Jump to content
gunforhire

Hello Unlawful NJ. 9-0! RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote

Recommended Posts

Hello Unlawful NJ. 9-0! RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/05/supreme-court-rules-warrantless-home-gun-confiscation-is-unconstitutional-in-9-0-vote/?fbclid=IwAR1FATAJD3DR-qMRKLnzUYFDw7QRDUgFbaK0OQ82um7IB-kphtVgEHIGZKE

  • Like 7
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on a second:

"In Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion for the ruling in which he addressed existing “red flag” laws that also call into question Fourth Amendment rights.

“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.”

Underline mine. So red flag laws with standards and procedures are still lawful.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Doll said:

Underline mine. So red flag laws with standards and procedures are still lawful.

More specifically, this case does not address RFL’s at all. It is only about the “community caretaking” exception of the current law.  Alito is saying that he feels RFL’s would follow similar logic should a challenge get to the bench.  

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah people are working way too hard to pat themselves on the back. This doesn't cover exigent circumstances, and it doesn't cover the shit-grade warrants you get in the case of red flag orders. 

Those will have to be another case. Don't expect them to ever give up exigent circumstances. If we are lucky, red flag laws will be reigned in given the lack of a crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Yeah people are working way too hard to pat themselves on the back. This doesn't cover exigent circumstances, and it doesn't cover the shit-grade warrants you get in the case of red flag orders. 

Those will have to be another case. Don't expect them to ever give up exigent circumstances. If we are lucky, red flag laws will be reigned in given the lack of a crime. 

No it doesn't cover exigent circumstances.  There was none there when the police arrived and saw the guy alive and well.

Shit grade warrants?  I've never seen any warrant that wasn't contested to some degree.  Of those that were contested maybe 95% of them were settled in the judge's chambers and of those that went to formal hearing 90% of those found the warrant valid.  That's less than 1/2 percent not valid.

You also need to understand judges look after their careers too.  A judge authorizes 100 warrants and 70 or 80 of them are ruled not valid.  That's not a way to work your way up the judge ladder.  Same way if LEOs make bum arrests.  Doesn't help their career.

IANAL but I beat one judge on a speeding ticket before I was a LEO.  I beat him on court rules. That's another story.

IANAL but I have guided young prosecutors on more than one occasion.

You don't understand exigent circumstances. It's not a bad thing.

A a LEO walking down the street hears "help me".  Maybe people engaged in kinky sex. If that's what it is it's over.

You follow a guy (or girl, criminals come from both sexes).  They have committed a crime or you a warrant for their arrest.. They go into a dwelling,  not theirs, you go in.  

You're following someone with 10 kilos of heroin. They go into an address with the drugs.  Seems like it's the final destination. You pop them.

What problem do you have on exigent circumstances?

SCOTUS has ruled on examples I've given. Do you believe in the COTUS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the key word is "warrantless". nj will find a way around that. it's pretty easy really......they'll set up a system where the police dept that wants to do this warrantless search will be able to get a warrant 24/7 within an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ruling is about warrantless search and seizure, specifically where the police misled homeowners about their intentions. The police claimed exigent circumstances and community caretaking as excuses for disregarding the need for a warrant.

It is not about red flag laws.

Red flag laws have nothing to do with exigent circumstances either. If there is time to secretly go behind someone's back and look up in the database what guns the authorities know the subject has, make allegations to a judge with no option for the subject to refute those allegations, the judge has time to consider the allegations then signs a warrant and after all that the police travel to the subject's home and executes the warrant - it clearly was not an exigent situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

you're banking on everything staying above the board in a rabidly anti-gun state.

I'm not banking on anything. I was being critical of the BS fed to the masses about why RFLs are needed. They are just plain old gun grabs with nothing to do with the safety of any individual or an "emergency".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GRIZ said:

No it doesn't cover exigent circumstances.  There was none there when the police arrived and saw the guy alive and well.

Shit grade warrants?  I've never seen any warrant that wasn't contested to some degree.  Of those that were contested maybe 95% of them were settled in the judge's chambers and of those that went to formal hearing 90% of those found the warrant valid.  That's less than 1/2 percent not valid.

You also need to understand judges look after their careers too.  A judge authorizes 100 warrants and 70 or 80 of them are ruled not valid.  That's not a way to work your way up the judge ladder.  Same way if LEOs make bum arrests.  Doesn't help their career.

IANAL but I beat one judge on a speeding ticket before I was a LEO.  I beat him on court rules. That's another story.

IANAL but I have guided young prosecutors on more than one occasion.

You don't understand exigent circumstances. It's not a bad thing.

A a LEO walking down the street hears "help me".  Maybe people engaged in kinky sex. If that's what it is it's over.

