4560
Comments (392)
sorted by:
361
sustainable_saltmine 361 points ago +363 / -2

Gun grabbing lefties everywhere are having a meltdown

200
Bbasher 200 points ago +205 / -5

I know it's still a win for us, but it feel like its a cheesy win. Don't get me wrong, I like whats happening but it feels weird after we all got butt fucked on the election cases and then get a win with this.

223
GODwins76 223 points ago +226 / -3

Why did Scotus rule that they can't take your weapons with the 4th without a warrant when the 2nd says they can't ever?

161
Primordial_Phantom 161 points ago +161 / -0

All amendments are equal, but some amendments are more equal than others. -SCOTUS, probably

60
ThePatriot_2021 60 points ago +66 / -6

I firmly believe that the Supreme Court should be abolished. Let people settle their legal disputes the way God and the IRA intended; ultra violently.

19
Quietam_Unum 19 points ago +19 / -0

I firmly believe that the Supreme Court should be abolished.

Or dragged back to its original mission. But that'd probably be impossible.

  1. Law or regulation is called out as unconstitutional.
  2. SCOTUS looks at law looks at plain language of Constitution.
  3. Decides if law or regulation is constitutional.

No "precedent" bull shit; just constitutional or unconstitutional.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
18
monk_of_trump 18 points ago +19 / -1

Lol this made me smile. Thank you. I don't do that much anymore.

5
ThePatriot_2021 5 points ago +5 / -0

It’s nice to lighten the mood with all of the anger and vitriol we feel these days.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
12
UndeadRevolver 12 points ago +12 / -0
  1. Restore legal dueling over matters of honor.

  2. Wait for soy bitches to talk smack about you

  3. issue challenge, then either get apology, or get to drill smack talking soy bitch

  4. profit

10
barkbarkbark6 10 points ago +10 / -0

bring back dueling!

8
vegaspatriot1776 8 points ago +8 / -0

i agree with your terms!

16
GulagInmate769 16 points ago +16 / -0

"No amendment is absolute" -resident biden

3
uiopy1 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is literally Selective Incorporation Doctrine, whereby SCOTUS says that via the Due Process Clause, the Bill of Rights also applies to the states... except only certain parts of certain amendments, and only when they say it does.

73
Viewer01 73 points ago +73 / -0

Generally speaking you can be deprived of rights via due process. This is why they need a warrant to seize property. The executive can’t just snatch stuff Willy nilly, they need to get the judicial to agree.

Now if they’d just nix civil asset forfeiture.

Also this is great news for red flag laws, as it makes them unconstitutional.

39
GODwins76 39 points ago +42 / -3

As the supreme court failed to uphold the laws surrounding the illegal usurpation of the oval office...again. I'm going to say that scotus needs to understand where 'We the People" stand since they don't get to decide anything for us anymore for our well being. We the people were denied due process during unconstitutional lockdowns over a China virus. I say the 2nd amendment still stands more than ever over a failed court system that deprives anyone it meets a solid chance to restore our republic peacefully. While the judges are figuring out who can be pirated from by the state, I'm going to uphold the 2nd amendment when no one else will. The police going to sit outside the homes it steals from to make sure they are protected in their persons and property? Didn't fucking think so, eat lead government!

20
MAGARondonmonson 20 points ago +20 / -0

I don't think you guys understand. The Riots in all the Cities before the Election, the ANTIFA types going to McConnell house, Lindsey Graham house, and Tucker Carlson's house, scaring their families, beating on their doors was a message to the THREE NEW Supreme Court Justices, we can get at Senators, and Majority Leaders, and even super-rich TV Hosts, you think we can't get at your asses?

All you have to do is LOOK THE THER WAY, while we steal this election an d things will go back to normal !! These were goon-like mob tactics meant to scare the help out of one of the three Justices, that is all they needed with Roberts being a never-Trump POS. They of course knew they were going to steal the election, thus they just needed to scare the hell out of one of them, and their plan worked.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
2
GODwins76 2 points ago +4 / -2

Well, I believe they tried to save face under Trump but realized it probably meant gameover for the federal system that props them up as puppets.

4
disgruntled_patriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Oh yeah. Thanks SC, you sack of communist scum (except Thomas). Bless your ignorant asses for reminding me of that which I already fucking know; that I have every fucking right to shoot anyone who comes to take me or my property (which includes my guns, btw) in self defense.

Now that you fucktards have figured that out, exactly jack shit has changed. There are still 40 million NEW gun owners in the US in the last 14 months alone thanks to you commie dipshits to whom this cute little "ruling" of yours means precisely fuck and exactly all.

They are still going to murder your communist asses if you fuck with them whether or not you ever had a word to say on the matter. Or they won't. And if they don't, well then they'll deserve it anyway.

Our supreme court is illegitimate. It's so amusing watching them pretend like their shit matters.

3
GODwins76 3 points ago +5 / -2

For a bunch of Natural Law Fags, they sure forgot what happens when a bunch of rightfully pissed off slaves revolt. They say the pen is mightier, but last time I checked at the range, lead punches paper.

