A good omen

It’s not directly related to the “Red Flag” laws they are using to infringe upon our rights, but it’s very close:

Supreme Court Unanimously Rebuffs Biden Administration on Warrantless Searches for Handguns

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Biden administration arguments in a case from Rhode Island that police should be allowed to enter homes without a warrant to seize handguns.

The ruling in the case, Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, came May 17.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court is “properly reject[ing] 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.”

Also of note is that the decision was unanimous.

Building the foundation for a broader recovery of our infringed rights is a good thing. I just wish it were progressing faster.

See also:

I found this version of the story particular “interesting”. This is a completely different version of the facts compared to all other sources I have read, including the SCOTUS opinion:

Caniglia had brandished a gun while expressing a possible intent to inflict harm on himself.

I originally saw the first quoted material via an Epoch News Alert (Breaking News) but Rolf also send me a link to the reposting on Zero Hedge.


4 thoughts on “A good omen

  1. Pingback: Supreme Court decides 4th Amendment case

  2. This is a problem in our system that should have been fixed in the constitution. The supreme court should approve all laws as constitutional before they are applied.
    And the lower courts insurrected in that application.
    This system of fighting to retain human rights is absurd. If the government can’t make an overwhelming argument to all three branches of government for the need of a law. We have no need of it.
    But yes, It’s good to hear!

    • How about “presumed unconstitutional until proven otherwise,” coupled with automatic jail time for voting for “proved unconstitutional.”

  3. Having a legislator who proposed, or voted for, a law that is determined to be unconstitutional should have penalties applied. More than just having their knuckles whacked, but a serious hit. Nearly every one of those idiots is a lawyer, so there is no excuse acceptable.

Comments are closed.