Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

[KLB]

Did anyone else notice that the ACLU is actually against this ruling?

I am hopeful that this USSC will strike the lower court ruling down, maybe even by a wide margin.

 

[Tryin']

Severe enough to me would be to account for the fact that being caught up in this could ruin someone's life. I know in my civilian and military job (with security clearance) this would not go over very well. Even if later on it was determined to be false nobody will ever look at you the same. I don't see anywhere in the particular law unless I missed it that there were repercussions for false reporting unless you are just referencing general false reporting repercussions. I would hope that at the ground level a false reporting or a vindictive he said she said situation would be quickly sorted out before it went any further. The civil liability angle is a joke. How many average joe's can really afford a lawyer to go after someone and in the end a loser that makes a false complaint is likely not going to have anything to go after anyway. It's likely unrealistic that a normal upstanding person would ever find themselves involved in anything like this but I think that's where peoples apprehension is at.

Please forgive me for not engaging in every heretofore unproven hypothetical.

Your hope concerning how false claims play out on the ground is well-placed. We do our very best to sort out all the facts of every situation and give the accused every benefit of doubt. Sometimes to our detriment, as guess who gets blamed every time a whacko with a gun kills a bunch of people after having had contact with LE sometime beforehand?

We aren't out here swiping guns and ruining lives at every whipstitch. Cops still belong in the "good guys" camp, and law enforcement is still a noble profession.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Amazon was "hiring" people so they could be used as food for the wealthy

Oh no, that part is true...

 

[KLB]

Please forgive me for not engaging in every heretofore unproven hypothetical.

Your hope concerning how false claims play out on the ground is well-placed. We do our very best to sort out all the facts of every situation and give the accused every benefit of doubt. Sometimes to our detriment, as guess who gets blamed every time a whacko with a gun kills a bunch of people after having had contact with LE sometime beforehand?

We aren't out here swiping guns and ruining lives at every whipstitch. Cops still belong in the "good guys" camp, and law enforcement is still a noble profession.

I agree with you most of the time. I have to point out that the officers in the original complaint do not seem to fit your narrative though.

 

[jsx1043]

Alright so wait, I can’t keep track. Are we the bad guys again?

 

[Tryin']

I agree with you most of the time. I have to point out that the officers in the original complaint do not seem to fit your narrative though.

Valid point!

With the caveat of I don't know anything other than what has been reported:

Absolutely. This case should not have made it past a report. Had this incident occurred in my jurisdiction, it would not have. I have confidence that this case will end in affirmation of overreach.

That said, I dont know what the law is in Rhode Island. If it allows for this, it should be challenged and overturned. If it doesn't, then the cops are going to have to present a pretty compelling case for doing what they did.

I fear that my commentary may be perceived as defending every cop ever. It's not. It is a response to the notion that all cops equal the worst examples we can find across a nation with 18,000 disparate agencies and 697,000 officers.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Tryin and Frank, thank you both for taking the time to reply. I appreciate that the usual practice is to take both the firearms and the person, and to release the property as quickly as is practicable.

Tryin, you say you don't do things that way where you are, and that's a good thing. My concern is how the law can be abused. I will admit I've not read the Laird law since the changes happened, so I don't know if that's mandatory. Up closer to Chicago or near Bloomington, I'm not so sure that things MUST go as you tell me they do where you are.

To be clear, I don't fault you or those who do your job. It's those who work in anti-gun areas. As to the shoddy work of a vague report, I mean the girl who reports that someone threatened her. "Danger to others" is satisfied at that time, as is "waiting for it to be determined that the person is not an actual threat". Forgive my piecing stories together here, but we all know that this happens, and coupled with the practice IMPD once had, and might still, for all I know, of requiring fingerprints to release firearms back to their owner (and if I recall, that only applies to guns,not any other property) and I think you see where my concern is.

Finally, the kiddy diddler who threatens suicide? I'm not seeing the problem, unless he needs to know where to put the barrel.

Gents, thank you for the work you do for our communities. Don't think for a moment that you are not appreciated.

jsx, not "again", but "still". We gun owners have always been the "bad guys" in the minds of Leftists. I think it's mostly because most of us are thinking people who see through their illusions.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Valid point!

With the caveat of I don't know anything other than what has been reported:

Absolutely. This case should not have made it past a report. Had this incident occurred in my jurisdiction, it would not have. I have confidence that this case will end in affirmation of overreach.

That said, I dont know what the law is in Rhode Island. If it allows for this, it should be challenged and overturned. If it doesn't, then the cops are going to have to present a pretty compelling case for doing what they did.

I fear that my commentary may be perceived as defending every cop ever. It's not. It is a response to the notion that all cops equal the worst examples we can find across a nation with 18,000 disparate agencies and 697,000 officers.

I think it's fairly obvious that you're not defending the profession as a whole. We all know about the Daniel Harless-types, and how rare they are; The concerning part of that is that some agencies seem to actively recruit guys like that and foster that kind of culture. Canton tried to keep him on, and wanted to rehire him, as I recall! Thankfully, that's Ohio, not IN, and for my part, I don't go there.