5
Thrasymachus 5 points ago +6 / -1

One downvote, presumably from someone who can't put rounds on paper at all and consequently can't acknowledge the truth of your statement.

14
censored4wrongthink 14 points ago +14 / -0

Audit the Audit, lectures from UVA's YT channel, Viva Frei and Robert Barnes all made me understand the law so much better

Red flag laws btfo

3
vegaspatriot1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

don't leave out the "Lack Luster" channel. that guy is the best in my opinion. i have been watching them all for a few years now. it is truly amazing what i did know about the law in our country.

2
censored4wrongthink 2 points ago +2 / -0

dude you're in Vegas?

I was living there from '17 - '20 too damn bad we never crossed paths sooner peeposad.jpg

quick question - is it still going downhill? I left for greener pastures (OH)

4
vegaspatriot1776 4 points ago +4 / -0

kind of hard to say if it's still going down hill now. i meet based people every single day, but the whole lock down bullshit has sure been a gut punch to the city. we have been here for almost 15 years now. it's sure nowhere near what it was in 2006! if you ever find yourself heading back into town, let me know. we have extra rooms now (kids are all out), with free wifi and airport shuttle. sorry, no faggot HBO or Disney, not in this house. we only watch TDW! also, guns are available in each and every room.

9
sonrisa 9 points ago +9 / -0

Now if they’d just nix civil asset forfeiture.

Agree, but one of the most frustrating times I saw Trump on TV he was with some good ole’ boy sheriffs talking about how this was a good thing.

I think someone … needs to explain to him that sometimes these jackasses are shaking down little old ladies coming home from the casinos in their Buicks and seizing their shit under the pretext of muh war on drugs, and that no, it’s not a good thing.

It’s abused all the freaking time with no due process or probable cause necessary.

I don’t even know if he had been elected yet, it didn’t cost him my vote or support but it would be an understatement to say I disagreed on this issue.

I hope … he would reconsider that if someone told him the whole story …

5
America1stAndOnly 5 points ago +5 / -0

I suspect it was Trump trying to show that he stood with and supported law enforcement. Unfortunately, he seems to support them unconditionally. Nobody and no group should get unconditional support. Like when cops selective enforce laws that violate our rights but then look away as blm and antifa riot and burn cities, that is a time in which one should not be supporting cops. Civil asset forfeiture is another time in which they shouldn't be supported.

2
sonrisa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nobody and no group should get unconditional support

Escalates pretty quickly doesn’t it?

You have to support democrats if you’re a (woman) (black) (gay) and on and on.

You don’t support _______ if you don’t support us, you Uncle Tom!

How quickly they’ve finally laid their cards out on the table : Now you must support Palestine/Islam!

It’s like oh, so that’s what this was about all along?

Bolsheviks gonna Bolshevik, but that doesn’t mean someone’s not just copying the playbook this time.

Don’t flame bro: I don’t support any of them and so far nobody has taken the bait for us to fight each other except basically the left.

3
Redpillmachine 3 points ago +3 / -0

The decision specifically mentions this doesn't extend to red flag

"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. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum. Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. 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. "

3
Data 3 points ago +3 / -0

Also this is great news for red flag laws, as it makes them unconstitutional.

This ruling doesn't restore Due Process to red flag cases. It just means the government cannot seize property without a warrant. Most red flag laws already required a warrant -- they've been using warrants to confiscate guns under "red flag" the whole time, in every case as far as I'm aware.

Police didn't use red flag to confiscate guns in this particular case. They never involved a judge at all. The scope of the case was too narrow for SCOTUS to apply Due Process. So the ruling has almost no bearing on those laws.

21
MICHIGANisRED 21 points ago +22 / -1

Joe does not fare what SCROTUM says. Amendments are optional. He could sign an eo that cancels 2a and another telling SCROTUM to go fuck itself and probably get away with it. Tyranny has no limitations.

15
MeanMisterMustardCap 15 points ago +15 / -0

"SCROTUM." 🤣 🤣 🤣

3
TheThreeSeashells 3 points ago +3 / -0

EOs can easily be overridden by states. The problem in the past is that they don't even try. If he tries screwing around with the 2A, I guarantee we'll see it happen. Not to mention EOs also can't override a Constitutional Amendment. If they think they can, then what would stop a future president from re-instating prohibition? Or preventing women or blacks from voting?

I think you're right that it wouldn't be above the shadow administration to TRY it. There's absolutely no way they could succeed unless everyone, meaning every lawyer and the most Conservative of politicians and the reddest of states, just throw their hands up and say, "Oh, well. I guess that's the final word. Screw the entire Constitution now."

4
Italians_Invented_2A 4 points ago +4 / -0

preventing women or blacks from voting?

Oh God, that would be a dream

4
Hung_Chad 4 points ago +4 / -0

Now all they need are a massive false flag, umbrella warrants and the door to mass confiscation is wide open.

2
GODwins76 2 points ago +4 / -2

Oh? Bring it the fuck on! WAR!

4
Southboundanddown 4 points ago +4 / -0

Laches....or something.

17
DaayTerkErJerbs 17 points ago +17 / -0

If it's 9-0 it was a case that should have been so obvious it should have never taken serious by the court. I mean for fuck sake it's not a win that they can't blatantly violate your rights and the constitution. The fact anyone even considered this is a loss

13
JustHereForTheSalmon 13 points ago +13 / -0

Unanimous decisions from a higher court should trigger firings in lower courts.

5
Hatsarehats 5 points ago +5 / -0

True that. The judges and prosecutorsthat forced this up the chain have no business anywhere near a courtroom excepting the cases where they are defendants accused of crimes.

9
MrsNesbitt 9 points ago +10 / -1

They threw us a bone.

6
Ocineaa 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah see my above post.

4
libertyhominid 4 points ago +4 / -0

The facts of this case are all that can be dealt with.

18
leakmouth 18 points ago +18 / -0

Poor Robert Francis O’Rourke

9
556x45mm 9 points ago +9 / -0

Don't worry, Beto Franco ElRourké still has his skateboard

4
Rob_Belmonte 4 points ago +4 / -0

Beto tried skateboarding in Kenosha and we saw how that worked out.

6
DebunkTheLeft 6 points ago +6 / -0

Good win, but law enforcement, especially federal, will just lie more frequently in order to get warrants. The FBI lies nearly 100% of the time to get what they want.

6
QLARP 6 points ago +12 / -6

Blue lives matter righties committing suicide

3
Liberty4All 3 points ago +3 / -0

As they should. Red Flag laws are unconstitutional...well, at least they can't seize you guns from you at home under this ruling.

173
deleted 173 points ago +173 / -0
46
me-no-likely3 46 points ago +46 / -0

Haha I call them crazy ex girlfriend laws

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
16
blueladypede 16 points ago +16 / -0

What are ex-wife laws in this context? tia

32
deleted 32 points ago +32 / -0
27
hallway_monitor 27 points ago +27 / -0

I've had 2 friends who this has happened to, it's serious business, could end tragically.

14
Thedaythe_redditdied 14 points ago +14 / -0

Killing Tyrants isn’t tragic.

6
hallway_monitor 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'd like to think there's still a lot of pedes in law enforcement, especially in red states.

That being said, you never know if the 30 something with 2 kids at home at the front of the stack is simply following orders without proper context as to who or why they are going in.

Which is to say, MOST OF THE TIME. So yes, I argue this could be very tragic for all parties involved.

2
befehlistbefehl 2 points ago +2 / -0

simply following orders without proper context as to who or why they are going in.

Not being given proper context (or being given false pretenses) is no defense for criminal conduct. If you're gonna commit an armed home invasion and make yourself the aggressor, then you better see to it that you have proper context (and haven't been lied to by your superiors).

1
Thedaythe_redditdied 1 point ago +1 / -0

They deserve to die a traitors death. I’m so over the just blindly following orders. Don’t care. I’m just filling orders too. Mine are clearly laid out by the constitution that those heros in blue swore an oath too. If you are a pede in law enforcement it’s time to retire. But if you really want that nice retirement don’t go against the constitution and we will get along just fine.

17
Pinochet_Was_Right 17 points ago +17 / -0

Had friend who lost his entire gun collection and his chance at LE job.

His future ex-wife said he was being suicidal and told police department he was applying too. They made him do psyche eval (for his good) and she sold his guns while he was being detained. It was technically legal because they were married and the police had to take into consideration his ‘suicide attempt’.

All because he said was done with her...

8
Slugbert 8 points ago +8 / -0

And people have the nerve to wonder why MGTOW is a thing.

3
Italians_Invented_2A 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just don't marry. Live with her, fuck her, have children...

The moment she looks crazy you leave. Problem solved.

6
VoidWanderer 6 points ago +6 / -0

Live with her, fuck her, have children...

Enjoy the common law anal reaming without lube you'll receive for being that stupid.

1
Italians_Invented_2A 1 point ago +1 / -0

Still safer than being officially married, isn't it?

4
deleted 4 points ago +7 / -3
10
JayMW 10 points ago +10 / -0

Red flag laws.

10
Pinochet_Was_Right 10 points ago +10 / -0

As a veteran, it makes me wary of even seeking help for possible PTSD. It could just be something else but I don’t wanna risk it.

7
Datamancer 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yeah, it's fucking sad. Some asshole is on the FBI and police watch list, goes and buys a couple of guns and shoots up his employeer. Some grunt goes to get help because they need some guidance and they get their weapons taken away. What bullshit.

6
Smooth 6 points ago +6 / -0

Read the opinions, they specifically all state that this case does NOT make any rulings findings or opinions on red flag laws, but those cases could be brought in the future.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
121
Riolinda 121 points ago +122 / -1

Fuck SCOTUS. Is that still ok to say?

99
f_bastiat 99 points ago +99 / -0

This is america, you can say whatever you want.

37
FUSnowflake [S] 37 points ago +38 / -1

America, F__ Yeah!

