Just saying,
It ain't white folks calling the police on black folks in black neighborhoods.
Just saying,
It ain't white folks calling the police on black folks in black neighborhoods.
The court took a step in the right direction.
The original plaintiff is a freaking retard though. He ALMOST deserves the muck he has been drug through. One doesn't have an argument with ones spouse and even mention "gun" let alone go actually fetch one to make some lame dramatic point.
Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
I think it might do some of you well to actually read the decision.
What the police did was so far out of bounds I'm embarrassed that it went to the Supreme Court.
The decision doesn't overturn Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (a destruction of evidence case). or the myriad of other cases which address exigent circumstances justifying warrant-less searches.
So, IMO, much ado about nothing, except piss poor search and seizure training.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.
Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee
I'm questioning whether this has really ANY bearing on how police do thier business, other than agreeing that it's crappy 4th training.
This is a civil case, not criminal, and turns upon the police promising not to sieze his guns, if he consented to a psychiatric eval, and then not returning them. Very strange...............
But I'll also add that I'm glad for the affirmation of our 4th as it's almost as important as the 2nd to me.
"The peace we have within us is most often expressed in how we treat others"
I’d agree but the fact the Biden Administration was pushing hard in favor of police being able to do this kind of shit is telling.
"The peace we have within us is most often expressed in how we treat others"
Perhaps, but it gives cause to challenge so-called "Red Flag" laws. Even Alito alluded to that specifically:
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court is “properly reject[ing] the broad ‘community caretaking’ theory.” 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.”
My constant condemnation of so-called "Red Flag" laws is their abject lack of Due Process as written. Absent any evidence of a crime having been committed, or any adjudication of mental defect, they authorize the seizure of private property and removal of a person's right to keep and bear arms. They are abhorrent in that they single-handedly violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments in one fell swoop. As such they should be held to strict scrutiny on all points and ruled unconstitutional on their face.
If a government wants to remove a person's rights because they're a threat, then they need to do the work to do it right. There's no sound justification to do it any other way.
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
Bookmarks