SCOTUS Strikes Down Biden-Backed Police Firearm Seizure Case

[Bang]

Nice. But, arriving there six years later is still "justice delayed is justice denied". And, I assume the man's involuntary stay at the mental facility will make him ineligible to get his property back. Won't help him, will affect people in the future.

[win67]

Nice. But, arriving there six years later is still "justice delayed is justice denied". And, I assume the man's involuntary stay at the mental facility will make him ineligible to get his property back. Won't help him, will affect people in the future.

From my reading of it, it was entirely voluntary

[FUNDAMENTALS]

Apparently his firearms were returned when he sued the Police Department. This from earlier post
in this thread. Also in his mental health evaluation, he was of sound mind with no tendencies of
doing harm to himself or others. The point is moot if this occurred. It is a typical she said/he said
with no proof eitherway.

[win67]

It is a typical she said/he said
with no proof eitherway.

I think so too. Sometimes the emotional layer of stuff gets removed when they write it up in court documents, but to me it 100% sounded like Caniglia's statement in question was purely a rhetorical one, no one with a shred of emotional intelligence would have thought he was actually contemplating killing himself.

In an abundance of caution, the police took his statement at face value, knowing damn well that people often pretend not to "get" a joke, and use it against the police.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. 2021 is a very rare moment in that both sides of the political aisle are in agreement that the powers of the police should be pared back a little. The set of rules we've given the police make it next to impossible for them to do anything of value in a great many situations they've historically chosen to get themselves into, and it's likely the police will simply choose to stay at home. Ultimately I see this as a very good thing both for society and the 2A- for one, it will tend to bring back the idea that your safety is on you, and yes, you do "need" a gun. Second, the police will have to go back into an "officers of the peace" mentality, and stop involving themselves in situations that are really none of their goddamned business and have fuck all to do with promoting peace. And last but not least, it might actually reduce our tax burden just a little (police salaries can be quite high sometimes!)

[Bang]

The costs of the fires and deaths resulting from "peaceful demonstrations" was certainly far cheaper than having police intervene.

[Ecclectic Collector]

When I read the decision it seemed pretty clear to me that the case affirmed that "Due Process" must be observed. Good news for us gun owners and absolutely essentially in preventing other cases where police simply go and do something without bothering to observe the niceties of things like rule of law and other trivial stuff like our Constitution and Bill of Rights (irony intended for the tone deaf here).

How does this pertain to Red Flag laws? It does set a precident that merely going and taking weapons without some sort of court approved due process is wrong.

Now the hard part will be bringing a case where a Red Flag law was used to illegally seize somebody's weapons up through the courts so the Supreme Court can clearly set a due process requirement to meet a legal standard and have that the law of the nation.

[markshere2]

Nice to finally see a unanimous vote of sound mind

Pretty free with the terms there aincha, pilot?

In my opinion 3/9 are decent people.

The Trump election debacle soured me on the supremes pretty hard.