You follow a guy (or girl, criminals come from both sexes).  They have committed a crime or you a warrant for their arrest.. They go into a dwelling,  not theirs, you go in.  

You're following someone with 10 kilos of heroin. They go into an address with the drugs.  Seems like it's the final destination. You pop them.

What problem do you have on exigent circumstances?

SCOTUS has ruled on examples I've given. Do you believe in the COTUS?

I just said it doesn't cover exigent circumstances. I understand what they are just fine. I'm not sure what you think you are talking about. My statement is literally this ruling has no bearing on exigent circumstances and searches based on a warrant. It has to do with a very specific situation which is neither of those things. 

Red flag orders are shit tier warrants, but still involve a warrant. So this ruling has nothing to do with that.  This is because the general concept of a warrant is it is issued in the investigation of criminal acts. It can very well be a warrant issued to police because police have said they would like a warrant to harass someone who has done nothing. That being the point of red flag orders. To do something to someone who has in fact not done anything actionable. I'm sure that red flag orders will not survive contact with an honest court protecting people's rights, but this case is not that case. We aren't there yet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

I just said it doesn't cover exigent circumstances. I understand what they are just fine. I'm not sure what you think you are talking about. My statement is literally this ruling has no bearing on exigent circumstances and searches based on a warrant. It has to do with a very specific situation which is neither of those things. 

Red flag orders are shit tier warrants, but still involve a warrant. So this ruling has nothing to do with that.  This is because the general concept of a warrant is it is issued in the investigation of criminal acts. It can very well be a warrant issued to police because police have said they would like a warrant to harass someone who has done nothing. That being the point of red flag orders. To do something to someone who has in fact not done anything actionable. I'm sure that red flag orders will not survive contact with an honest court protecting people's rights, but this case is not that case. We aren't there yet. 

 

Your prior statement seems to lump red flag orders, shit tier warrants, and exigent circumstances into the same boat.  You go on to mention police getting a warrant to harass someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

Your prior statement seems to lump red flag orders, shit tier warrants, and exigent circumstances into the same boat.  You go on to mention police getting a warrant to harass someone.

That's you. My post was basically a slightly more wordy version of don't cheer, this does nothing about exigent circumstances or red flag orders (because red flag orders come with warrants, even if they are shit tier warrants). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

That's you. My post was basically a slightly more wordy version of don't cheer, this does nothing about exigent circumstances or red flag orders (because red flag orders come with warrants, even if they are shit tier warrants). 

 

So why do you say, "this does nothing about exigent circumstances".  I'm unsure you understand exceptions for exigent circumstances.  You mention earlier , "Don't expect them to ever give up exigent circumstances".  Do you think that's a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

So why do you say, "this does nothing about exigent circumstances".  I'm unsure you understand exceptions for exigent circumstances.  You mention earlier , "Don't expect them to ever give up exigent circumstances".  Do you think that's a bad thing?

Because it has nothing to do with exigent circumstances. That's why. I mention it because it is a form or warrantless search and this decision has been poorly represented as to its effect on warrantless searches as it is NOT about warrantless searches, but specific kinds of warrantless searches. 

I'm not sure why my feelings on exigent circumstances are relevant, but since you asked...

I'm fine with the use to protect life and limb. I probably have different opinions than law enforcement on what, if anything, should be admissible as evidence when discovered under exigent circumstances. 

Using that excuse for apprehending a non-violent suspect? Is it at the boarder where they may in fact flee the legal system? No? Then stay the fuck out of my stuff. You can find them later. If they are a known violent offender than see the above about preservation of life. 

Destruction of evidence? You probably should have had a better case or you can just the 47 other bits of evidence you likely have against them. But I also think we could likely do with several thousand less laws.  

When you need massive exceptions to constitutional rights to do your job, you need to either do your job better, or it's time to seriously consider if the job needs doing at all or to that degree. See the war on drugs as the perfect example. 

Most of the violence involved comes from creating a black market. Most of the non distribution based crime comes in the form of theft to pay for the drugs. Lots of expense comes from both law enforcement costs and incarceration to save me from a problem that the system created. It'd likely be cheaper and more productive to have state sponsored rehab and trap houses. You either want help, or let you press the happy button till it kills you. If you are a functioning substance abuser, why the hell are we bothering you anyway? If you aren't, you either wind up in rehab or dead eventually. Why drag it out with expensive side trips through the legal system and incarceration? 

You see exigent circumstances used constantly to justify standard tactics in the drug war because "evidence might be destroyed" It's how we got to seemingly every warrant being a no-knock with machine guns and body armor. Even for mundane shit. Yet apparently it doesn't apply to shredding documents. Apparently some evidence is more critical than others. I can tell you as an average person, who has even had their residence broken into by drug addicts, those documents that got shredded have caused me more harm than drugs that might have gotten flushed down the shitter. I didn't see the tac teams kicking in doors and going in hot when investigating the banks that laundered the drug money. 