 

[BugI02]

I think it's fairly obvious that you're not defending the profession as a whole. We all know about the Daniel Harless-types, and how rare they are; The concerning part of that is that some agencies seem to actively recruit guys like that and foster that kind of culture. Canton tried to keep him on, and wanted to rehire him, as I recall! Thankfully, that's Ohio, not IN, and for my part, I don't go there.

Bloomington has nothing on Canton, and most especially N Canton, for feckless wealthy people of a hardcore progressive bent promulgating asinine SJW sophistry

 

[IndyDave1776]

Alright so wait, I can’t keep track. Are we the bad guys again?

You tell me and we'll both know!

 

[DadSmith]

What's severe enough? What's false enough? What's enough damage to differentiate between false because the complainant simply doesn't know enough about the situation/law/applicability and someone who maliciously creates a potentially damaging situation? Who gets to make determinate decisions concerning these matters?

They open themselves to civil liability, with strong legal standing on the part of the complainant.

Here is some information to aid you in obtaining a basic understanding of Laird.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Jake_Laird_Law_Slides.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjW2sKUr9PvAhXEHM0KHcrfAQAQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw0T1i-xtdE01X0GeVueLXR9

I know if someone turned me in with false claims and my firearms are taken from me once it's over I should be allowed to sue them for everything they have. Defamation of character whatever.

 

[muncie21]

Mental health related justifications are a slippery slope when it comes to due process and forfeiture of our rights.

Today there are some people that consider 'conservative values' as a mental deficiency or a problem that needs to be corrected.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It seems to me that if Biden is pushing to have gov’t agents enter homes without a warrant to seize lawfully owned, legal items from law-abiding citizens, they also would not need a warrant to enter the property of a government official whether said person is there or not, and search for/seize any unlawful material found there, such as evidence of, I don’t know, collusion with foreign powers, bribery, child pornography, election fraud.... Just random examples, of course.
Given that all of those are criminal actions the “alleged” perpetrator of those acts should be subjected to intense scrutiny.



Maybe I should have spelled that “perpeTRAITOR”...

Sniffy Joe and the California Ho both need trips to the electric chair, and I’’m not talkin’ about the La-Z-Boy recliner.

 

[hpclayto]

The only way I’d agree to do this is if Papa Joe was point man on the entry team.

 

[churchmouse]

Alright so wait, I can’t keep track. Are we the bad guys again?

I believe the brush is much more narrow in this one or it should be anyway.

 

[Shadow01]

What's severe enough? What's false enough? What's enough damage to differentiate between false because the complainant simply doesn't know enough about the situation/law/applicability and someone who maliciously creates a potentially damaging situation? Who gets to make determinate decisions concerning these matters?

They open themselves to civil liability, with strong legal standing on the part of the complainant.

Here is some information to aid you in obtaining a basic understanding of Laird.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Jake_Laird_Law_Slides.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjW2sKUr9PvAhXEHM0KHcrfAQAQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw0T1i-xtdE01X0GeVueLXR9

When it comes to those that break laws, ignorance of the law is not a viable excuse for breaking the law. Why not apply that same standard to those that make reports that seem to lack merit? Why give them a pass?

 

[Tryin']

When it comes to those that break laws, ignorance of the law is not a viable excuse for breaking the law. Why not apply that same standard to those that make reports that seem to lack merit? Why give them a pass?

As indicated earlier, false reporting is a crime. Making a report in good faith is a defense under that section. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the false report was provided knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly.

We don't jail people for reporting violent domestics that turn out to be rough sex, we don't jail people for reports of child abuse that don't have merit, and we don't jail people who report mental/emotional problems that turn out to be false. We investigate the report and make decisions based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the claim, we move forward with appropriate measures. If it does not, we don't.

If good faith reporting becomes a prosecutable offense, society is in a world of trouble.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As indicated earlier, false reporting is a crime. Making a report in good faith is a defense under that section. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the false report was provided knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly.

We don't jail people for reporting violent domestics that turn out to be rough sex, we don't jail people for reports of child abuse that don't have merit, and we don't jail people who report mental/emotional problems that turn out to be false. We investigate the report and make decisions based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the claim, we move forward with appropriate measures. If it does not, we don't.

If good faith reporting becomes a prosecutable offense, society is in a world of trouble.

So then prosecuting a false report is an uphill battle both in terms of proving it and having a prosecutor who gives a damn?

 

[DadSmith]

As indicated earlier, false reporting is a crime. Making a report in good faith is a defense under that section. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the false report was provided knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly.

We don't jail people for reporting violent domestics that turn out to be rough sex, we don't jail people for reports of child abuse that don't have merit, and we don't jail people who report mental/emotional problems that turn out to be false. We investigate the report and make decisions based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the claim, we move forward with appropriate measures. If it does not, we don't.

If good faith reporting becomes a prosecutable offense, society is in a world of trouble.

If it ruined a person's character or had a God given right taken away that person or person should be held liable be it in jail or sued in civil court.

 

[Tryin']

So then prosecuting a false report is an uphill battle both in terms of proving it and having a prosecutor who gives a damn?

I can't speak to the prosecutor side, but all crimes are an uphill battle to prove in court. It's designed that way. Presumption of innocence.