14
thingaboutarsenal 14 points ago +14 / -0

Coming again to save the motherfucking day ey!

6
ShadowyMrBlank 6 points ago +6 / -0

So lick my butt and suck on my balls!!!

2
thingaboutarsenal 2 points ago +2 / -0

Whatcha gonna do when we come for you now?

2
Italians_Invented_2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

When the movie came out I thought it was a bit over the top to have Hollywood ally itself with communist terrorists.

Imagine that now.

20
FightTheSWAMP 20 points ago +20 / -0

Not if that faggot Prince Harry has a say about it....Apparently that cuck says it's "Bonkers" to have the ability to speak freely.

7
DarkRiver 7 points ago +7 / -0

Fuck that deranged elite

6
Krat 6 points ago +6 / -0

It just won't be read on Twitter, Facebook, any News, your isp might take away your right to a utility, you may lose your job, and the government will try to dox you to a violent lawless mob.

20
HansMann 20 points ago +20 / -0

They are just trying to appease us, don't forget they all voted against our election lawsuits

Fuck all those traitors and we should be scared about the abortion case they are gonna take a look at as well, that shit is not gonna be in our favour

6
jomten 6 points ago +6 / -0

There is an argument to be made that unelected judges should not be deciding election disputes, because then judges could be put in to decide election disputes in one parties favor, and I would generally agree with that.

The main issue being that leftist judges literally steal elections, and have been doing it for a long time now. Rossi/Gregoire in WA 2008, the judge in philly? who got in the booth and just voted as many times as he could for his candidate, judges allowing illegals to vote in Cali

So we need to start doing it back so that there is pressure from both sides to fix it.

3
Ballind 3 points ago +3 / -0

Reversed one in NC iirc

3
PM_ME_YOUR_FLAGS 3 points ago +3 / -0

I can imagine the ones who aren’t completely compromised thought about the can of worms that precedent would open up.

Any power granted to any part of the government can, and will be abused. Even if we stop the tyranny now, when it inevitably tries again, they could use that precedent for a power grab later. The state legislatures have to be the ones to do it. Once they decertify, and a constitutional crisis occurs, only then will the ball be in the SCOTUS’ court.

If they pack the Supreme Court, I imagine that’s where the divide will be. Because the judges that Xiden installs will obviously rule in his favor. However, if enough states reject the election results, there will be a huge fight over if the judges he appointed are legitimate or not.

9
FUSnowflake [S] 9 points ago +10 / -1

SCROTUMS

Supreme Court, Rulers Of These United Metrosexual States

2
556x45mm 2 points ago +3 / -1

Too bad Rush isn't around to explain to Rio Linda folks what they can say.

Spez: JK, I love my Rio Linda folks! West 6th Street gives no fucks!

92
chesterfields 92 points ago +92 / -0

GOA X1000000 over NRA ILA

27
DeliverancePrime 27 points ago +27 / -0

Have thought about this for awhile and GOA was my AmazonSmiles charity (back wen I still shopped there), but I'm full-up joining today. I'm a Lifetime NRA member, and all I ever get from them is "buy this, buy that, we have InSuRaNcE." Rarely any alerts (other than what's in their Grassroots 'zine), and if they're involved in any pressure campaigns, lawsuits, or anything beyond ordinary 2A lobbying/grifting, they certainly don't publicize it. GOA is doing what needs to be done and NRA has been disappointing the shit out of me for years now.

19
Demonspawn 19 points ago +19 / -0

Rarely any alerts

Fair warning: GOA will keep you busy calling your representatives in State government.

And I'm fine with that!

2
Ched 2 points ago +2 / -0

Best part of my membership.

1
DeliverancePrime 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's great! I'd love some direction! I don't have time to research every potential 2A threat coming down the pipe, but GOA actually reporting on these things and making me aware of what they're doing as an organization and letting us know what we need to do to help is what I'm looking for.

Much appreciated. I joined, so I'm waiting with bated breath.

3
chesterfields 3 points ago +3 / -0

Concur. GOA membership has a lot less mailings, no fancy gifts or membership cards. You actually get a blank paper membership card you can put your name on or burn in the fire pit. Lots less overhead they can put resources towards fighting commies

2
DeliverancePrime 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's exactly what I need them to be doing. Joined.

Thanks, brother.

12
POTUS_DonnieJ 12 points ago +12 / -0

GOA and FPC are the way to go. NRA is like the GOP, 99% talk, 1% action.

3
Amaroq64 3 points ago +3 / -0

I thought OP was about Goa beans.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
72
Pederella 72 points ago +72 / -0

GOA in the trenches 💪. NRA is where? 🤨

39
BurgerChef90 39 points ago +39 / -0

Swimming in their RINO money, writing strongly worded letters while laughing at us.

1
RussianLimbaugh 1 point ago +1 / -0

No! They’re fighting a lawsuit in NY, being targeting by gun grabbers! Send them money to help them help you!!!

This is the most faggy thing I think I’ve typed. It is the NRA’s actual excuse, though. They’re fundraising off pretending they aren’t a part of it all.

