Now that America has had two mass shooting events in a week, Democrat Joe Biden feels justified in talking about taking executive action on historic gun control, restricting access to guns for law-abiding citizens with the stroke of his pen, and he is asking the US Supreme Court to bypass Civil Liberties in a literal gun grab.
“Of course, he’s skipping the terrorist angle and always forgets if a shopper was armed, the terrorist would be dead, not 10 innocents,” one poster wrote on Twitter.
Democrats have desired gun control for a long time, and they may be very close to getting their dream legislation pushed through.
Conservatives see the situation as Biden using an opportunity to punish Americans.
Biden wants to pass gun laws after a Syrian refugee murdered 10 Americans
— Jesse Lee Peterson (@JLPtalk) March 24, 2021
BIDEN TALKS ABOUT EXECUTIVE ACTION ON GUNS
“Biden considering executive action on gun control, Psaki says. But the president implored the Senate to pass House bills that would close background check loopholes,” Fox News reported.
So Biden, admitting that the US Government is supposed to pass laws, as duly elected civil servings who represent voters, is threatening to do what he wants without their input if they don’t do with Biden wants them to do.
“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” Psaki told reporters. “That has been under discussion and will continue to be under discussion.”
Biden posted on his Twitter account:
“We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We can close loopholes in our gun background check system.”
The Senate would need to garner support from 10 Republicans to clear the filibuster and pass the legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday he hasn’t spoken without the White House about an assault weapons ban. Such a ban is not part of the pair of House bills that passed earlier this month.
BIDEN SEEKS SCOTUS TO TAKE ACTION ON WARRENTLESS CONFISCATION
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug.
In his articles for Forbes, Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant, Nick Sibilla wrote:
its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception,” their brief stated, “but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the Justice Department felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case.
As a fail-safe, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officers’ “actions did not violate any clearly established law so as to render the officers individually liable in a damages action.”
But the Biden Administration, along with the courts that have extended the community caretaking exception, overlook a key component of the Fourth Amendment: the Security Clause. After all, the Fourth Amendment opens with the phrase, “the right of the people to be secure.”
In an amicus brief, the Institute for Justice noted that “to the Founding generation, ‘secure’ did not simply mean the right to be ‘spared’ an unreasonable search or seizure” but also involved “harms attributable to the potential for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Expanding the community caretaking exception to “allow warrantless entries into peoples’ homes on a whim,” argued the IJ brief, “invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers” and would undermine “the right of the people to be secure” in their homes.
To Follow the SCOTUS case:
Believing a man to be unstable, the police arrange a psychiatric evaluation and – without a warrant – enter his home & confiscate two guns. Is that constitutional?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 23, 2021
Kari is an ex-Community Organizer who writes about Cultural Marxism, grassroots activism, music, IndyCar racing and political campaigns. @Saorsa1776