• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

SCOTUS rules 9-0 on police/privacy and the 4A... in a gun case. Constitution actually applied!

CrackPot

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
4,589
Likes
6,442
Location
Worcester County

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,118
Likes
19,632
It will be interesting to see if the ends the practice of a LTC revocation/suspension and gun confiscation order doubling as a de-facto search warrant for the licensees dwelling.

The big surprise here is the 9:0.

This case is not the first time I have heard of police using the "Your husband gave us consent" ruse to gain entry.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,045
Likes
15,238
Next step is to use this to support legislative actions to reject/prohibit the unprovoked "community health checks" that police initiate that frequently end very badly
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,118
Likes
19,632
I'm on the lookout for a test case meeting these criteria:
  • Individual has his LTC suspended/revoked for reasons that don't make him look like the devil incarnate in court
  • Said individual greets police at door and says "I will fully cooperate and bring all guns and high cap mags to the door in closed cases, but I do not grant you permission to enter my house without a warrant"
  • Police enter over subject's objections, treating surrender order as a de-facto search warrant.
  • Bonus points if police enter any area of the dwelling other than where the subject says the guns are stored.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
18,813
Likes
33,805
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
I posted this in the other thread, but this ruling will be ignored just like Caetano. Courts have no problem playing dumb or being in your face about ignoring SCotUS because there are no consequences for doing so and if they can tie up appeals and or drawn out procedural motions they will.
View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1390774832699265031
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
2,141
Likes
1,495
Location
South of the Mason-Dixon, NC
Every once in a while even the lunatic lefties on the court understand how this would set a precedent far beyond 2A rights if it was allowed to stand. They also saw the light in the MA stun gun case in which the MASJC declared that the constitution only protects technology that existed in 18th century. That was another rare unanimous reversal. Democrats DA's and AG's really wanted that one to stand so they would not need warrants for electronic devices or could put gov't censors in every media outlet that was not a manual printing press or quill pen.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,118
Likes
19,632
I posted this in the other thread, but this ruling will be ignored just like Caetano. Courts have no problem playing dumb or being in your face about ignoring SCotUS because there are no consequences for doing so and if they can tie up appeals and or drawn out procedural motions they will.
View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1390774832699265031
Caetano was not ignored. SCOTUS has not stricken down permit systems; even discretionary ones that allow the license to be revoked for totally legal actions or for being suspected but not convicted of either illegal or denounceable behavior.

To the best of my knowledge, MA has not prosecuted anyone whose papers were in order with stun gun possession.

One can wish that SCOTUS said stun guns could be possessed license free, but all it really did was put them in the same category as handguns as far as 2A protection.

If SCOTUS does not slap down the RI action, no SCOTUS decision is binding on the states.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
6,911
Likes
5,986
Location
Taunton
PER CURIAM. The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Pretty flipping clearly written.
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,924
Likes
1,144
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
A peculiar thing about the 1st SCA 3-judge panel that ruled that the police were in their rights to remove the firearms, prior to it being unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. One of the three members of the panel was RETIRED SCOTUS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER, sitting "by designation".

I didn't even know it was legal for a retired federal judge to arbitrarily sit on a lower court bench, or ANY court bench after retiring. If that's legal, should Justice Thomas ever retire, I hope he's willing to do the same!

 

jpk

Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,045
Likes
15,238
First time a former SCOTUS Judge had his ruling reversed by the SCOTUS!
I thought that was a bit of interesting trivia....

Just goes to show how screwed up/off base Souter was on issues.....Souter's own record on decisions is abysmal........folks need to remember how we got Souter because the persons that launched his career in NH and nationally as a justice are still active/in power.....if you're unsure what entities\dynasties were behind Souter, look no further than NH's crap anti freedom/anti liberty judicial nominations in recent months
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,118
Likes
19,632
How does RI's Supreme Court ruling that "stun guns ARE NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment" not ignore SCotUS ruling in Caetano that "stun guns ARE protected the 2nd Amendment?"
I was thinking MA courts. You are correct about RI.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
18,095
Likes
11,390
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
I was thinking MA courts. You are correct about RI.
mAss courts ignore SCOTUS at every turn.

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,118
Likes
19,632
A peculiar thing about the 1st SCA 3-judge panel that ruled that the police were in their rights to remove the firearms, prior to it being unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. One of the three members of the panel was RETIRED SCOTUS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER, sitting "by designation".

I didn't even know it was legal for a retired federal judge to arbitrarily sit on a lower court bench, or ANY court bench after retiring. If that's legal, should Justice Thomas ever retire, I hope he's willing to do the same!

That's how we got the Kennedy decision on Draper v. Healy - the summary judgment that no trial was needed to determine if Glocks had a loaded chamber indicator.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
389
Likes
304
I'm on the lookout for a test case meeting these criteria:
  • Individual has his LTC suspended/revoked for reasons that don't make him look like the devil incarnate in court
  • Said individual greets police at door and says "I will fully cooperate and bring all guns and high cap mags to the door in closed cases, but I do not grant you permission to enter my house without a warrant"
  • Police enter over subject's objections, treating surrender order as a de-facto search warrant.
  • Bonus points if police enter any area of the dwelling other than where the subject says the guns are stored.
We are installing a security system that will record such events, audio and visual, in both of our homes, in MA and Florida, and send it directly to the "cloud". It is intended to document a burglary or home invasion, but I can see it providing valuable evidence in other "incidents", if you know what I mean!
 
Top Bottom