3
TrumpLandslideWon202 3 points ago +3 / -0

They serve a good purpose, but it's only to distract everyone from the real pro gun organizations doing real work to protect our inherent rights. The NRA is all kinds of fucked but all the normies only pay attention to them and don't know about all the other great orgs. If the NRA disappears then all the others are suddenly in the cross hairs of antis.

16
CommunismIsForLosers 16 points ago +16 / -0

Begging for money for nice lunches and first class flights.

12
Based_psychologist 12 points ago +12 / -0

Just talked to a mid-70s technician doing work at my house. He saw my MAGA hat on the wall and we talked about the steal and the push for Marxism. He brought up how he’s lost faith in the NRA and thinks they just money grabbers. If they're losing the trust of 70s long term members, they’re screwed.

1
TrumpLandslideWon202 1 point ago +1 / -0

All they've had are all the old Fudds for at least a decade. If they've stopped donating then yes, the NRA is done.

10
Ocineaa 10 points ago +10 / -0

Trying to declare bankruptcy

1
Data 1 point ago +1 / -0

Helping Wayne pick out another fine Italian suit for the collection.

46
spelunking_librator 46 points ago +47 / -1

what's stopping them to go brrr on warrants?

37
GODwins76 37 points ago +40 / -3

People think this is a win. I never read in the 2nd amendment where they can infringe if they get a warrant first.

12
droden 12 points ago +12 / -0

letting criminals keep firearms in prison sounds like a bold move

17
GODwins76 17 points ago +20 / -3

How about Governors letting out murderers from prison for COVID?

3
RussianLimbaugh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Or in Cali, just to make prisons less violent.

8
Sick_of_the_bs 8 points ago +8 / -0

Police don't come and take guns after your convicted in most cases.. You are responsible to sell & re-home your firearms. So, we're already doing that. The second amendment does not say 'shall not be infringed unless he's a criminal'.

1
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's pretty common in South America.

10
chinajoehasdementia 10 points ago +11 / -1

It's in the 5th Amendment:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The point is to have due process in criminal code instead of unchecked tyranny. It's not perfect because of corrupt judges, but that's the theory.

1
Mister_t 1 point ago +1 / -0

Having a warrant is not due process. Its simply one of the first steps towards due process.

1
chinajoehasdementia 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol! It's literally part of the process...

-1
TrumpLandslideWon202 -1 points ago +0 / -1

It's part of the process but you're not convicted of any crime at that point and still considered innocent. So they, constitutionally, have zero right to take anything you own during a warrant search unless it's evidence required for the prosecution.

2
chinajoehasdementia 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't disagree at all.

1
TrumpLandslideWon202 1 point ago +1 / -0

👍👍😁😁

1
GODwins76 1 point ago +4 / -3

No, it is strictly unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed literally means they can't take your right to protect yourself ever. Our criminal courts are under admiralty law as with all else now. http://www.hjil.org/articles/hjil-21-3-smith.pdf "The Supreme Court decided two maritime cases during the 1997–1998 term. ...Admiralty, of course, is one of the foremost areas in which federal judges engage in substantive rulemaking and, some might say, policymaking. General maritime causes of action require the courts to act like a state supreme court, vested with the power and duty to craft common law rules of civil liability. But even within the framework of what is nominally statutory interpretation, we must devise substantive rules and standards. For example, while the Jones Act covers only the crewmen of “vessels,”25 it fails to define what a “vessel” is.26 Does the term include a barge or a riverboat casino that never moves from its dock, or a floating oilrig?"

My house is a vessel, a castle, and a country.

2
chinajoehasdementia 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's really not. Due process is what's in place to establish rule of law over tyranny. If you commit crimes, you can be sentenced to prison where you will lose your right to assemble, go to your church to worship and yes, even carry your M134.

1
GODwins76 1 point ago +2 / -1

Not without a fight. You can look at the yellow glass of liquid as half full or half empty, but I'll tell you it is piss. The government is tyranny, not the rule of law.

6
PMSocks 6 points ago +6 / -0

Judges ... some who aren't leftists

5
WhiteTrashJesus 5 points ago +5 / -0

They need to either accelerate and make it a crime to be an “extreme risk” or reserve search warrants for people who they have evidence of committing an actual crime

5
Filetsmignon 5 points ago +5 / -0

Hawaii judge: "you need warrant?"

3
JayMW 3 points ago +3 / -0

They can already take firearms if they have a warrant. If they can just go brrr on warrants now then states wouldn't have been trying to enact red flag laws.

30
Liberty_Prime 30 points ago +30 / -0

Shouldn't have made it to SCOTUS. Broke 2 amendments.

3
michaelconfoy 3 points ago +4 / -1

You understand it takes losses to get to SCOTUS? They kept arguing constitutional aspects and ended up at SCOTUS.

7
EricCiaramellaSuxDix 7 points ago +7 / -0

I think his point is that no judge at any point along the way should've ruled the way they did to let it get that far.

This man should've never had his guns confiscated, period. No law that allows that is constitutional, even before this decision.

