Supreme Court 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

[fixer]

Hallelujah.

This will prove in time to be a ruling on par with Heller.

[fly out]

"9-0" sounds like a big deal (and this was a great result), but 9-0 decisions are very common.

[KellyinAvon]

"9-0" sounds like a big deal (and this was a great result), but 9-0 decisions are very common.

So are REALLY BAD Appeals Courts decisions. There might be some correlation here.

[TGS]

Hallelujah.

This will prove in time to be a ruling on par with Heller.

Not really. As pointed out, this is a 4A case, not a 2A case. Heller is a 2A case.

Additionally, just be because I see peoples' minds going this way and I want to preempt it: this case has zero impact on red flag laws. Red flag laws utilize a court process to issue a warrant, which would satisfy the conditions of Caniglia.

[beenalongtime]

I would like to think this is a shot across any idea of red flag laws......

However, a quick search makes it look like Rhode Island, is a shared property state. So they will work around it by getting permission of his wife to enter and take property.

[TGS]

I would like to think this is a shot across any idea of red flag laws......

However, a quick search makes it look like Rhode Island, is a shared property state. So they will work around it by getting permission of his wife to enter and take property.

Please see above.

ETA: For anyone thinking this is a 2A case, all of the opinions clearly frame it as a 4th Amendment intrusion. In addition, the 2nd Amendment isn't referenced once in any of the opinions.

Further, just to drive home that this has zero impact on Red Flag laws, don't take it from me. Take it from the SCOTUS:

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.

[beenalongtime]

Please see above.

ETA: For anyone thinking this is a 2A case, all of the opinions clearly frame it as a 4th Amendment intrusion. In addition, the 2nd Amendment isn't referenced once in any of the opinions.

Further, just to drive home that this has zero impact on Red Flag laws, don't take it from me. Take it from the SCOTUS:

I don't see red flag laws as just 2A in my mind. I see them as also viewing someone as guilty and requiring them to prove innocent as well as civil asset forfeiture (stuff is guilty and has to be proven innocent).

[TGS]

I don't see red flag laws as just 2A in my mind. I see them as also viewing someone as guilty and requiring them to prove innocent as well as civil asset forfeiture (stuff is guilty and has to be proven innocent).

Your welcome to your own views on red flag laws, but this case has nothing to do with red flag laws.

[GyroF-16]

Nevertheless, Harrumph to the SCOTUS for affirming that
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”


@Trigger (re: Harrumph)

[mark7]

Surprising decent job by the supremes.