Federal Judge Rules Cops Can Take Over Your Home As They See Fit

http://www.truthandaction.org/police-state-federal-judge-rules-police-can-take-home-see-fit/ ^

[LucyT]

Federal Judge Rules Cops Can Take Over Your Home As They See Fit

"When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you - you know your nation is doomed."
-Ayn Rand

[2ndDivisionVet]

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2312894/posts

[Sherman Logan]

Umm, I think it’s right that using 3A in this way was part of the court discerning emanations of penumbras that find new rights.

Quartering of soldiers is prohibited. That had a quite precise meaning at the time.

This case was not it.

To my mind, you cannot object when the court finds a “new right” in the Constitution that you disagree with, but want the courts to find new rights you approve of.

[Crystal Palace East]

I’m sorry you don’t agree with decision, but it’s a case of reading the whole decision, not just some headline writer’s version of it.

Last week we were all upset when SCOTUS did not rule that the ACA letter of the law was exact in dealing with state-established healthcare funds.

In this case, the judge ruled that the Constitution means what is says. Exactly: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

#!: This was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure homeowners did not incur the COST of quartering soldiers. It was in response to the British Quartering Acts of 1765 which required homeowners to house, and pay for the cost of housing British soldiers. This law required the homeowner to provide, bed, food, washing, etc. AT THE HOMEOWNER’S COST. This Amendment was designed to address that cost issue , not the entry into a home.

#2: Cops were there for 7 to 9 hours. That is not quartering.

#3; Government has the right to abridge occupancy and ownership laws in emergencies. For example; they can prevent you from entry into your home if it is on fire, a hostage is being held there, or it can be reasonably be expected that your entry would expose you to harm, such as gunfire from a neighboring house.

#4; The law specifically applies to soldiers, and only soldiers, not cops. That’s the exact wording of the amendment.

On ANY of these grounds, this case must fail.

If we want exact wording of the Constitution to apply, and I do, then it must apply in all cases, not just the ones we like.

[Crystal Palace East]

Please see 44

[LucyT]

.

Back to the thread.

Check out # 44 .

Thanks for the ping, Crystal Palace East.

[Rodamala]

Tresspassers will be shot.

Have a nice day.

[Political Junkie Too]

Then it was an illegal takings under the fifth amendment, because the fourth amendment didn't apply because their property wasn't seized as evidence in a crime.

-PJ

[eyeamok]

I would most likely hunt each one of them down until I got caught.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

This is a case of another Federal Judge violating the Constitution. Please note that Judge Andrew Patrick Gordon was appointed by Barack Obama. That is where most all of these bad decisions come from.

[unixfox]

2nd Amendment says they better have good reason. And knock.

[Crystal Palace East]

Please read #44.

[RIghtwardHo]

And, sadly, every single one of the “conservative” Judges would agree.

[GingisK]

Back to the thread.

That looks like magnet wire to me. ;-D

[BlueNgold]

Did the lawyers also make a seizure sans due process argument?
Excessive force?
Eminent domain compensation?

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

That wont keep them alive if they come my way...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Truthfully, I think the judge was technically correct in this case, and it was a poor legal strategy to claim a violation of the 3rd Amendment, since it has very little precedent.

It *should* have been brought on 4th Amendment grounds. Had they done so, they would have likely won.

[BwanaNdege]

But, but, but.... What about the Penumbra of the Amendments?

And the Interstate Commerce clause.....?

And a Woman’s Right to Privacy....?

/S

[Paperpusher]

Are you sure you are not thinking of Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/381/479.html#sthash.oXszuUAR.dpuf

Note it is a dissenting opinion

[TADSLOS]

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Law abiding citizens can just shelter in place and STFU. It's for their safety. /s