Military Camp

Supreme Court Upholds 4th Amendment.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TxStetson

    Opinionated and Irritable
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    10,056
    96
    The Big Country
    Last edited:

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Saw that. GOA sent a blast just a few mins ago.


    The Supreme Court today gave us a fantastic decision in a case where Gun Owners of America and its foundation (GOF) were involved!

    In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court today struck down an attempt by Rhode Island police to conduct warrantless searches for guns in a home using the so-called “community caretaking function.”
    This made-up doctrine, which is a purported exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, permits police to engage in warrantless searches and seizures when they are carrying out any of their duties other than criminal law enforcement. For example, police may enter homes to help persons in need of emergency assistance, or may search a vehicle to recover the gun of an off-duty officer they had just arrested.

    Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), stated:

    “The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun grabbers across the nation. The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”​
    According to GOA’s brief, after a husband and wife had an argument, the police entered their home without a warrant to search and seize the husband's firearms based on the supposed "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Rhode Island district court and the First Circuit plucked two words from a court-created doctrine in an effort to empower police to grab guns in homes whenever it seems to be a good idea.

    Writing for a unanimous Court in a short opinion, Justice Thomas denied the application of the doctrine to justify the search, distinguishing between a rule that applied to an impounded car and "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

    Gun Owners of America and its foundation are continually bringing lawsuits across the country to defend firearm rights. GOA is unwavering in its defense of gun rights and remains the only “no compromise” gun lobby.

    So GOA wishes to express its thanks to those members who assisted in this case.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    So, does this pretty much kill the idea of red flag laws?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Younggun,

    NOT "dead & buried" BUT likely "on life support".

    IF ever PASSED INTO LAW, the "Red Flag Laws" will MOSTLY be ABUSED by local busybodies, gun-HATERS & especially by HATE-FILLED/vengeful ex-spouses.

    In the days when I was a post PM & DPCA/LE, the VAST majority of "calls" that the PMO received about "dangerous guns in the home" & other similar complaints were from angry EX-WIVES & EX-GFs, who were trying to cause some GI "trouble".

    yours, satx
     

    Vaquero

    Moving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Apr 4, 2011
    44,207
    96
    Dixie Land
    Not directly but Alito wrote a concurring opinion that basically said they better be very specific or the would be on the chopping block.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    Yep.
    The existence of the Supreme Court relies on the constitution.
    Hopefully, the legislative branches will take heed.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Does a judge issue a warrant for RED FLAG LAWS?
    If yes, then there is the answer to the 4th amendment seizure.


    motorcarman,

    In the present case out of RI, a LEO saw a firearm through a house's window, entered the house & simply TOOK IT. = NO WARRANT, NO KNOCK, NO ATTEMPT to reach the owner. NO NOTHING.

    Right now such a warrantless search/seizure is lawful in RI, IF the firearm is "in the public view".


    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    candcallen

    Crotchety, Snarky, Truthful. You'll get over it.
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    21,358
    96
    Little Elm
    So, does this pretty much kill the idea of red flag laws?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No, they specifically said this does not address those laws and they expect them to come before the court at some poiht.

    Also remember the cops lied to the wife who could have given consent for a search, and told her the husband consented.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Does a judge issue a warrant for RED FLAG LAWS?
    If yes, then there is the answer to the 4th amendment seizure.

    The O in ERPO is order; generally speaking the subject of the order is ordered to surrender to a third party. Only four ERPO states enable a search warrant as any part of the order.

    Though I don’t care for Gifford, here org’s site has a handy and informative reference for the various ways your rights can be infringed re: ERPO.

     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Saw that. GOA sent a blast just a few mins ago.


    The Supreme Court today gave us a fantastic decision in a case where Gun Owners of America and its foundation (GOF) were involved!

    In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court today struck down an attempt by Rhode Island police to conduct warrantless searches for guns in a home using the so-called “community caretaking function.”
    This made-up doctrine, which is a purported exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, permits police to engage in warrantless searches and seizures when they are carrying out any of their duties other than criminal law enforcement. For example, police may enter homes to help persons in need of emergency assistance, or may search a vehicle to recover the gun of an off-duty officer they had just arrested.

    Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), stated:

    “The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun grabbers across the nation. The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”​
    According to GOA’s brief, after a husband and wife had an argument, the police entered their home without a warrant to search and seize the husband's firearms based on the supposed "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Rhode Island district court and the First Circuit plucked two words from a court-created doctrine in an effort to empower police to grab guns in homes whenever it seems to be a good idea.

    Writing for a unanimous Court in a short opinion, Justice Thomas denied the application of the doctrine to justify the search, distinguishing between a rule that applied to an impounded car and "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

    Gun Owners of America and its foundation are continually bringing lawsuits across the country to defend firearm rights. GOA is unwavering in its defense of gun rights and remains the only “no compromise” gun lobby.

    So GOA wishes to express its thanks to those members who assisted in this case.
    Community Caretaking has been held by the courts to be a reasonable cause for a limited search in VERY LIMITED cases and is hardly "made up", but looking for guns is NOT one of those cases. Comm caretaking comes in if an officer sees a building on fire and enters to search for people to assist in evacuation or a traffic stop because a tire is obviously low/flat or something like that. Glad to hear the court ruled favorably towards the 2A side.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    rmantoo

    Cranky old fart: Pull my finger
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    814
    76
    San Angelo
    I HATE HATE HATE when people refuse to acknowledge actions on the behalf of 'the other side,' that nonetheless are just and proper.

    Thank you to ALL the USC Justices for their votes on this case.

    I know there will very likely be a LOT more decisions, yet to come, that will make me, once again, vilify and repudiate Kagan, Sotomayor, et al, but for the moment, I see at least a few percentage points of alignment of Left and Right USC Justices, and it makes me at least a tiny bit optimistic about the possible future.
     

    SARGE67

    Well-Known
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 19, 2021
    1,027
    96
    Texas
    Seems to me a warrantless gun confiscation order they ruled on has noting to do with a warrant confiscation order issued by a judge under some red flag rule. They didn't rule on a warrant and they probably will rule for it someday in its favor.
     

    rmantoo

    Cranky old fart: Pull my finger
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    814
    76
    San Angelo
    Seems to me a warrantless gun confiscation order they ruled on has noting to do with a warrant confiscation order issued by a judge under some red flag rule. They didn't rule on a warrant and they probably will rule for it someday in its favor.

    Excellent point!!
     
    Top Bottom