TLDR: Husband & wife have an argument. Wife leaves. Wife calls cops on husband to do a "wellness check" the next day.

According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.”

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

Let me interject here: Recently I went to the doctor. They gave me some new paperwork to fill out. One of the sheets of paper was a PHQ-9 form. I was half way through it before I came to my senses. This is a mental health survey. This is laying the ground work for red flag law invocation. Why is my GP asking about my mental health when I can barely get any GP to acknowledge the reasons I go to see them with ludicrous amounts of symptomatic presentations and diagnostics? On the back of this form is a scale used for the physician to score your mental heath. It starts with "minimal depression" 0 - 4. You can't not turn in this form and be considered free from depression. Sure, to you and me "minimal depression" is innocuous enough, but to gun grabbing authorities "minimal depression" is going to be enough. Do not fill out this paperwork if you value your second amendment rights. I returned the first sheet, but not the PHQ-9. The receptionist told me she needed it. I asked if she was going to deny me services if I didn't provide it. She said, "No", to which I replied, "Then you don't need it". I folded it up and put it in my pocket.

To continue the TLDR (I know, I lied), the police confiscated Edward's guns based on "community caretaking", a narrow exception to the fourth amendment.

First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’”

We are currently in a state of emergency and have been since the beginning of 2020. Emergency powers are authorized. And so, all government actions are in response to an emergency. Just saying....

in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

Inside the linked site is the original story from Forbes. I highly suggest you read that too.

TLDR: Husband & wife have an argument. Wife leaves. Wife calls cops on husband to do a "wellness check" the next day.

According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.”

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

Let me interject here: Recently I went to the doctor. They gave me some new paperwork to fill out. One of the sheets of paper was a PHQ-9 form. This is a mental health survey. Why is my GP asking about my mental health when I can barely get any GP to acknowledge the reasons I go to see them with ludicrous amounts of symptomatic presentations and diagnostics? On the back of this form is a scale used for the physician to score your mental heath. It starts with "minimal depression" 0 - 4. You can't not turn in this form and be considered free from depression. Sure, to you and me "minimal depression" is innocuous enough, but to gun grabbing authorities "minimal depression" is going to be enough. Do not fill out this paperwork if you value your second amendment rights. I returned the first sheet, but not the PHQ-9. The receptionist told me she needed it. I asked if she was going to deny me services if I didn't provide it. She said, "No", to which I replied, "Then you don't need it". I folded it up and put it in my pocket.

To continue the TLDR (I know, I lied), the police confiscated Edward's guns based on "community caretaking", a narrow exception to the fourth amendment.

First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’”

We are currently in a state of emergency and have been since the beginning of 2020. Emergency powers are authorized. And so, all government actions are in response to an emergency. Just saying....

in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

Inside the linked site is the original story from Forbes. I highly suggest you read that too.

TLDR: Husband & wife have an argument. Wife leaves. Wife calls cops on husband to do a "wellness check" the next day.

According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.”

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

Let me interject here: Recently I went to the doctor. They gave me some new paperwork to fill out. One of the sheets of paper was a PHQ-9 form. This is a mental health survey. Why is my GP asking about my mental health when I can barely get any GP to acknowledge the reasons I go to see them with ludicrous amounts of symptomatic presentations and diagnostics? On the back of this form is a scale used for the physician to score your mental heath. It starts with "minimal depression" 0 - 4. You can't not turn in this form and be considered free from depression. Sure, to you and me "minimal depression" is innocuous enough, but to gun grabbing authorities "minimal depression" is going to be enough. Do not fill out this paperwork if you value your second amendment rights. I returned the first sheet, but not the PHQ-9. The receptionist told me she needed it. I asked if she was going to deny me services if I didn't provide it. She said, "No", to which I replied, "Then you don't need it". I folded it up and put it in my pocket.

To continue the TLDR (I know, I lied), the police confiscated Edward's guns based on "community caretaking", a narrow exception to the fourth amendment.

First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’”

We are currently in a state of emergency and have been since the beginning of 2020. Emergency powers are authorized.

in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

Inside the linked site is the original story from Forbes. I highly suggest you read that too.