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?
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.