Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    In a college town, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    14091407

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Yea, I donít see this going over too well. Iím sorry but If you enter a place without a warrant (officer or not) or a valid reason/invitation to be there, expect to be met with force.

    We already see the ramifications of no knock warrants...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ercildoun, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    4,509
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Whatever is common sense and Constitutional the exact opposite will be decided as long as Roberts and his lefty colleagues decide. The 4th amendment spells out exactly the requirements of searches. Justices that don't follow the Constitution and legislate from the bench are anathematic to the Constitution and a free society. In today's world the communists are attempting to change our society into something that will be unrecognizable as "America, land of the free and home of the brave" with the approval of like minded communists that pronounce judgements in cases like these. You should have no confidence that our form of Constitutional elected representative government will survive with these people in control.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North East PA, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,275
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    It's for the greater good.
    Stop supporting social media

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh-South Hills, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    12037975

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    If he wasn't in the house, why wasn't there time to apply for a warrant?

    Case closed.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh-South Hills, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    12037975

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodwanderer View Post
    Yea, I don*t see this going over too well. I*m sorry but If you enter a place without a warrant (officer or not) or a valid reason/invitation to be there, expect to be met with force.

    We already see the ramifications of no knock warrants...
    They'll make resisting a no-knock warrant a default crime before they ever actually get rid of them.

    It pretty much is now, but I mean fully codified.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    In a college town, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    349
    Rep Power
    14091407

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Quote Originally Posted by JustinR View Post
    They'll make resisting a no-knock warrant a default crime before they ever actually get rid of them.

    It pretty much is now, but I mean fully codified.
    Thatís if the person actually survives and doesnít get shot in the process of ďservingĒ the warrant.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    countryside, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    458
    Rep Power
    14138496

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Quote Originally Posted by JustinR View Post
    They'll make resisting a no-knock warrant a default crime before they ever actually get rid of them.

    It pretty much is now, but I mean fully codified.
    THAT should be a peach, resisting something in a split second... Hmmm, choose between dying in a break-in or try to verify the validity of the no-knock warrant? that's a hard one...
    The chair is against the wall... John has a long mustache...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    8,630
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    It's an easy problem. Make no-knock mean no-knock. That battering ram hitting the door is one loud knock. They are violating the no-knock at the outset.
    There are only two kinds of guns. Those I have and those I want.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Someplace
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    9570756

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Quote Originally Posted by buckengr View Post


    Yep. I'll keep my 4th amendment, thank you. No obligation to protect is fine with me. It's unrealistic to expect them to be able to anyway, so that responsibility ultimately falls to the individual regardless of what anyone wants in an ideal world. We don't live in an ideal world.

    The police can't be there 24/7 to protect us even if we wanted them to, so we have to take responsibility for our own safety and be equipped to do so. There's no getting around that, ever.
    Excellent points here, and you made me think of something else- another common principle of jurisprudence is that arbitrary enforcement of the law should be avoided when possible. Given the police can't protect everyone, any effort to protect anyone will necessarily lead to arbitrary enforcement of the law. In other words, the police will pick winners and losers. Any government ever, in the history of the world, that endeavored to do that, has done a spectacularly terrible job of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bang View Post
    In Warren v DC the trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs.

    In general, mistaken understanding of the case expands the finding to include the general public at large. Not so. The case examined whether a person fearful for life and/or limb could demand that a police officer be assigned to guard them personally.

    What is soon to go before SCOTUS carries the speculation that a household containing guns (like the trunk of a car) might be broken into and the guns within stolen and carried away, endangering the community at large. If this specious argument persuades, be ready for mandated securing of guns in a manner dictated by governing bodies.
    Very true, but it's worth noting this is a TERRIBLE test case for that principle. Unless the wife was being detained too, the guns never would have sat there unattended.

    The "guns in impounded car" case was a better test, although I don't agree with the ruling they made. Tow company employees are notoriously scummy- I've never heard of a tow company where less than 50% of the employees are felons. Anecdotally, I know several guys who were tow truck drivers for years, during which time they had no drivers' license and often drank and used crack on the job. While towing for the police, no less. One could argue that taking guns from the trunk of an impounded car is as much to protect the gun owner, as it is to protect the community, provided there was some reasonable basis to conclude the trunk wasn't lockable with a valet key or some similar mechanism. Courts are spectacularly bad at understanding the technical details of cars, and without having been on the scene I can't really say much about how likely it would have seemed to the officer that a tow truck driver could have stolen the gun without leaving enough damage to implicate himself in the crime.

    Perhaps most importantly from a rights standpoint- in the "car trunk" case, the police never attempted to take ALL guns from the owner. They acted more narrowly, and stopped at securing one particular gun that was at a high risk of being stolen. This is the same theory behind impounding cars, or any property for that matter- it's not about guns and the police acted narrowly enough to avoid depriving someone of their right to keep arms altogether. I don't think anyone takes issue with that system or the theory behind it. In the case at issue in this thread, however, the police took ALL of Mr. Caniglia's guns, when none of them were at risk of being stolen or used in a crime. Which is a far broader action, with far greater implications for civil liberties, than in the "car trunk" case.
    They even have minds but do not think. -Dov Fischer

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    8,630
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: Supreme Court will decide if police can enter home to seize guns without a warran

    Courts are spectacularly bad at understanding the technical details of cars
    Here's one. I was in Highway Patrol cruising south Philly. A guy in a Duntov'd '60 Chevy wound out first from a stop sign on one of those incredibly narrow streets. At the hearing, I testified in those terms. The (magistrate, back then) looked at me like I was something he'd never seen before, exclaimed, "First gear? FIRST gear?? How fast could he have been going?! DISMISSED! Next case!
    There are only two kinds of guns. Those I have and those I want.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 10th, 2019, 12:03 AM
  2. Replies: 63
    Last Post: March 9th, 2009, 10:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •