SCOTUS rules against Red Flags

Odarlin1 · Aug 8, 2021

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...confiscation-is-unconstitutional-in-9-0-vote/

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.

E.Shell · Aug 8, 2021

OMG!! This is extremely unsettling...to have a favorable and sensible ruling from those people...is the end of the world THAT close?

welder516 · Aug 8, 2021

Maybe i don't follow SCOTUS well and every opinion , but i believe the court will not go for the most radical ideas . I think they go for basic law & order and history for the most part .

Allen65 · Aug 8, 2021

I'm not getting too excited about this one, although a win is a win. This case was about police acting completely on their own, without a court order. Maryland's red flag law requires a court signoff on the confiscation, albeit with a very low evidentiary standard and completely ex parte. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that sort of law yet.

fred2207 · Aug 8, 2021

Allen65 said:
I'm not getting too excited about this one, although a win is a win. This case was about police acting completely on their own, without a court order. Maryland's red flag law requires a court signoff on the confiscation, albeit with a very low evidentiary standard and completely ex parte. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that sort of law yet.

This above and that is what is still scary..

Doctor_M · Aug 8, 2021

Still a unanimous ruling in the right direction is always a good thing.

fred2207 · Aug 8, 2021

Doctor_M said:
Still a unanimous ruling in the right direction is always a good thing.

Yes it is... However, the OP post is misleading as all SCOTUS ruled on was that it is not legal for police to confiscate your firearms without a warrant unless a crime has been committed or in progress.. At least that's the way I read it.

gamer_jim · Aug 8, 2021

Did Roberts get a bonk on the head? Why is he so pro-Constitution lately?

Matlack · Aug 8, 2021

Yeah, if you read the whole article it states that the police lied to the wife about having permission from her husband to search and seize the firearms. But don't worry Bidens DOJ said that was reasonable within the 4th ammendment.

teratos · Aug 8, 2021

Allen65 said:
I'm not getting too excited about this one, although a win is a win. This case was about police acting completely on their own, without a court order. Maryland's red flag law requires a court signoff on the confiscation, albeit with a very low evidentiary standard and completely ex parte. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that sort of law yet.

Alitos concurring opinion doesn't seem to indicate this is OK. Court sign off on an order abridging not one but TWO civil rights (2nd and 4th) is still as kosher as a bacon wrapped pulled pork sammich with cheese.

Jim12 · Aug 8, 2021

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=251020&highlight=scotus

rbird7282 · Aug 8, 2021

teratos said:
Alitos concurring opinion doesn't seem to indicate this is OK. Court sign off on an order abridging not one but TWO civil rights (2nd and 4th) is still as kosher as a bacon wrapped pulled pork sammich with cheese.

Now I’m hungry.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allen65 · Aug 8, 2021

teratos said:
Alitos concurring opinion doesn't seem to indicate this is OK. Court sign off on an order abridging not one but TWO civil rights (2nd and 4th) is still as kosher as a bacon wrapped pulled pork sammich with cheese.

Hopefully SCOTUS will get, and accept, a case that lets them decide this for MD-style laws that have a patina of court approval, but with a basically pinky-swear level of evidence. But until they do, we're stuck with current MD law and have to hope it doesn't get worse in the meantime.

The MD Party's argument is that "You do get due process after the confiscation has occurred". That's what SCOTUS needs to step on, hard.

Inigoes · Aug 8, 2021

The ruling was 2 months ago.

Allen65 · Aug 8, 2021

Inigoes said:
The ruling was 2 months ago.

But it's new to us.

Seagrave1963 · Aug 8, 2021

Allen65 said:
But it's new to us.

Joe Biden thinks so too.........................

whistlersmother · Aug 8, 2021

gamer_jim said:
Did Roberts get a bonk on the head? Why is he so pro-Constitution lately?

I'm surprised Roberts had the courage to vote with the majority.

teratos said:
Alitos concurring opinion doesn't seem to indicate this is OK. Court sign off on an order abridging not one but TWO civil rights (2nd and 4th) is still as kosher as a bacon wrapped pulled pork sammich with cheese.

That's my reading between the lines also. Almost sounded like the court is eager to get a red flag case before it.

press1280 · Aug 8, 2021

gamer_jim said:
Did Roberts get a bonk on the head? Why is he so pro-Constitution lately?

It would have been very unlikely to have the libs and conservatives agree on an issue but Roberts be the sole dissenter.
The 4th Amendment has actually not been one the conservatives have typically been strong on. Glad they got this one right but it's been pointed out this was a relatively small step. It's amazing both lower courts got it wrong.
On another note Kavanaugh said the 4th amendment was made applicable to the states in 1868??? Did I miss something?
I thought none of the BoR was incorporated until the early 1900's?

pcfixer · Aug 8, 2021

Allen65 said:
I'm not getting too excited about this one, although a win is a win. This case was about police acting completely on their own, without a court order. Maryland's red flag law requires a court signoff on the confiscation, albeit with a very low evidentiary standard and completely ex parte. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that sort of law yet.

I'm not an advocate of Red flag laws or ERPO's. I was and still will be against this law. Same for most of the Sheriff's in Maryland are.
Sheriff Jenkins in Frederick hate this too.

The rub is here... https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#can painted as a civil matter in courts.

An Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) is a court-issued civil order temporarily requiring a person to:

surrender any firearms or ammunition to law enforcement; and
not purchase or possess firearms or ammunition.

There is a difference between surrender to law and confiscation!

We really need MSI to take this to court and WIN!

Allen65 · Aug 8, 2021

pcfixer said:
I'm not an advocate of Red flag laws or ERPO's. I was and still will be against this law. Same for most of the Sheriff's in Maryland are.
Sheriff Jenkins in Frederick hate this too.

The rub is here... https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#can painted as a civil matter in courts.

An Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) is a court-issued civil order temporarily requiring a person to:

surrender any firearms or ammunition to law enforcement; and
not purchase or possess firearms or ammunition.

There is a difference between surrender to law and confiscation!

I don't see much difference between a coerced surrender under threat of imprisonment for contempt of court, and confiscation. Failure to comply with either ultimately results in imprisonment, just that one pathway is slightly less direct.

SCOTUS rules against Red Flags

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Deplorable Welder

Ultimate Member

Banned

Certified Mad Scientist

Banned

Podcaster

Scribe

My hair is amazing

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Still learnin'

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics