SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#1

Post by RoyGBiv »

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_8mjp.pdf. :hurry:

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to make it easier for police to enter a home without a warrant for reasons of health or public safety, throwing out a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Rhode Island man after officers entered his home and confiscated his guns.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

Syntyr
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1650
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Houston

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#2

Post by Syntyr »

Good news.
President Joe Biden's administration backed police in the case. A Justice Department lawyer told the justices that officers should not be required to obtain warrants in situations in which people could be seriously harmed.
The plaintiff in the case was arguing with his wife of "Disney" mugs. He retrieved his postol gave it to his wife and requested that she put him out of his misery. Police were called and they confiscated his guns without a warrant.

While I don't agree with his "stupid" argument with his wife or his handling of firearms, I am glad to see the SC ruling to require a warrant. Interesting that it was 9-0. I guess POTUS Mush Brain will have to pack the court with at least 10 more justices...
Syntyr
"Wherever you go... There you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
"Inconceivable!" - Fizzinni
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#3

Post by G.A. Heath »

While this case revolved around the seizure of firearms, it is NOT a gun case no matter how much people want it to be. The good news is that while it isn't a second amendment case it is a good verdict on the 4th amendment.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019

philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 14892
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#4

Post by philip964 »

We have been needing any good news. Thank you SCOTUS.
User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#5

Post by LDB415 »

Interestingly enough, the SC rules unanimously in about 1/3 of all cases. The 5/4 splits get all the news hype but only account for about 1/5 of decisions.
It's fine if you disagree. I can't force you to be correct.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#6

Post by G.A. Heath »

I have yet to read the opinion, but based on what I am hearing I want to expand on my layman's understanding of this ruling. Essentially the court ruled on it as a fourth amendment case, but because the Biden Administration pushed for a "Second Amendment Exception" to the Fourth Amendment the case does affirm that there is no such exception. With that in mind I understand that Red Flag laws are in jeopardy as they depend on the "Community Caretaking" concept that the USSCA never ruled on one way or the other until now. This is a good win for gun owners but it is not a second amendment case even though as I understand it is the next best thing.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019

MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#7

Post by MaduroBU »

Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#8

Post by G.A. Heath »

MaduroBU wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
True. But if I understand things correctly Alito's opininion was a seperate concuring opinion, supported by himself alone, which carriers very little (if any) weight.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
User avatar

Topic author
RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8667
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#9

Post by RoyGBiv »

SCOTUS’ Decision On Illegal Search And Seizure Opens The Door For Gun Owners To Challenge Red Flag Laws
This case falls within one important category of cases that could be viewed as involving community caretaking: conducting a search or seizure for the purpose of preventing a person from committing suicide. Assuming that petitioner did not voluntarily consent to go with the officers for a psychological assessment,1 he was seized and thus subjected to a serious deprivation of liberty. But was this warrantless seizure “reasonable”? We have addressed the standards required by due process for involuntary commitment to a mental treatment facility but we have not addressed Fourth Amendment restrictions on seizures like the one that we must assume occurred here, i.e., a short-term seizure conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person presents an imminent risk of suicide. Every State has laws allowing emergency seizures for psychiatric treatment, observation, or stabilization, but these laws vary in many respects, including the categories of persons who may request the emergency action, the reasons that can justify the action, the necessity of a judicial proceeding, and the nature of the proceeding. Mentioning these laws only in passing, petitioner asked us to render a decision that could call features of these laws into question. The Court appropriately refrains from doing so.

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. 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.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#10

Post by MaduroBU »

G.A. Heath wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 3:36 am
MaduroBU wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
True. But if I understand things correctly Alito's opininion was a seperate concuring opinion, supported by himself alone, which carriers very little (if any) weight.
As legal precedent, it's entirely secondary to Thomas's opinion. But I believe that it's important as Alito is a key vote on any future case that comes before the USSC on Red Flag laws, and the opinion set forth here will likely be reviewed or even reconsidered based upon that future case.

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4825
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#11

Post by srothstein »

MaduroBU wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
I see a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that this decision is going to end red flag laws. I strongly disagree, though it might serve as a precedent towards a decision on them. There is a lot of difference between red flag laws and this case, especially when all the facts of this case are considered.

Most people know the basics of this case. The man had an argument with his wife and put a gun on the table asking her to shoot him. She called the cops the next day over it. They decided the man needed psychiatric care and convinced him to go with them to the hospital. The cops seized his guns while he was in the hospital because he was a danger to himself or others.

