THEY ARE A FUCKING THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SAFETY. FUCKING GOD DAMN THIS HORSE SHIT!!! ARE WE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO START DEFENDING OURSELVES FROM BLUE FAGGOTS NOW?!?!?
What this means is anybody that has a grudge against you can find a baseless restraining order or police report against you and just like that, magically you lose all your guns.
The case is a little more complex than that. They are looking for a “community steward” exception to the 4th Amendment. The facts of the case are that the police screwed up, and are looking for a legal opinion to rescue them from their screwup. Any reasonable police officer could have gotten the two guns in question without ever getting in this legal battle.
It will be sad if a police f-up ends up driving a new court accepted 4th amendment exception. If you look at recent 4th Amendment rulings (the last decade or so) it is usually the opposite. Search incident to arrest and several tracking device cases were all decided against law enforcement. The search incident to arrest was a gray area, but the electronic surveillance cases were pretty egregious law enforcement screwups brought to you by the DOJ.
If you are in your yard, for example, waving around a gun and threatening to shoot people, you'll be lucky if the worst thing that happens is your gun getting taken.
Law is complex, clear and present dangers/public good do matter. If you are in the act of committing a crime, you get busted, they don't go get a warrant first, LOL.
I'm pretty sure the language "seize guns" is not meant to apply to someone in the act of committing a crime. It's clearly meant to apply to "red flag" laws. Which will eventually apply to people who "question the election results" because that leads to "real world violence". That's the excuse they're using right now to stifle 1st amendment rights, why wouldn't they use that excuse on 2nd amendment rights?
A CLEAR VIOLATION OF 2A! THE FUCKING HELL WITH THIS BULLSHIT!!!!
They're talking about gun confiscation though for reasons that are nothing other than arbitrary
"without a warrant"... fucking madness.
This circuit is dominated by 0bama and Clinton picks. This is guaranteed to be overturned by SCOTUS. 100%
On the 1st Circuit, there is not a single Trump judge, and only 2/6 are Republican judges.
Dont count on scoutus, they showed there hand about a month ago.
Giving law enforcement discretion like this is tyrannical. Scary shit down this road.
THEY ARE A FUCKING THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SAFETY. FUCKING GOD DAMN THIS HORSE SHIT!!! ARE WE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO START DEFENDING OURSELVES FROM BLUE FAGGOTS NOW?!?!?
Nope, needs a constitutional amendment.
What this means is anybody that has a grudge against you can find a baseless restraining order or police report against you and just like that, magically you lose all your guns.
GOOD!
the more talk about this gun grabbing, which they have done ALL MY LIFE
means more and more and more and more guns are sold and made.
by the tens of millions.
if these traitorous fucks didnt show their hand;
would we have our based pillow merchant or torba/gab?
having survived and escape a REAL communist country,
can tell you, you all are not ready yet. for real suffering.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1358914510627684353
Not clicking twatter.
The case is a little more complex than that. They are looking for a “community steward” exception to the 4th Amendment. The facts of the case are that the police screwed up, and are looking for a legal opinion to rescue them from their screwup. Any reasonable police officer could have gotten the two guns in question without ever getting in this legal battle.
It will be sad if a police f-up ends up driving a new court accepted 4th amendment exception. If you look at recent 4th Amendment rulings (the last decade or so) it is usually the opposite. Search incident to arrest and several tracking device cases were all decided against law enforcement. The search incident to arrest was a gray area, but the electronic surveillance cases were pretty egregious law enforcement screwups brought to you by the DOJ.
If you are in your yard, for example, waving around a gun and threatening to shoot people, you'll be lucky if the worst thing that happens is your gun getting taken. Law is complex, clear and present dangers/public good do matter. If you are in the act of committing a crime, you get busted, they don't go get a warrant first, LOL.
I'm pretty sure the language "seize guns" is not meant to apply to someone in the act of committing a crime. It's clearly meant to apply to "red flag" laws. Which will eventually apply to people who "question the election results" because that leads to "real world violence". That's the excuse they're using right now to stifle 1st amendment rights, why wouldn't they use that excuse on 2nd amendment rights?
LOL, noted jurist, YOU, "is pretty sure..." The Court made no new law, it cannot; it supported existing law.
19 states have 'Red Flag' laws right now... tell me is that "existing law", genius?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Was that what this was about in the post? No. That's a separate matter, yet to be tested federally.
Take it easy pal.
Shes just a small brained woman.
TRUST THE PLAN AMIRITE
DEPORT THIS COCKSUCKER. XIR IS A CCP SHILL.