One Two Punch on US Gun Rights!

[Ninurta]

Apparently the law says that the states can determine carry laws (within the 9th jurisdiction of states I think). I'm not too certain, but it upends the right to carry interpretation of the constitution, as if "right to bear arms" doesn't mean the right to carry arms on your person.

States can regulated concealed carry. primarily because concealing a gun is not generally speaking a military activity. Soldiers wear carry arms openly, and the purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep a militia reserve, ready for activation on short notice in an emergency, a military activity. that is not the limit of it, but it is the primary reason it was included in the Bill of Rights. So, while they can regulate concealed carry, they do not have the right to regulate open carry. Many of them already do, but that is because their citizens failed to enforce their rights, so their governments got away with it. Now the Ninth Circuit appears to be trying to take another bite in their drive to eat the Citizen's lunch for them.

That started way back when, when states started outlawing dirks and daggers because there were too many knife fights going on. Colonists banded together and shot the shit out of British troops who came to seize weapons on behalf of the Crown's "community caretaking exception" which it didn't have, either.

Concerning the warrant-less in home gun seizures, here are some names to remember.

SEAN D.REYES Utah Attorney General
MELISSA HOLYOAK Utah Solicitor General
THOMAS B.BRUNKER Deputy Solicitor General, Criminal Appeals
JEFFREY S.GRAY Search & Seizure Section Director
DAVID SIMPSON Assistant Solicitor General
THOMAS J.MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa
JEFF LANDRY Attorney General State of Louisiana
AUSTIN KNUDSEN Attorney General State of Montana
KEITH ELLISON Attorney General State of Minnesota
MIKE HUNTER Attorney General State of Oklahoma
ALAN WILSON Attorney General State of South Carolina
JASONR.RAVNSBORG Attorney General State of South Dakota
KEN PAXTON Attorney General State of Texas

www.supremecourt.gov

I read the Amicus Brief. 36 pages is a little long for something to be called a "brief", but I've seen longer ones). Thinking it possible that I may have missed something, I cleaned my glasses and re-read the Fourth Amendment. Still couldn't find it. So I cleaned my glasses again and rubbed my eyes for good measure, and read it again. I could still find no "community caretaking exception". It's just not there.

Text of the Fourth Amendment:

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.

Does anyone else see an exception for "community caretaking" in there?

The respondents in the brief argue that is not the right exception anyhow. They argue that it is an "emergency aid exception" that should be applied instead. I would argue against that as well. There was no emergency. The individual was already on lockdown, and no longer had access to any weapons at all. There WAS no "emergency" to allow that to be applied. There was no imminent danger to anyone at all. He couldn't get out of the looney bin to harm anyone, weapons or no, and was miles away from the seized property. If they wanted to seize something, they had ample time to get a warrant for such search and seizure, as the individual was in no position to contest or hinder it in any way. There is no justification for a warrantless action.

Now, his wife is the one who had him carted away. She may have given consent for a search, but she could not have given consent for the seizure of any property that was not hers. The only way that could occur is if she gave consent for a search, and illegal property was discovered. If the guns were not illegal contraband, there is no legal precedent under which they could be seized that I am aware of, but all I know are the circumstances described in the brief. It does not mention that the guns were either illegal or contraband, only that the wife told the police that he still appeared "angry". If anger were proper grounds for incarceration or property seizure, none of us would own anything at all, as the State would have already seized everything under that pretext, and we would all be in jail anyhow.

If I were this gentleman, that wife would already be back in her parents' house. I would have kicked her to the curb and sent her back as unfinished, and unfit for duty as a wife. 

I may have also demanded a refund from them for palming off shoddy goods on me.

.