So, the facts some may not be aware of is that the cops told the man they would not seize his guns if he agreed to go. This is kind of bad, but we know cops are allowed to lie to you and SCOTUS doesn't care. But the man specifically did not give them permission to search or seize the guns. They then asked his wife for permission and lied to her saying the husband had agreed. She then consented and they searched and seized the pistol. This is one part of the problem, cops are not allowed to tell certain lies to get consent for a search.

This is why when it got to SCOTUS the cops did not mention lying or getting consent. They went with the argument that they could seize the weapons as part of their duty to take care of the community and did not need consent. SCOTUS kind of laughed at that because every cop should know that a house is much more protected than a car.

So, legally this case was about seizing without a warrant but it also contains parts of not lying to the court. SCOTUS knows what happened in the lower courts and I am sure the clerks found out the trial court records. And it differs from red flag laws in a very important way. The red flag law is based on a court ordering the seizure. That order is called a warrant. The exception does not apply, so this case is almost irrelevant to red flag laws.

Red Flag laws are on pretty solid ground when it comes to search and seizure. The judge will listen to an officer reporting on what they found and determine if there is probable cause to say the person is a danger. Remember that probable cause is not proof, just that it is more likely than not. I think the better attack on them is the denial of due process by not letting the respondent know in advance and present a defense. And I have to admit that this is a weak attack because no one gets to present a defense to a search warrant as a general rule, or even a defense to an indictment before a grand jury. It might be allowed but doesn't have to be.
Steve Rothstein

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#12

Post by K.Mooneyham »

srothstein wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:24 pm
MaduroBU wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
SNIP

Red Flag laws are on pretty solid ground when it comes to search and seizure. The judge will listen to an officer reporting on what they found and determine if there is probable cause to say the person is a danger. Remember that probable cause is not proof, just that it is more likely than not. I think the better attack on them is the denial of due process by not letting the respondent know in advance and present a defense. And I have to admit that this is a weak attack because no one gets to present a defense to a search warrant as a general rule, or even a defense to an indictment before a grand jury. It might be allowed but doesn't have to be.
I agree with the highlighted statement, "Red Flag laws" seem like a 5th Amendment violation to me. Not so much the initial part, which you pointed out as well, but that there is no EVENTUAL due process to defend one's self such as at a trial. Someone makes a claim, the court orders a seizure, and it's a done deal, end of story. The person subjected to the RFL never gets their "day in court". And that is flat out just wrong.

MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#13

Post by MaduroBU »

Red Flag laws seem very reasonable to people who have no reason to believe that they will ever be subject to them. The same people vigorously object to similarly onerous laws which affect things that they care about.

In the current state of affairs, red flag warnings will be repeatedly brushed aside unless a particularly hostile accuser wants to push it. In my view, that's a recipe for a very high percentage of misuse as a tool for legal retaliation with very little public benefit to back it up.

Nikolas Cruz was allowed by the NICS to buy a firearm despite checking literally every box that could lead to a denial based upon question 11f. Red Flag laws are an effort to fix failing transmission by exchanging the ring and pinion gears: The parts look and sound similar, the systems are connected to the same process, but in practice they proposed solution addresses an orthogonal problem.

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4220
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: SCOTUS Rules 9-0 against unlawful seizure of guns!

#14

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 1:14 am
srothstein wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:24 pm
MaduroBU wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 12:26 am Alito's concurrence stated that Red Flag laws are separate and that he expects them to come before the Court, but that this opinion does not specifically address them.
SNIP

Red Flag laws are on pretty solid ground when it comes to search and seizure. The judge will listen to an officer reporting on what they found and determine if there is probable cause to say the person is a danger. Remember that probable cause is not proof, just that it is more likely than not. I think the better attack on them is the denial of due process by not letting the respondent know in advance and present a defense. And I have to admit that this is a weak attack because no one gets to present a defense to a search warrant as a general rule, or even a defense to an indictment before a grand jury. It might be allowed but doesn't have to be.
I agree with the highlighted statement, "Red Flag laws" seem like a 5th Amendment violation to me. Not so much the initial part, which you pointed out as well, but that there is no EVENTUAL due process to defend one's self such as at a trial. Someone makes a claim, the court orders a seizure, and it's a done deal, end of story. The person subjected to the RFL never gets their "day in court". And that is flat out just wrong.
I think it's very similar to the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. In both cases "probable cause" is all that is needed for the government to seize your property and it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to get all of that property back. So we have reduced the standard for the government to punish you by seizing your wealth to the level of probable cause only. This is not due process, IMHO, and is a clear constitutional violation.

The problem is that I believe there is bad precedent here that goes against the people, at least with regard to Civil Asset Forfeiture laws.
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”