Mark this down as a loss for the Gun Grabbers of America after they argued in court that they should have the right to seize guns without a warrant meaning without probable cause.
The Democrats were hoping that the activist judges and maybe a couple of weak-kneed conservatives on the court could swing the decision their way.
Imagine what the gun grabber could do if they no longer need a warrant. They would be going door to door wherever Democrats were in charge.
This particular case, Caniglia v. Strom, was decided by a unanimous verdict of the court and comes after two lower courts chose to ignore the Fourth Amendment to the constitution.
In that case, the husband had an unloaded gun and the wife called the police for a simple welfare visit.
The police convinced the husband to be checked out after they promised they would seize his guns unless he was deemed irresponsible. They lied. The moment he was gone they stole his guns.
The Democrats argued that the police do not always act as law enforcement agents, they sometimes serve as “community caretaking functions,” but that only applied to traffic accidents and in case someone is ill. Grabbing guns does not fit under that exception.
Edward Caniglia has no criminal history and no record of violence. he had been married for 22 years and was no risk to himself or anyone else. They just wanted his guns and constitution or no constitution, they were going to take them.
Joe Biden was really hoping to win this one but he suffered a loss as per usual. (H/T: Harry Potter)
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
“Although there have been a lot of questions this morning about whether this is emergency aid or exigent circumstances or community caretaking or something else, the label you give it is not nearly as important as the principle. And the key principle is if someone is at risk of serious harm and it’s reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough,” Ratner said.
Writing the Supreme Court’s short, 4-page opinion in the case, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the Cady v. Dombrowski precedent, which he indicated applied to police “responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents.”