Posted on 05/18/2021 7:51:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Did you hear that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice wanted the Supreme Court to rule that police could search Americans’ homes for firearms — and confiscate them — without a warrant?
In the case of Caniglia vs. Strom, this issue was in play. Had SCOTUS ruled that police could do that, your Second Amendment rights would have been in grave jeopardy.
In March, Biden’s DoJ filed a brief with the Supreme Court in this case. It said:
In its first amicus brief before the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice argued the actions taken by law enforcement to confiscate the petitioner’s firearms without a warrant were “reasonable.”
“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” the DOJ’s brief stated. “For criminal investigations, this Court has generally incorporated the Warrant Clause into the Fourth Amendment’s overarching reasonableness requirement, but it has not generally done so for searches or seizures objectively premised on justifications other than the investigation of wrongdoing.”
In this case, the police officers’ actions were not reasonable. A man and his wife argued. At one point, the man placed one of his unloaded guns on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.”
Following the argument, Caniglia’s wife called the non-emergency police line, leading to a visit from law enforcement. The police convinced Mr. Caniglia to go to the hospital for psychological evaluation, despite disagreeing that his behavior was “abnormal” or “agitated.”
While Mr. Caniglia was on his way to the hospital, his wife told the police that he had two pistols in the home, at which point the officers searched the home without a warrant; however, Mrs. Caniglia couldn’t provide legal consent because the police lied, telling her that Mr. Caniglia had consented to the seizure of his firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Notice they didn’t mention ANYTHING about a 2nd Amendment violation.
The chief judge of the District of Rhode Island, John J. McConnell, Jr., made the original ruling in the case at the district court level.
John McConnell is an Odiousbama appointee who slithered in with a 50-44 vote (apparently too slimy for even our Assistant Democrats in the Senate):
The Washington Examiner, a conservative magazine, wrote an editorial critical of John McConnell for making almost $700,000 in campaign contributions to Democrats by him and his wife since 1993. The editorial in the Washington Examiner claimed he was trying to buy a federal judgeship through targeted contributions.
Some Republican senators, including John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell, questioned his ability to act impartially as a judge.
Carrie Severino: Far-left Obama-appointed judge [John McConnell] launches political attack on conservative Federalist Society
May 23, 2020
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3847863/posts
Then the gun-grab got bounced up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where another crew of Lefties were waiting in the woodpile - a three-judge panel consisting of David J. Barron, ANOTHER Odiousbama appointee, Bruce M. Selya, a Senior Moment Reagan judge in his late eighties, and lastly, Grabby Poppy's [George H.W. Bush] gift that keeps on giving, retired Supreme Fart "justice" David Souter, who likes to keep his hand in the game by taking a few cases for the First Circuit every year.
The three clowns ruled unanimously that the gun-grab was okey-dokey by them.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/19-1764/19-1764-2020-03-13.html
All four of these black-robed jokers have now been taken behind the woodshed by the Supremes for a 9-0 thrashing.
There's your "non-political" Federal judiciary, John "Chief Clown" Roberts...
Odiousbama = OBuggery!
Do these people even bother to read the opinion before they start writing this crap?
That's because there was no 2nd Amendment question before the court.
Good digging!
Granted; but there should be, don’t you think?
Nine zero ... that’s amazing. Maybe there is hope after all...
You'd think so, but this ruling was based on the proposition that any search/seizure under the circumstances was unconstitutional. That's actually a better outcome.
I'd recommend taking a look at Kavanaugh's concurrence though. It sure seems like he's itching to add a whole raft of 'exceptions' to this.
Ms. Wolf, it’s time to shoot the bastards, even though this ruling is correct.
5.56mm
...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Stretching this to mean "searching without a warrant is reasonable when the government says it is" is an amazing bit of intellectual gymnastics and a transparent move toward a police state. Why even have a Fourth Amendment at all?
“Mr. MICROPHONE!”
.
Hank Hanagraf
Biden is also funding the terrorists launching 3,000 rockets and counting into Israel. He gave them $120 million last April.
The biggest mistake 'Dubya' made as president, was failing to nominate Justice Thomas to be the new Chief Justice. Instead, for reasons known only to himself, he nominated (& stuck us with) the judicial equivalent of Gumby...
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.