red flag laws, SC rules in a 9-0 decision

Jmac00

Jmac00

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,655
Reaction score
51,053
Location
somewhere in America
are unconstitutional. Period. So why are the deamonRats even trying to pass RFL's

Supreme Court Ruling Delegitimizes Red Flag Laws - Libertas Institute

The ruling is a validation of both 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, reaffirming the importance of due process, property rights, and the presumption of innocence.
libertas.org libertas.org
Click to expand...
For the first time in 13 years, the Court upheld both privacy and gun rights, this time unanimously. Caniglia v. Strom’s 9-0 decision has the potential to create lasting effects and set precedent as powerful as was DC v. Heller in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
Defilade

Defilade

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
25,579
Reaction score
36,913
Location
Elsewhere
Jmac00 said:
are unconstitutional. Period. So why are the deamonRats even trying to pass RFL's
Click to expand...
Why are the Cops in his home? Do they not know that it is unconstitutional?? Maybe they need to go back to school. Or once again maybe they are cowards for not standing up against it. They know it is wrong.
 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
16,288
Reaction score
42,975
Location
On the Trump Train
That's where I was born and raised. I Shouldn't have left SC.

Then ending up in NY of all places... :banghead:
To be fair NY wasn't as bad in 1990 when I moved here.
NY was no SC but it was still acceptable to me.
Of course, that has all changed.

I can't wait for my time to get out of this shithole in two more years.
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
29,106
Reaction score
61,251
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Jmac00 said:
EXACTLY, SCOTUS ruled over a year ago, RFL were unconstitutional, period,

Yet we have state after state passing RFL despite it being unconstitutional, just how stupid are law makers? don't answer that, it was rhetorical
Click to expand...
Don't mistake malevolence for stupidity.

They know it's unconstitutional.

They don't care.

There is no punishment for them for knowingly violating the constitution. None.

So, they'll keep passing this crap, and the cops will keep enforcing it, and people will keep suffering.
 
Jem45472

Jem45472

.308 Win
Messages
4,217
Reaction score
6,781
Location
Erie
Bigfoot said:
That's where I was born and raised. I Shouldn't have left SC.

Then ending up in NY of all places... :banghead:
To be fair NY wasn't as bad in 1990 when I moved here.
NY was no SC but it was still acceptable to me.
Of course, that has all changed.

I can't wait for my time to get out of this shithole in two more years.
Click to expand...
NY is completely different now compared to the 80's, and not for the better.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
Defilade said:
Why are the Cops in his home? Do they not know that it is unconstitutional?? Maybe they need to go back to school. Or once again maybe they are cowards for not standing up against it. They know it is wrong.
Click to expand...
The wife let them in and showed them where his two pistols were.
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,177
Reaction score
42,763
Location
P
spat said:
Don't mistake malevolence for stupidity.

They know it's unconstitutional.

They don't care.

There is no punishment for them for knowingly violating the constitution. None.

So, they'll keep passing this crap, and the cops will keep enforcing it, and people will keep suffering.
Click to expand...

Basically, "the rule of law", posited to be a bedrock American principal, with SCROTUM as its ultimate arbiter, is now dead.

The fUSA now operates under mob rule, usually conducted on Twatter or Farcebook.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
spat said:
Did she ask them to take them ?

Were they on her pistol permit ? If not, then they weren't hers to give, and they just straight up stole them.
Click to expand...
No, she claims that she thought her husband wanted to turn them over.
And it’s not theft despite what you think. It’s legal to voucher them for safekeeping at a minimum. The question is can they keep them.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
Thank you for the excuse to do the research.
This case DOES NOT apply to red flag laws. In the concurring opinion justice Alito writes:
“ They typi- cally specify the standard that must be met and the proce- dures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues”
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
29,106
Reaction score
61,251
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Truebeliever said:
No, she claims that she thought her husband wanted to turn them over.
And it’s not theft despite what you think. It’s legal to voucher them for safekeeping at a minimum. The question is can they keep them.
Click to expand...
The law might not call it theft, but it is.

"Safe keeping" is utterly ridiculous in this context. They were safer where they were.

Anyone who believed "her husband wanted to turn them over" is either acting in bad faith, or they are a complete moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top