Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Home Gun Confiscation Is Unconstitutional in 9-0 vote

Eddie_Valiant

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
288
Likes
246
Location
Raynham MA

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,401
Likes
13,067
Location
People's Republik

 

weekendracer

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
8,363
Likes
8,918
Location
Tennessee
9-0! There's hope for the US!

[cheers]
I forget which one, but Sotomayer or Kagen is actually pretty good in the past when it comes to actual government overreach. Several 4th amendment cases have been cemented with whichever one's vote. It'd be funny as hell if the 'conservative' justices were outdone by the 'liberal' justices, and I'd be happier for it.
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,306
Likes
1,182
I have the same question.
TLDR?
Article, and justice Alito:
“This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws 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,” Alito wrote.
“They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized,” he continued. “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”
 

safetyfirst2125

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
9,365
Likes
21,961
TLDR?
Article, and justice Alito:
“This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws 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,” Alito wrote.
“They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized,” he continued. “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”
Too bad
 

HuntMaine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
6,401
Likes
3,785
Location
2A Supporter

JDL

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
1,826
Likes
1,406
Location
Wilbraham, MA
Lots of work arounds. Like we were called and had to go in without a warrant to prevent a dangerous situation or criminal action. Nothing has really changed
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,419
Likes
24,889
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
Yeah Courts in RI kinda think they can tell SCotUS to go f*** itself.
(Regarding the summary smackdown in Caetano:

Is there a better explanation for it than that SCOTUS gets really mad
when inferior courts totally ignore bright-line rulings like, oh say,
like the New York Times totally ignoring reality and publishing complete <[bs]>).
 

dhuze

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
9,511
Likes
3,809
Location
An island surrounded by land on three sides
TLDR?
Article, and justice Alito:
“This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws 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,” Alito wrote.
“They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized,” he continued. “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”


Alito is saying that this ruling does not address "red flag" laws, but he also says it "implicates" them and they will address it if it is brought before them.
 

Fixingcars

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
50
Likes
50
Location
North Shore
Alito is saying that this ruling does not address "red flag" laws, but he also says it "implicates" them and they will address it if it is brought before them.

The problem I see with this statement is that anyone who tries to challenge a red flag confiscation will potentially run into the crap that happens here in MA with licensing in some towns. They will be found to have standing and start to bring a case through the court system and then the state will drop the case rather than run the risk of having their law struck down. Now people are stuck in a loop of not being able to get the law overturned because they can never successfully challenge it.
 

Eddie_Valiant

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
288
Likes
246
Location
Raynham MA
Being able to challenge red flag laws under the Fourth Amendment is a win. The case was not to decide whether those laws were unconstitutional, which, IMHO, they are but at least the law can be challenged on Constitutional grounds. With the current gubmint in charge, let's take whatever victory we can. Work to get pro-Constitution candidates elected and vote for them.
 
Top Bottom