• 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.

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
221
Likes
88
Location
Raynham MA

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
3,877
Likes
5,629
Location
Medford

 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
6,247
Likes
5,204
Location
Louisiana
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.
 

Pyromancer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
924
Likes
677
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.”
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,677
Likes
3,439
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
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
3,877
Likes
5,629
Location
Medford
I'm just glad the Liberal Justices maybe, just maybe, can still do the right thing sometimes. 🤞
as noted in one of the other eleven cases threads, this is an example of the "conservative judges" finally doing right. Sotomayor is a bulldog on 4A issues.
 
Last edited:

HuntMaine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
6,103
Likes
3,337
Location
2A Supporter

Uzi2

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
8,283
Likes
12,784
Waiting to see what all encompassing "WEASEL WORDS" are worked into future warrants.
 

JDL

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
1,594
Likes
1,159
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
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,244
Likes
13,199
Bump...


Thomas takes the victory lap but Bonus points for Alito's concurring opinion

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, noting that this case raises issues with so-called “red flag” laws which many on the left, including Joe Biden, support for the purpose of removing individuals’ firearms despite the fact that they have committed no crime. Such laws may be subject to abuse with little or no recourse.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
13,756
Likes
14,878
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
9,345
Likes
3,472
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
17
Likes
15
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
221
Likes
88
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