Second Amendment gun ownership rights, including controversial “red flag” laws, which allow gun seizures from law-abiding gun owners with limited due process, in the wake of highly publicized deadly mass shootings in March at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket and at Atlanta-area spas.
Police generally cannot conduct searches of private property without consent or a warrant.
In Cady v. Dombrowski the Supreme Court held in 1973 that police may conduct warrantless searches related to “community caretaking functions,” but only for “vehicle accidents.” Since then, the principle has become “a catchall for a wide range of responsibilities that police officers must discharge aside from their criminal enforcement activities,” the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stated in the Caniglia case.
Smells like a bogus case/cake.
I am sure it has occurred, but I cannot recall a 9-0 decision in recent years.
Im shocked that Kagan and the Wise Latina voted with the majority.
Did they rule that she could shoot him?
THIS is the whole reasoning behind "common sense gun laws", and "certified safety training" and such "reasonable" restrictions on firearms ownership.
In Canada, in order to qualify for a "Possession And Acquisition Licence", your post-course licence application MUST include a signature allowing unannounced *Inspections* of your firearms and ammunition storage areas.
DON'T LET IT HAPPEN!
She knows this could hurt her armed libtard buddies too.
Biden violated to Constitutional rights at the same time
Kind of surprise. How many liberal justices are there?
Does anyone seriously believe this illegitimate administration is going to abide by any law or anything the SCOTUS tells them they can’t do? Seriously? There’s no one, no one enforcing the laws against the DC criminal cabal. They’ll ruin anyone who tries. The Principalities of Evil have been loosed on this country and particularly on to President Donald Trump. Pray!
Now we can all breathe easily and continue to follow JoeBi’s awesome gun advice and just keep shooting our shotguns right through the door...
Oops! That was the UPS guy.
They happen all the time. They are not much reported on because they generally are not terribly controversial or revolve around really small nitpicky things.
In this case, the writer is engaging a bit in hyperbole.
While this was an important case, it was based on search and seizure. It is not so much about guns.
Here's my blurb on GAB about it...
The Supreme Court issued an important decision clarifying search and seizure rules today in the case of Caniglia V. Strom et al.
Quoting the opinion:
Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not vio- late the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from un- reasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Alito, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed concurring opinions
End quote
Thomas' opinion was pretty darn short and to the point. What was more interesting were the concurrences. Kavanaugh's cuncurrance in particular. A quick read through that would tell you that as far as Kavanaugh is concerned, there are endless ways to get around that pesky warrant requirement.
You can read the entirety of the decision here: (it is pretty short as these things go) Caniglia v. Strom.
Does this mean that Schumer's plans to pack SCOTUS with 6 new judges must now be scaled up to at least 12 new judges?
May be worried the cops may extend the seizures to things more dear to liberal's black little souls?
:)
My God that man is stupid. On the best day of his life he was dumber than a Pet Rock.
And that day was decades ago.
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.