It is worth reading at least the SCOTUS part of the decision. The big question is, will this affect the so called red flag orders that so many states are either considering, or already have invoked? Knowing that IANAL, it seems only common sense that this ruling would nullify all such type of laws, on the same basis. That doesn't mean that they cannot force a person who is considered a danger to him or herself, or to others, to involuntarily go to the hospital for a psych evaluation. I actually have had to do such a thing with one of my adopted daughters on a couple of occasions. I took her myself, not getting the police involved, and both times, she was placed in a residential treatment facility, for 2 weeks each time, mostly just to calm down and get herself back under control. If the police had done the same thing, and my daughter had owned guns, which of course she doesn't, I don't know the answer to what would happen if I asked them to take her guns with them, until she was cleared to once again have them. If I were a cop, I would instead try and get a neighbor to take the guns, with a written contract of how and when they would release them back, and an agreement that they would keep them locked up, and in the same condition. I live in a city of around 30,000 or so, with the outlying areas adding another 1 hundred thousand. A city of this size would have a hard time trying to keep track of such a thing as guns from people that they contact and take in for a psych eval. I can only imagine the difficulty for a city the size of New York, LA, St.Louis, etc. This seems like a good decision for law abiding gun owners everywhere, and lends some credibility to the thought that the SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of a gun law, and not on the political overtones of it. One can only imagine the possibilities going forth, if the gun rights groups get their acts together and attack the anti gun laws in a smart, linear manner. First on the agenda would be to reign in the BATFE and the continual changes that they make to their former rulings on just about everything.
Part of the problem is, in some states WA for example, they are making new laws that require background checks on just about ANY transfer using the unique GOV def of the word 'transfer'. SO one can no longer, legally, take a friend's or family's firearms for safe keeping. A transfer would need to be conducted on each firearm both to you and then back to the owner. Too much time and $$ and does not make anyone safer.
LEO's have to have probable cause to seek a warrant. That probable cause has to be spelled out in an affidavit, and sworn to as the truth by the officer seeking the warrant. Probable cause is information [evidence] that would lead a reasonable person to believe a CRIME was committed. Hopefully, LEO's will no longer get a warrant based on an anonymous person claiming they are offended by you, or that they think you are a mental [i.e., red flag law].
Fed court rulings LONG AGO ceased to have any bearing on actual day to day conduct of badgemonkeys. They routinely ignore laws and legal precedent knowing that it is rare for any of the victims of their criminality to be capable of bearing the legal costs required to remedy their criminal acts. And when a victim of their predations does prevail legally the badgemonkeys themselves NEVER suffer any personal consequences for their abusiveness.
David Codrea reminds us this decision was about law enforcement seizing firearms under the ridiculous 'Community Caretaking' exception to the Fourth Amendment and points out that MSNBC has failed to mention a word about this decision.
On the surface, this SEEMS like a good ruling, especially in that they ruled unanimously AND included the 4th Amendment language in the ruling.
I'm waiting to see how long and under what circumstances the plaintiff gets his guns back.
Then there's the question of the NEXT time police officers unjustifiably and forcibly violate the Fourth Amendment to confiscate some law abiding poor saps property which will probably happen today or tomorrow.
whoop-de-doo! Do you realize how many liberal judges will gladly issue that warrant without PC?
ReplyDeleteProbably as many as "conservative" judges who love to give cops everything they want. The next honest judge I see will be the first.
DeleteI'll settle for Judge Roy Bean.
Delete"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". I don't even have a law degree but I can tell what that means.
ReplyDeleteFuckin A!
ReplyDeleteIt is worth reading at least the SCOTUS part of the decision. The big question is, will this affect the so called red flag orders that so many states are either considering, or already have invoked?
ReplyDeleteKnowing that IANAL, it seems only common sense that this ruling would nullify all such type of laws, on the same basis. That doesn't mean that they cannot force a person who is considered a danger to him or herself, or to others, to involuntarily go to the hospital for a psych evaluation.
I actually have had to do such a thing with one of my adopted daughters on a couple of occasions. I took her myself, not getting the police involved, and both times, she was placed in a residential treatment facility, for 2 weeks each time, mostly just to calm down and get herself back under control.
If the police had done the same thing, and my daughter had owned guns, which of course she doesn't, I don't know the answer to what would happen if I asked them to take her guns with them, until she was cleared to once again have them. If I were a cop, I would instead try and get a neighbor to take the guns, with a written contract of how and when they would release them back, and an agreement that they would keep them locked up, and in the same condition.
I live in a city of around 30,000 or so, with the outlying areas adding another 1 hundred thousand. A city of this size would have a hard time trying to keep track of such a thing as guns from people that they contact and take in for a psych eval. I can only imagine the difficulty for a city the size of New York, LA, St.Louis, etc.
This seems like a good decision for law abiding gun owners everywhere, and lends some credibility to the thought that the SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of a gun law, and not on the political overtones of it. One can only imagine the possibilities going forth, if the gun rights groups get their acts together and attack the anti gun laws in a smart, linear manner. First on the agenda would be to reign in the BATFE and the continual changes that they make to their former rulings on just about everything.
Part of the problem is, in some states WA for example, they are making new laws that require background checks on just about ANY transfer using the unique GOV def of the word 'transfer'. SO one can no longer, legally, take a friend's or family's firearms for safe keeping. A transfer would need to be conducted on each firearm both to you and then back to the owner. Too much time and $$ and does not make anyone safer.
Deletesomething is bogus here. those fucks dont rule 9-0 on anything
ReplyDeleteLEO's have to have probable cause to seek a warrant. That probable cause has to be spelled out in an affidavit, and sworn to as the truth by the officer seeking the warrant. Probable cause is information [evidence] that would lead a reasonable person to believe a CRIME was committed. Hopefully, LEO's will no longer get a warrant based on an anonymous person claiming they are offended by you, or that they think you are a mental [i.e., red flag law].
ReplyDeleteFed court rulings LONG AGO ceased to have any bearing on actual day to day conduct of badgemonkeys. They routinely ignore laws and legal precedent knowing that it is rare for any of the victims of their criminality to be capable of bearing the legal costs required to remedy their criminal acts. And when a victim of their predations does prevail legally the badgemonkeys themselves NEVER suffer any personal consequences for their abusiveness.
ReplyDeleteLEO’s gonna keep doing the same shit they always have. But, but , but, the SCOTUS said..... yea right , Ask Chauvin about justice.
ReplyDeleteDavid Codrea reminds us this decision was about law enforcement seizing firearms under the ridiculous 'Community Caretaking' exception to the Fourth Amendment and points out that MSNBC has failed to mention a word about this decision.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, this SEEMS like a good ruling, especially in that they ruled unanimously AND included the 4th Amendment language in the ruling.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting to see how long and under what circumstances the plaintiff gets his guns back.
Then there's the question of the NEXT time police officers unjustifiably and forcibly violate the Fourth Amendment to confiscate some law abiding poor saps property which will probably happen today or tomorrow.
Nemo