2
michaelconfoy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agree but I don't know the case that well.

4
EricCiaramellaSuxDix 4 points ago +4 / -0

The decision outlines it pretty well. But basically old dude and his wife had an ongoing fight for hours. He eventually puts his gun on the counter calmly and says something to the effect of just go ahead and shoot me already, quite sarcastically, as was his character.

The wife later called the cops who took all his guns under the guise of protecting his life, since she claims she was worried about his mental state. I believe later on she even said she didn't intend for them to come and seize his guns, but just to let the cops know the situation.

I'm of the opinion that we're not supposed to play Minority Report games and just seize people's property before a crime has been committed. This type of brazen action by police opens so many doors to trampling on our natural rights.

2
michaelconfoy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you for sharing the details

2
michaelconfoy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agree

21
JustTheNews 21 points ago +21 / -0

now we need to get rid of all the corrupt municipal judges that will issue warrants when they are asked...What checks that power if the judge is the one who is corrupt

1
ARfreedom 1 point ago +1 / -0

In theory, local citizens, most warrants are issued by local judges elected to the bench. Also, 2A sanctuary places, lots of counties, cities, and even some states going full 2A Sanctuary.

1
JustTheNews 1 point ago +1 / -0

elected or not they can be bought

2
ARfreedom 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's true of just about anyone though. Put enough zeros in a check and nearly everyone has a price. Just like torture. It isn't a matter of if someone will break, it's a matter of when.

1
JustTheNews 1 point ago +1 / -0

that is why laws that protect us from virtually anyone the gov can throw at us is key...there has to be a check to balance out anything goverment....

1
ARfreedom 1 point ago +1 / -0

And what good are those laws if the enforcement people, fbi and what have you, are lying to corrupt judges?

If we can't trust the majority of people in power there is no system that can be enacted to restrain their negative inclinations.

1
JustTheNews 1 point ago +1 / -0

sure there is make it easier for citizens to challenge local judges...judges are the ones allowing all this shit to come to fruition, the whole judicial branch is FUBAR

2
ARfreedom 2 points ago +2 / -0

And who rules on those challenges? Oh that's right judges.

1
BlaineBug 1 point ago +1 / -0

The constitution IS those laws. There was never any intention for the government to create laws to protect the citizens.

2
JustTheNews 2 points ago +2 / -0

yeha but being that in the modern world, judges being the most fucking powerful with nobody able to tell them no....there needs to be laws to fortify the constitution that DIRECTLY check the power of an unlawful warrant. As in prison time and loss of job for judges

1
BlaineBug 1 point ago +1 / -0

All laws that violation constitution are null and void. Once again the responsibility to uphold lies with the citizenry.

15
TheNewRepublic 15 points ago +16 / -1

That don’t mean nothing...SCOTUS don’t mean anything.

2
michaelconfoy 2 points ago +2 / -0

But when we lose a case SCOTUS means everything to the losers trying to demoralize.

14
Sea_Still 14 points ago +14 / -0

A rare moment of sanity is a nice change

4
AnacronicA 4 points ago +5 / -1

I agree but what does it mean? Gun rights are massively contested right now yet all 9, including the liberal judges agreed to it?

9
IncredibleMrE1 9 points ago +9 / -0

It means that the Rhode Island police did something so blatantly unconstitutional and illegal that not even Roberts or the "wise latina" could defend them.

3
Ocineaa 3 points ago +3 / -0

Giving us normal folk a crumb to calm the masses.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Bw2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes it is

12
catchlightning 12 points ago +33 / -21

9-0!? HOLY FUCK. PATRIOTS ARE IN CONTROL BOYZ

47
Ocineaa 47 points ago +52 / -5

How quickly you forget they wouldn't even look at the voter fraud evidence.

9
catchlightning 9 points ago +10 / -1

I haven't forgotten. I also would not have expected them to UNANIMOUSLY defend 2A.

9
Zskills 9 points ago +11 / -2

Think about what you're saying.

They ruled that police can't violate your 2nd amendment while violating the 4th amendment.

They essentially said "the sky is blue". Call me again when they stop the genocide of the unborn happening inside our own borders.

5
ARfreedom 5 points ago +5 / -0

When people that can't even agree there are only two genders suddenly agree that the sky is blue, to me that's pretty impressive.

Don't forget DC v. Heller had 4 justices saying there is no individual Right to firearm ownership. Only one of those judges is still on the court, two of them were replaced by even more left leaning judges, the fourth was a gem that died under President Trump b/c she was sure Hilary would win and just had to be replaced by a female dem President instead of Obama.

2
Zskills 2 points ago +3 / -1

I guess I see it from that perspective too. It's worth celebrating because the court likely won't reconsider this issue for a while, if ever

2
ARfreedom 2 points ago +3 / -1

As far as I'm concerned when the SCOTUS gets a ruling correct, and in such a decisive manner as this 9-0, I'll celebrate that. And when the SCOTUS utterly clusterfucks us with their bullshit elections rulings, I want to see, up vote, and comment in many posts calling them on their bullshit.

Criticism and mocking when it's due and praise when it's due.

2
Ocineaa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah I hear you. They're giving us crumbs

-22
catchlightning -22 points ago +8 / -30

Q Post #90

148029250 Ok, we just need Q to come back and confirm now.

148029846 Confirmed. Classified. ((HRC)) Q

26
censorthisss 26 points ago +38 / -12

Q is a faggot larp

7
ak83 7 points ago +11 / -4

Q FOR QUEER

-13
deleted -13 points ago +6 / -19
5
ChrisTheSoberITGuy 5 points ago +9 / -4

The people that push Q the most glow the brightest. Because it makes conservatives look like retards quoting a 4chan larp.

-3
catchlightning -3 points ago +1 / -4

Shill

13
Liberty_Prime 13 points ago +19 / -6

If it wasn't clear that Q shit isn't welcome here. It should be now. There's a room for that. Greatawakening.win. You can continue to have a little meltdown any time There's pushback here (and there will be) or you can keep it in that room.

Your choice.

-1
catchlightning -1 points ago +3 / -4

Most prolific shill

-1
catchlightning -1 points ago +3 / -4

You sound like Joe Biden you faggot "Stop talking about that or leave" "Your choice" Suck my cock you fucking CIA cunt

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
1
Liberty_Prime 1 point ago +2 / -1

What makes you think this room ever changed?

Some of us have been here for 5 fucking years.

You want to bash on joos? You can do that in consumeproduct.win. want to talk about Q? You can do that in greatawakening.win.

Where the fuck have YOU been?

-1
HansMann -1 points ago +8 / -9

Get that shit out of here, qtards are literally planning on replacing Trump fuck off

5
Pittsburgh_Rare 5 points ago +5 / -0

Of course both u/Bidenrapeskids and u/Tazzurit are insiders and have the ability to usurp Trump......

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Tazzurit 0 points ago +1 / -1

You really are precious and the 5 up votes for this comment are precious too. Obviously great thinkers.

1
Pittsburgh_Rare 1 point ago +1 / -0

u/Hansmann thinks you're a Trump insider, dude. According to him, you're a high-level "qtard." It's awfully brave of him to spread falsehoods about you through a screenshot so you don't see it.

Personally, I'm not a Q guy myself, but the folks who shit on y'all are a special kind of stupid thinking that you guys quantifiably damage the movement. You don't. And y'all certainly aren't preventing a right-wing insurrection. We'll have to be starving before that ever happens. Keep doing your thing, man. If anything, you're making normies aware of legitimate manifestations of good and evil.

0
catchlightning 0 points ago +1 / -1

Shill

-4
deleted -4 points ago +6 / -10
-8
deleted -8 points ago +12 / -20
-9
catchlightning -9 points ago +8 / -17

Fuck you glowfag, BE AFRAID NCSWIC

-6
deleted -6 points ago +6 / -12
0
PaineThomas 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're a troll. You've been reported dozens of times. Go away.

0
catchlightning 0 points ago +2 / -2

Shill

11
FireannDireach 11 points ago +11 / -0

I'd feel better about this if we had a Federal Government that respected the Constitution, and we still had a Republic and not a banana Republic. And we didn't have states that will aggressively find ways around this in the future. And we didn't have lower courts that thought this was a legitimate seizure of weapons. And we didn't have police who thought this was a legitimate seizure of weapons.

10
MasksAreChildAbuse 10 points ago +10 / -0

Doesn’t matter cause leftist judges will just issue warrants that shouldnt exist anyways, and the guns will still be seized when they shouldn’t.

Law and order doesn’t exist in our country anymore.

5
Urusovite 5 points ago +5 / -0

yup. you get it

4
MasksAreChildAbuse 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think a lot of people are still holding on that things can be saved through a passive way. But that’s exactly what they (the communists) want. They want people complacent and idle and they do it by pushing us 2 steps back then pretending we pushed one step forward.

The only time anything will be resolved is when there is mass brass donation. That’s literally it. Anything that happens that ISNT that, is just a slow boil into hell.

2
Sorosis 2 points ago +2 / -0

I was called a glowie fag for expression what you just said. A lot of conservatives are pathetic.

1
LordCommissarYarrick 1 point ago +1 / -0

A good number of "conservatives" are left-leaning or centrists, there's a reason they say Conservatives are just progressives driving the speed limit. Most are complacent and happy to kick the can down the road.

2
Kerra_Holt 2 points ago +2 / -0

Then they'll tie up the courts with cases which won't be heard for years. See people who were arrested on Jan 6 and remained in custody for months without trial or hearing. Now do gun cases.

9
1A2A 9 points ago +9 / -0

DONATE!!!

https://donate.gunowners.org/

I’m a lifetime.

7
Malfunction 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sadly there is no shortage of leftist judges that'll rubber stamp whatever gun grabbing warrant that's dropped in front of them.

7
RedTX 7 points ago +7 / -0

These guys are the ones who actually support 2A, along with SAF. NRA hasn’t done shit to help lately.

Well done, GOA!

0
RolandDelacroix 0 points ago +1 / -1

NRA-ILA is pushing concealed carry in NYC, like they won in Chicago, in a few cases. They're the big dog that gets stuff done in the background, and often CANT claim responsibility for wins, because that harms the case.

GOA is just as important, but in a different way. Wise pedes support both.

6
rektsauce 6 points ago +6 / -0

Cool... what about the election that was just stolen? Any rulings on that?

5
Ocineaa 5 points ago +5 / -0

They're giving us crumbs. A victory yes, but don't for a moment think the USSC gives one fuck about citizens at this point. No standing no standing no standing

5
DontDoxMeBro1 5 points ago +5 / -0

yay huge victory, the commies who prevented Trumps win, yay. they are on our team now, yay for us. yay...

5
AngeredKabar 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sad that it even had to go to court that far

5
OccasionalDr.Cortex 5 points ago +5 / -0

Upholding the constitution and law of the land is considered a victory these days, that’s where we are I guess. Technically it was a victory 245 years ago, but I’ll take it

4
FreddyThePatriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hurray they protected us from the administration they illegally let be installed

4
PapaPepe 4 points ago +4 / -0

9? Where is the trap in this.

4
WhatIsTruth 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's all for appearances to placate the people.

0
Cheney_360_noScope 0 points ago +1 / -1

and the idiots here eat it up. if i was in the NWO i'd have everything done already.

4
ak83 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wayne LePerrie buys Mansions with NRA funding, GOA fughts and wins hard at 2A.

Wayne LePerrie is a CUM GUZZLING SHILL

3
Dahnald2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Shocking that Roberts wasn't a dissenting vote

3
Ryan192 3 points ago +3 / -0

Had such a huge freedom boner reading this

3
SuperChicken 3 points ago +3 / -0

David Hogg is punching himself in his vagina right now

3
GuerillaYourDreams 3 points ago +3 / -0

Finally but it’s too late for me. A San Diego Unnamed Sheriff’s (not doxxing myself) department stole my weapon back in 2005. They used my husbands suicide (in a different location mind you) as the pretense for coming into my home and taking my gun.

3
Xeil 3 points ago +3 / -0

They'll jist make getting a warrant as easy as possible. Same as the sniff test from drug dogs. They'll create the rules, skirt them then remake the rules and repeat until not only are your dogs dead for no good reason, but your family to.

3
redbeard 3 points ago +3 / -0

9-0 woot

3
2Guns1ForEachofYa 3 points ago +3 / -0

How does this impact red flag laws?

5
Cincinattus1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

Alito mentioned red flag laws in his concurrence. This ruling doesn't impact red flag law but he says that certain provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under 4A.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Cheney_360_noScope 0 points ago +1 / -1

in other words nothing changed with this ruling... lmfao talk about a hallow 'victory'

2
Coprolite 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shy did this take a scouts decision to clear up? A 10 year old is capable of understanding the 4th amendment.

1
Rommsey 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're right but generally a 10 year old isn't corrupt whereas most institutions in this nation are corrupt. There's a reason why God holds people accountable at a certain age; these jackasses in Government are all accountable to Him whether they think they're doing right by Him or not.

2
VaPnut 2 points ago +2 / -0

9 to 0!!!! What about the commies? I can't believe they voted in favor of the Constitution!

2
masticator_nord 2 points ago +2 / -0

But will this ruling actually stop them from doing it?

Not that it isn't good news.

2
1776-or-1984 2 points ago +2 / -0

Support the GOA, not the NRA!

It costs $25 and may save your life or fellow Americans.

2
Burkmcbork 2 points ago +2 / -0

NRA needs to die so that GOA becomes the de-facto 2A org. They actually put points on the board While NRA cedes at every opportunity.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
paulej 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wanna bet that warrants will be handed out like candy?

2
DarkRiver 2 points ago +2 / -0

GOA > NRA

2
Global_Tornado 2 points ago +2 / -0

And the NRA, having done nothing, will swoop in to take credit.

2
Farage_massage 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is this a shot post? 9-0?!?

2
3_cheers 2 points ago +2 / -0

so SCOTUS ruled police Can seize guns, With a Warrant. How's that a win?

2
hivekicker 2 points ago +2 / -0

GOA > NRA

2
VinCarver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here comes the bullshit warrants

2
Priopism 2 points ago +2 / -0

In other news the NRA has done absolutely nothing as usual.

2
BCMBro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gun Owners of America is the real deal. They are the gun rights org you should be a part of right now, not the NRA.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Kerra_Holt 2 points ago +2 / -0

GOA is far superior to NRA. GOA doesn't compromise.

2
MCMLXXIV 2 points ago +2 / -0

As long as they get a warrant first, the police can now legally confiscate your guns without a conviction of a crime.

This is huge loss.

2
Wearyman 2 points ago +2 / -0

I should note that THIS is why I am a Lifetime GOA Member and regularly donate and own a ton of their merch. BECAUSE THEY GET RESULTS!

The NRA is just not effective as a political organization and hasn't been in my lifetime. (I am nearly 50)