Is it, currently, as fucked as say qualified immunity? No. But it could use to be clarified and reigned in a bit... along with several thousand less laws. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2021 at 3:50 PM, raz-0 said:

Because it has nothing to do with exigent circumstances. That's why. I mention it because it is a form or warrantless search and this decision has been poorly represented as to its effect on warrantless searches as it is NOT about warrantless searches, but specific kinds of warrantless searches. 

I'm not sure why my feelings on exigent circumstances are relevant, but since you asked...

Well since you mentioned it...

I'm fine with the use to protect life and limb. I probably have different opinions than law enforcement on what, if anything, should be admissible as evidence when discovered under exigent circumstances. 

You don't seem to understand the rules of exigent circumstances.  Anything done under exigent circumstances is scrutinized after by a judge and argued by the prosecution and defense. If there was probable cause for the LEO to get a warrant but no time to do so it will be admissible.  The LEO doesn't just say exigent circumstances and the judge gives them a wink and a nod.  You don't understand search and seizure laws and rules of evidence.

Using that excuse for apprehending a non-violent suspect? Is it at the boarder where they may in fact flee the legal system? No? Then stay the fuck out of my stuff. You can find them later. If they are a known violent offender than see the above about preservation of life. 

So only non-violent subjects should be apprehended at the border?  If the police see someone break into your house (I'm talking burglary not robbery) they shouldn't pursue him because he's non-violent and "they can always find him later".  You'd be okay with that?

 

Destruction of evidence? You probably should have had a better case or you can just the 47 other bits of evidence you likely have against them. But I also think we could likely do with several thousand less laws.  

47 bits of evidence?  Many of them will do you no good unless you have the evidence that proves makes the other 47 bits of evidence pertinent.  No drugs in a drug case?  No body in a homicide? I will agree we could do with fewer laws.

When you need massive exceptions to constitutional rights to do your job, you need to either do your job better, or it's time to seriously consider if the job needs doing at all or to that degree. See the war on drugs as the perfect example.

Exceptions to constitutional rights are ultimately decided by courts. The exceptions are based on reasonableness.  Some favor the criminal justice system and some work against it. I haven't always agreed with court decisions but have had to do my job with or in spite of them.

Most of the violence involved comes from creating a black market. Most of the non distribution based crime comes in the form of theft to pay for the drugs. Lots of expense comes from both law enforcement costs and incarceration to save me from a problem that the system created. It'd likely be cheaper and more productive to have state sponsored rehab and trap houses. You either want help, or let you press the happy button till it kills you. If you are a functioning substance abuser, why the hell are we bothering you anyway? If you aren't, you either wind up in rehab or dead eventually. Why drag it out with expensive side trips through the legal system and incarceration?

Legal drugs for everyone? Do you really think all the other crime will go away?  Many liberals think this and apparently you do too..  All the street dealers and others involved in the drug business will then just quit crime, get doctorates and become rocket scientists? The situation at the border is proof that doesn't happen.  Drug cartels have found they can make more money smuggling aliens than drugs.  When that situation changes they'll go back to drugs or find some other crime.

You see exigent circumstances used constantly to justify standard tactics in the drug war because "evidence might be destroyed" It's how we got to seemingly every warrant being a no-knock with machine guns and body armor. Even for mundane shit. Yet apparently it doesn't apply to shredding documents. Apparently some evidence is more critical than others. I can tell you as an average person, who has even had their residence broken into by drug addicts, those documents that got shredded have caused me more harm than drugs that might have gotten flushed down the shitter. I didn't see the tac teams kicking in doors and going in hot when investigating the banks that laundered the drug money. 

Few warrants are no knock warrants.  Fewer warrants "go wrong".  One needs to present their probable cause in the application for the warrant and at the end justify why you want a no knock warrant.  The judge decides if your reasons are valid.  No knock warrants are not mentioned in the COTUS.  Machine guns and body armor?  That's needed when your opposition is armed and has shown a willingness to fight.  You don't seem to understand the concept that if you overwhelm your opposition they are more likely to give up peaceably.  Not necessary if you're doing a warrant on a bank for money laundering.  Many banks have been shut down and bank officials convicted for money laundering.  You need to read the news.

Is it, currently, as fucked as say qualified immunity? No. But it could use to be clarified and reigned in a bit... along with several thousand less laws. 

Do away with qualified immunity?  You don't understand the concept.  If judge makes a decision that's overturned by a higher court that judge should be held criminally and civilly responsible?  Who would take a job as a judge?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...