Shepherd9 215 Posted February 8, 2021 Does the 4th allow unreasonable search and seizure of firearms without a warrant? This case going to the SCOTUS may decide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/02/05/supreme-court-will-decide-whether-police-can-enter-a-home-to-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 8, 2021 Under those circumstances, I feel that the "community caretaking" standard was reasonable. If the wife wanted to get a restraining order, leave the house or something along those lines, then the police could return said firearms accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shepherd9 215 Posted February 8, 2021 34 minutes ago, CMJeepster said: Under those circumstances, I feel that the "community caretaking" standard was reasonable. If the wife wanted to get a restraining order, leave the house or something along those lines, then the police could return said firearms accordingly. Perhaps, but I would think overall we are too easily accepting broader circumstances to fall under "community care taking" and cases like these could set precedents allowing for more abuse of such searches. We already have Rubio calling for restricting 2A rights for anyone investigated for "domestic terrorism", not even convicted, just investigated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Shepherd9 said: Perhaps, but I would think overall we are too easily accepting broader circumstances to fall under "community care taking" and cases like these could set precedents allowing for more abuse of such searches. We already have Rubio calling for restricting 2A rights for anyone investigated for "domestic terrorism", not even convicted, just investigated. Specifically in this case, because he pulled the firearm and told her to use it on him, I say use caution. There are other scenarios that wouldn't warrant the confiscation. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted February 8, 2021 This is not a good example to be headed to SCOTUS. The individual openly showed a lack in judgement for his own life, and literally asked his wife to shoot him with his own pistol. Will be interesting to see what they decide, i see this going either way. Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 8, 2021 7 minutes ago, JackDaWack said: This is not a good example to be headed to SCOTUS. The individual openly showed a lack in judgement for his own life, and literally asked his wife to shoot him with his own pistol. Will be interesting to see what they decide, i see this going either way. Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation. Agreed. Too bad they took this and not a case that interferes with carry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted February 8, 2021 7 minutes ago, JackDaWack said: Dumbasses should have found a better example of a redflag law that showed a clear violation. This has NOTHING to do with red flag laws. If the wife had properly allowed the search or retrieved the guns and turned them over, there wouldn't be a question. But, the search and the seizure were sullied by the police lying to her and saying that her husband had given permission. This, she believed, prevented her from stopping them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted February 8, 2021 3 hours ago, EdF said: This has NOTHING to do with red flag laws. If the wife had properly allowed the search or retrieved the guns and turned them over, there wouldn't be a question. But, the search and the seizure were sullied by the police lying to her and saying that her husband had given permission. This, she believed, prevented her from stopping them. That's not what the police are using as an excuse to search the house. They are not claiming consent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted February 9, 2021 33 minutes ago, JackDaWack said: That's not what the police are using as an excuse to search the house. They are not claiming consent. No . . . That is not correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted February 9, 2021 1 hour ago, EdF said: No . . . That is not correct. How so? The complaint refers directly to the community caretaking exception being used by Law Enforcement as a reason for the search, and that they claim neither the wife nor the husband consented to the search. The entire SOTUS decisions will handle on that. No some lie they told the wife. "And in this venue, the defendants press no argument that they secured valid consent from the plaintiff's wife to seize the firearms." In short, the cops may have lied to the woman to gain entry, but they are not using her consent as a reason for the search and seizure. They refer to it as deception to execute the seizure using the community care taking exception. Cops lie all the time... and by lying to the wife they broke no laws, if in fact SCOTUS rules the exception holds. The search would be considered legal whether she consented or not, and thus coercing her to consent by lying is moot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EdF 323 Posted February 9, 2021 14 hours ago, JackDaWack said: How so? The caretaking exception isn't part of a "red flag" law. The police had to fall to the caretaking exception because of the faulty permission they got from the wife. You're becoming a bore. So, I'm just going to leave this part of the discussion. Have at it . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted February 9, 2021 1 hour ago, EdF said: The caretaking exception isn't part of a "red flag" law. The police had to fall to the caretaking exception because of the faulty permission they got from the wife. You're becoming a bore. So, I'm just going to leave this part of the discussion. Have at it . . . I'm guessing you didn't read the SCOTUS complaint, or the article. Basically everything you claim isnt anywhere to be found in either... Of course I'm a bore, who could be bothered with reading the complaint and just pulling an argument out of their ass. The red flag laws have been instituted under the constitutionality of the police having reason to believe you will harm yourself or others, using the same caretaking aspect of their duties.. These actions described here are the efforts of police to subvert the courts and ERPO's and use the caretaking exemption to take your guns without even needing a warrant. Since this occurred in 2015, RI didn't have ERPOs. However, SCOTUS can set precedent and require a constitutional test be set prior to confiscation of firearms, that ruling could very well effect how red flag laws are instituted, or worse if they aren't even needed! The cops didn't fall back on anything, they lied to the wife under the guise of using a real exemption that didn't require a warrant. Really not that hard to understand here. Their original report did not at all, ever, state the wife gave permission, and then had to backtrack and find an alternative legal reason. Factually speaking, the two arguments of the case are whether a police officer was "reasonable" in the seizure of both the individual and the firearms. Both key stone principles to red flag laws. Feel free to make the conversation less "boring" by providing citations to your argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bt Doctur 188 Posted February 15, 2021 This will only result in more death to Agents and civilians. Can they actually be this stupid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites