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 ...
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION:
So the police lied and took his guns with no warrant and no clear suspicion that he was even unstable. But they took his guns anyway.
The case was resolved at the Supreme Court Monday. The usually divided court was united, protecting the man’s rights 9-0. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion, “stating that law enforcement can execute ‘many civic tasks in modern society,’ but there is ‘not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.’” “The very core of the Fourth Amendment,” Thomas wrote, is the “right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable search and seizure.”
“Fourth Amendment’s overarching reasonableness requirement”
Gross OVERREACHING rather than “overarching”!
9-0. That was a massive hit on the Biden administration and this should be lead news on every stations.
Still not on CNN.
Had the Supreme Court allowed this the “caretaker” exception would have swallowed the whole 4th Amendment.
9-0 is a major slap down to the First Circuit court of appeals.
If I am reading this correctly, even liberal Supremes, such as The (Un)Wise Latina and her pal Kagan had to vote against this.
9-0.....................................
Even liberals know that if you allow the government to do ANYTHING without a WARRANT, they will...............
I remember reading of a case from years back, in which a Police Chief illegally confiscated a man’s legally registered and taxed MINT Thompson machine gun.
It took him two years to get his firearm back, and when he did, it was a rusted up wreck.
The media won’t carry it, in any detail.
“The most insidious power the media has, is the power to ignore.” — Chris Plante, WMAL/ DC
It shows more than that!
>> Just How Extreme (and Dangerous) the Biden Administration Really Is <<
It took the population this long to understand the danger we’re in? We went overnight from a MAGA country to a Tianamin Square type of nation.
Per pResident Jomentia Xiden our God Given Constitutional Rights are not absolute and his Just Us Department is attempting to prove it.
“Nannystateism”
Just a note of how this admin plans to operate, the ends justify the means to do it. Constitution? We don’t need no Constitution. Notice that as usual what they claim Trump did is merely a ruse for how they plan to operate.
This one reeks of an intentional fail.
Does that mean the SC needs at least 11 more new members?
/sarc
RE: Does that mean the SC needs at least 11 more new members?
This decision is EXACTLY why the Dems are thinking of packing the courts.
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.