Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    (Lehigh County)
    Posts
    1,143
    Rep Power
    21474845

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Daycrawler View Post
    American's will decide if Police who break into homes without warrants, can be shot, with their guns.
    There have been some situations in which the police broke into a home, the homeowner shot and killed the police, AND the homeowner was found to be not guilty.
    --ET

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Morgantown, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    605358

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

    Sounds like the courts need to respect the community caretaking doctrine for citizens too. Let us get rid of dirty, lazy cops like this. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to consider someone a threat and seize their guns but leave them unattended with the EMTs, and not even investigate the medical professionals' findings or opinions?

    They sound just as bad as the trooper I'm dealing with now who lied to court and even admitted in court to not performing a thorough investigation.
    I am not a lawyer

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    South East of disorder
    Posts
    3,258
    Rep Power
    21474850

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ett View Post
    There have been some situations in which the police broke into a home, the homeowner shot and killed the police, AND the homeowner was found to be not guilty.
    And I agree with that. The Police have a rule book to abide by, and enforce. If they fail and loose, too bad. I have never had a soft spot for any crooked cops.
    Aggies Coach Really ??? Take off the tin foil bro.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    8,723
    Rep Power
    21474856

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

    I think the MANY MILLIONS with a soft spot for crooked democrats is a far larger problem.
    There are only two kinds of guns. Those I have and those I want.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,054
    Rep Power
    21474847

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

    Lots wrong with this.

    In the case of the impounded car, the police were in possession of the gun. It was in the car that they were in possession of, and they had possession subsequent to whatever violation got the car impounded. They had a legal obligation to secure the citizen's property.

    In the case at hand...my first thought was wife consented, so everyone can fuck off. It is interesting that consent was negated because the police lied. I thought the police are allowed to lie to get what they want? But ok...without the wife's "legal" consent to take the weapons, I don't see how the police can argue that they were exercising any caretaking function given the other details. And unlike the car, they had no obligation to secure the property either.

    All of that said...I wonder if it would make any difference if the police had to break into a safe to get the guns.

    If this is upheld, I can see the police caretaking function being used to "take care of" any resources the govt decided someone is "hoarding" to the detriment of the "community".

    It seems like the police look for any excuse, no matter how thin, to take guns away from gun owners and then leave it up to them to try to get them back. That's just wrong, and even a blind man should be able to see that.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
    (Dauphin County)
    Age
    36
    Posts
    483
    Rep Power
    21474840

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

    Quote Originally Posted by free View Post
    Lots wrong with this.

    In the case of the impounded car, the police were in possession of the gun. It was in the car that they were in possession of, and they had possession subsequent to whatever violation got the car impounded. They had a legal obligation to secure the citizen's property.

    In the case at hand...my first thought was wife consented, so everyone can fuck off. It is interesting that consent was negated because the police lied. I thought the police are allowed to lie to get what they want? But ok...without the wife's "legal" consent to take the weapons, I don't see how the police can argue that they were exercising any caretaking function given the other details. And unlike the car, they had no obligation to secure the property either.

    All of that said...I wonder if it would make any difference if the police had to break into a safe to get the guns.

    If this is upheld, I can see the police caretaking function being used to "take care of" any resources the govt decided someone is "hoarding" to the detriment of the "community".

    It seems like the police look for any excuse, no matter how thin, to take guns away from gun owners and then leave it up to them to try to get them back. That's just wrong, and even a blind man should be able to see that.
    What's left out of the OP is that the vehicle that was impounded was a police officer's personal vehicle. The officer had a DUI accident, and was in a coma in the hospital. On top of them going into the trunk to get the weapon, they also discovered evidence hat the comatose officer had aided his brother in a murder. Matt Christianson just posted a video on youtube about this yesterday and it's a pretty good quick summery of it. I'd imbed the video but I'm on a work computer and can't use sites like youtube.
    "Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things."- Marvin Heemeyer

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Coal Country, Pennsylvania
    (Schuylkill County)
    Posts
    1,536
    Rep Power
    21474846

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

    Does anyone know what Mr Caniglia does for a living? I cannot find anything about his employment or past employment.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,054
    Rep Power
    21474847

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

    Quote Originally Posted by spandexlurch View Post
    What's left out of the OP is that the vehicle that was impounded was a police officer's personal vehicle. The officer had a DUI accident, and was in a coma in the hospital. On top of them going into the trunk to get the weapon, they also discovered evidence hat the comatose officer had aided his brother in a murder. Matt Christianson just posted a video on youtube about this yesterday and it's a pretty good quick summery of it. I'd imbed the video but I'm on a work computer and can't use sites like youtube.
    Not sure that changed my opinion. Car was taken into possession by the police into conjunction with working a crime. At a minimum, they need to inventory the property taken into possession, which includes the contents of the car. If they find evidence of a crime when doing so, hey, bonus! I think it easily passes the sniff test and the rationale for making it legit in no way applies to the current case.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
    (Dauphin County)
    Posts
    343
    Rep Power
    3079574

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

    I heard Gun Owners Foundation was filing Amicus Brief for Caniglia but haven't seen it yet.

    I found this when searching for other Amicus Briefs filed.
    https://michellawyers.com/caniglia-v-strom/

    I probably shouldn't be shocked, but I am. Here are 3 supporting the The City of Cranston and Police Chief. I'll have to read them, but my guess is what someone else stated. Police don't need a warrant to steal your wife, dog, kids, or personal property if they haul your ass off to the hospital for some evaluation.

    Amicus Brief of Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah in Support of Respondents
    Amicus Brief of The United States in Support of Respondents
    Amicus Brief of The National Association of Counties, The National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, The International City/County Management Association, and The International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Respondents

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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
  •