Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Would a "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" movement... [View all]sarisataka
(21,480 posts)53. No slope at all
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 couples spat over a coffee mug.
(snip)
First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.
Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as reasonable under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglias case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that the doctrines reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined. Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.
(snip)
In their opening brief for the Supreme Court, attorneys for Caniglia warned that extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment because it would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.
(snip)
First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.
Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as reasonable under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglias case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that the doctrines reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined. Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.
(snip)
In their opening brief for the Supreme Court, attorneys for Caniglia warned that extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment because it would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=4f7ff13e2829
But of course police would only use such warrantless search and seizure power for guns; it would never be abused
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sure if you can disarm all criminals 1st...otherwise I prefer my right to defend my home.
EX500rider
Mar 2021
#72
So, it's OK to inconvienience me for the deeds of another, through no fault of mine?
yagotme
Mar 2021
#33
So, you really think that repealing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights...
yagotme
Mar 2021
#50
So because the police violate the 4A as they have been doing for years in the War on Drugs...
AnrothElf
Mar 2021
#54
There's a fantasy book by S. M. Stirling called "Dies the Fire" in which something like that happens
Dial H For Hero
Mar 2021
#68
Unfortunately, I think trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment would only help Republican politicians.
LaMouffette
Mar 2021
#6
You stumped me! I was going to say, "Just do whatever they do in Europe!" but then found out
LaMouffette
May 2021
#112
Can you list the 6 circumstances that the PLCAA allows you to sue gun manufacturers?
hack89
Mar 2021
#19
Under the PLCAA the gun industry cannot be held liable for the damages resulting from negligence,
sop
Mar 2021
#24
You obviously believe the gun industry bears no civil liablity for the sale of lethal products that
sop
Mar 2021
#38
If negligence can be proven, then the public has the right to sue brewers. That's how it works.
sop
Mar 2021
#47
Congress has not granted Chevy, or the entire automotive industry, immunity from civil litigation.
sop
Mar 2021
#44
It's not just "making a defective product," there are many other things manufacturers or sellers
sop
Mar 2021
#52
"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, grants broad immunity from liability
sop
Mar 2021
#62
Your error is in confusing the debate over negligence with the right of citizens to sue.
sop
Mar 2021
#67
I'm not sure why the thread author is ignoring both of my replies.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Apr 2021
#102
Many Democrats favor at least to some degree the spirit of "defund the police".
discntnt_irny_srcsm
May 2021
#111