In contrast with the article mentioned in my previous post, here’s a REAL shocker.
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 Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”
Given the run of dismaying decisions rendered by Trump’s three appointments since the Occupation Government swindled its way into power (and even before that, actually), I must admit I did NOT see this one coming. Bill offers some speculation on what the future might bring:
This overturns two lower court decisions, and firmly, too. Further, in dicta, Alito noted:
At the same time, he noted that the case implicates “another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting.”
Such laws, he wrote, “enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons.”
Although this particular decision does not address those issues, “provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”This is all good stuff. However, take note that this decision was unanimous, which leaves me worried that Roberts will do everything he can to prevent any new gun legislation that extends Heller and MacDonald beyond a guarantee of a right to keep arms inside your own home unless he can get a unanaimous court to do so. And he won’t be able to do that.
…Yes, the Court did just take a a case that would be a perfect opportunity to do just that.
As I say, though, I doubt if Roberts was among those who granted cert – it was probably Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett. I think that Kavanaugh is probably Roberts’ bitch and will vote with the Chief no matter what.
So we’ll see.
Indeed we will. Elsehwhere, Codrea notices an atypical dearth of chatter from the Left:
I just checked Twitter and as of this posting have not seen one national “commonsense gun safety group” react and inform its supporters.
MSNBC doesn’t feel much like talking about it either.
Heh. Good; it almost certainly means that this decision has left them much too depressed to make with their usual triumphant braying. With luck, this could even bring about a few suicides amongst the gun-grabbers. But even if it doesn’t, we can all still enjoy the unusual silence while it lasts.
- Entries
Unless they say that Red Flags cannot be used as a reason to obtain a Warrant, the Swampy Critters will simply get a Warrant for the non-crime of “suspected they will commit a crime in the future”. A Minority Report scenario.
Warrants should be limited to situations where there is ample evidence a crime has been, or is being, committed. Not in cases where there is no crime now but is suspected to be committed in some future time and place.
I think this will turn out to be as problematic as The Dicta in the Heller ruling.
If the “Law Enforcement” serving the warrant do not go home safely at night, this shit would stop REAL fast!!!
But then it is obviously wrong to say anything negative about “Law Enforcement”, eh???
Hello, you have met SteveF, right?
We say negative things about law enforcement here all the time. Where have you been?
Yeah, but you see the downvotes???
Who gives a shit about downvotes? I don’t even notice there’s a vote mechanism on comments unless someone calls my attention to it.
The approval/disapproval of random strangers on the internet really matters to you?
Note how the Left works with Newspeak these days.
A similar example; Swampy ties ICE Agents hands and so detentions at the Border drop by over 50%. They then try to say that the “Border” is secure again and they use that to defund and scale back ICE. Bartiromo is one of the few still talking about this. Otherwise it’s mostly crickets from the Media on that front as well. Instead they highlight other things to distract.
In other words they’re hiding the true evil they’re doing by not talking about it and misdirection.
Which makes me suspicious about this ruling being 9-0 and the Media NOT squawking about it. Maybe I’ve grown too cynical, but every time I thought that in the past it’s been proven I was not cynical enough.
“Which makes me suspicious about this ruling being 9-0…”
You and me both.