Charlotte, NC — And yet another nightmare that is (quietly) coming true-About Biden and his cronies: “When they tell you who they are, believe them.”
The U.S. Constitution’s second and fourth amendments, when combined with the first, form a big part of the foundation for a free society, and are major components to check a runaway government in check.
Let’s have a quick lesson:
The second amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
The fourth amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
These amendments have survived for 229 years, but now Biden is urging the United States Supreme Court to “revisit” (read: disassemble) these under the guise of protecting “someone” from themselves.
The event that led to the SCOTUS case included both a warrantless search and confiscation of a citizen’s weapon without bothering for that whole pesky: due process” thingy.
EXACTLY the sort of action the second and fourth amendments were guarding against.
(You see, we can ALWAYS come up with a “reason” to ignore the law. Somehow it only seems to be upheld when that blatant disregard is in favor of government officials, not individuals)
Introducing “Caniglia Versus Strom”
Described on SCOTUSBlog: “ … stems from a 2015 incident in Cranston, Rhode Island, in which police performed a ‘wellness check’ on Edward Caniglia after his wife reported that he might be suicidal. After arranging for Caniglia to be taken for a psychiatric evaluation, officers entered his home and confiscated his two handguns.”
According to the brief itself, the officers did not ask Caniglia about his mental wellness or the risk that he might kill himself (or others) or about past misuse of a firearm. In fact, he had no criminal record and one officer admitted to not bothering to check with any medical professionals at all.
Forbes put a bright spotlight on the sneaky behavior on the part of the officers, namely how they appeared to lie in order to seize Caniglia’s weapons:
“[…] police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized.”
Caniglia did NOT grant permission for his guns to be taken, which is why this is a controversial case. It’s pretty easy to get around permissions if you can just convince someone that “so-and-so said so.” In the real world, this is known as fraud and misrepresentation.
The officer’s side of the argument now rests on a “community caretaking” exception to the 4th amendment (which is extremely limited), which normally only allows for warrantless entry if the purpose doesn’t involve an investigation or if the police aren’t gathering evidence.
Think in the terms of a kidnapping or home invasion-the cops are free to come in with guns blazing.
This case has already been ruled on in the lower courts, (unfavorably), and now the future of the 4th amendment rests in the hands of SCOTUS.
Let’s think about this: in a court of law I cannot enter evidence concerning what another person said IF that testimony cannot be verified (Hearsay). For example, I cannot tell a judge “Well, Ben said that Jack here was actually a Cowboys fan. That’s why I hit him with a stick.”
Although the judge would likely be very sympathetic toward physical abuse against a Dallas fan, he would NOT accept Ben’s testimony as proof of Jack’s transgressions (hey, some sins are simply not forgivable) as Ben is not present to actually fess up to whether he actually said the condemning statement. Or not. Meaning that I can’t legally report what other people said unless they are actually present to confirm or deny the comment. Because what I report may not be true/accurate.
Exactly like what the police told Kim.
If SCOTUS ends up siding with the officers and Biden (at his urging), then everything you know about the U.S. Constitution will be changed forever.
While everything is being presented as “for the public good” (man, EVERY dictator, fascist, and mass-murderer that I can think of seems to use that same argument) it should be noted that it seems to do FAR more to serve the needs/wants of a government that doesn’t like having it’s activities bound by the same rules that are imposed upon the populace.
Water forged the Grand Canyon a drop at a time, and any engineer will tell you that if water starts to drip out of a tiny crack in a dam that the hole is only going to get larger.
If things go Biden’s way, that dam will break, and a flood of warrantless searches reasonably be the result (to protect us from ourselves).
Law enforcement officials don’t always tell the entire truth, and sometimes fudge little details to achieve the outcomes they want.
I want to support our police. I really, really do-but just imagine how much more power the Gum’ment will have if they’re armed with this case precedent.
If President Biden urged the police to go on a gun confiscation spree in the name of “community safety,” they’d have power never before seen in the United States …
It should be noted that we HAVE seen this exact sort of power in other countries before. Germany, Venezuela, A few Indonesian countries that come to mind …
The power to enter your home without a warrant and the power to seize firearms. All for the public good, of course.
And as a special treat: too late.
It’s already started.
Support The Liberty Loft by donating via PayPal or donate with crypto. Your support helps us achieve our mission to deliver conservative news and opinion. You can find us on a wide variety of social media channels or subscribe to our notifications to receive all the latest information as it is released.