Home»Commentary»Supreme Court Smacks Down Gun-Grabbers’ Confiscation Dreams

Supreme Court Smacks Down Gun-Grabbers’ Confiscation Dreams

0
Shares
Pinterest WhatsApp

Article first appeared on Ammoland.com

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Recently, the Rhode Island Police Department was reminded that citizens have rights. In a court case called Caniglia v. Strom, The Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment shall stand as our Founding Fathers intended it, regardless of the push for gun control from the Biden Administration and the Constitutionally-challenged, political left.

Previously, Rhode Island Police had been using a twisted, contrived version of the Fourth Amendment in their attempts to confiscate guns without a court hearing and/or due process. This fabricated policy was called “Community Caretaking” and it was borne out of a misguided notion that because police can enter a home without homeowner approval to administer emergency assistance, they can do the same to confiscate guns. The Supreme Court has since reminded them of the limits on their authority.

This court case came about as a result of an incident between a husband and wife. A dispute ensued, and as a result, Rhode Island Police decided they would use the “Community Caretaking” function as justification for confiscating the husband’s firearms.

Using the Fourth Amendment, Justice Thomas determined that the confiscation was unconstitutional. The reasoning behind it was due to a comparison to a rule that applied to an impounded car.

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

“Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.”

Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed an amicus brief in the case and Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), stated:

“The Supreme Court smacked down the anti-gun, Biden administration and rejected their arguments in the Caniglia case. The Biden team 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.”

Firearms confiscation has been an incessant passion of the anti-gun left. These types of unconstitutional, due-process-lacking gun grabs, (a.k.a. Red Flag Laws) began with a process called SWATing. SWATing Developed out of a fearful and angry anti-gun mindset. It was the process of anti-gun zealots calling the cops on unsuspecting gun owners without ever a crime having been committed or reason for suspicion. It was basically a way for anti-gunners to create problems for gun-owners. SWATing evolved into Extreme Risk Protection Orders a.k.a. Red Flag Laws; the process in which guns are confiscated without a court hearing or due process. 19 states have adopted this unconstitutional practice, but that may change moving forward with this case.

According to the Epoch Times, in a separate concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court is “properly rejecting the broad ‘Community Caretaking’ theory.” At the same time, he noted that the case implicates “another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘Red Flag’ Laws that some States are now enacting.” Such laws, he wrote, “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.” Although this particular decision does not address those issues, “provisions of Red Flag Laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.”

Justice Thomas’ and Alito’s comments along with the 9-0 verdict in this particular case indicate the direction in which the courts seem to want to go with respect to Red Flag Laws.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege.
It’s your right.

Dan Wos
Good Gun Bad Guy
The Loaded Mic

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE


About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Previous post

One Board Member’s Last-Ditch Effort to Save the NRA

Next post

Swagger Introduces SEA12 and SFR10 QD Bipods