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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Back
Top Bottom