From a number of readers, the SCOTUS has placed limits on the scope of power police may take, while protecting the fourth amendment.

David Codrea has snipped the major details (this isn’t a long ruling).

Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.

This is also being discussed at Ammoland here and here, and GOA is calling this a huge victory.

No doubt it is, and this is the right decision.  But some of the justices blather on and on about why they think it was okay to vote the way they did, which vote seems for all the wrong reasons.

I saw the decision, and looked immediately to see what Justice Clarence Thomas said.  He matters.  The rest of them are complete frauds and what they have to say matters no more to me than when a dog barks.

Now.  Let’s see how much this decision actually has an effect in the real life behavior of police.  As for the so-called “community caretaker” issue, that’s a myth fabricated out of whole cloth, with no basis in the law, and in complete contradiction with prior decisions such as Castle Rock versus Gonzales, Warren versus D.C., and DeShaney versus Winnebago County.

Only an idiot would believe in something like the “community caretaker” foolishness.  But the SCOTUS seems to be consumed with the notion – except for Justice Thomas.

This specific instance also highlights the continuing threat of so-called extreme risk protection orders.  Those come with warrants, while this case dealt with actions taken without a warrant.

Warrants are handed out like candy by judges.

David Codrea.

Kasich is the latest in a string of “Never Trump Republicans” to cast his lot with the Democrats, the very Party his past supporters donated money and labor to defeat at the polls. We’ve noted subversive efforts by groups like the Lincoln Project and watched prominent “neocons” like George Conway, Bill Kristol, and Carly Fiorina jump ship. We’ve seen “Big Tent Republicans” like Larry Hogan making no secret of abandoning what once was a Republican core constituency to move the GOP even further to the left. And just the other day, “conservative” columnist George Will announced he’s voting for Biden.

Funny that list.  I’ve always felt that Kristol and Fiorina were sniveling lackeys, Kasich just a buffoon, and George Will a true creep.  I’ve never liked any of them, and never found any to be a friend to gun owners.

Not that Kasich meant anything he promised to swindle gun owners into voting for him. Except he called infringements “reforms.” He came out against “Stand Your Ground” and even vetoed a gun bill that didn’t have it because it didn’t include “guilty until proven innocent” Red Flag seizures.

It’s always about red flag laws, isn’t it?  You can have these pretend rights, but we want to be able to take them away for any reason we deem fit, and we’ll send the Stasi to do it.

It’s the same thing going on in Wyoming right now.  Oh, the real news can get buried under the drama that the MSM whips up.  But read on and make sure to read to the end.  It’s all about pol support for red flag laws.

Ammoland.

The court granted the City’s petition. The court acknowledged that Lori could legally “walk . . . into any gun store and qualify to buy a handgun . . . and put [it] in that gun safe.” But it held that the City was nevertheless authorized to take the “low hanging fruit” of the guns the Rodriguezes already owned, irrespective of Lori’s ability to buy more, because of the danger that Edward presented. Stating that it was not “ignoring [Lori’s] Constitutional Rights,” the court concluded that it was not appropriate to return the firearms given the public safety concerns at stake.

Ah, those “low hanging fruit” guns.

The only thing low hanging about this is the moral compass of the fruits and nuts who made this decision.

The Western Journal.

An incident in New Jersey is testing just how far red flag laws can be pushed, and the results aren’t pretty.

The gun seizure comes as part of a heated court case between Alfred Conti and his former physician, Dr. Matthew Kaufman. The defamation lawsuit revolves around negative reviews left by Conti.

Months after the suit was opened, police stripped Conti of firearms and ammunition on Sept. 25.

The firearm seizure was put into action thanks to a red flag complaint made by Kaufman and his lawyer, the Asbury Park Press reported.

Before his guns were taken, it seems Conti was just intent on receiving treatment. Hurting from an apparent failed surgery, Conti was first kicked out of the clinic where Kaufman practiced, allegedly due to his aggressive behavior with staff.

Shortly after, Conti would write the negative reviews that sparked the entire lawsuit.

A month later, Conti called Kaufman’s lawyer several times, asking for the doctor to see him again in an attempt to end his pain. In one call played to the court, the injured man used vulgar language and threatened to bring the authorities into the matter.

Conti’s error appears to be in mentioning he knew where both Kaufman and the doctor’s lawyer lived in one of the calls.

However, both sides agreed that it doesn’t appear any threat was made.

Despite this, police acted on the red flag complaint and seized multiple pistols, a rifle and ammunition from Conti. According to police, the injured man cooperated peacefully as authorities disarmed him.

As red flag laws go on the books in more locations, cases like this that sit squarely in a gray area are virtually guaranteed to keep happening.

Although there needs to be an instrument of law to disarm people threatening violence, the real question is where the line should be drawn.

I go back to David Codrea’s dictum.  Any man who can’t be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.  And frankly, I don’t believe in imprisonment anyway because it’s unbiblical.  The Scriptures favor retribution and restitution, and thus I believe in slavery when the crime of theft has been committed, and execution when murder, rape or kidnapping has been committed.  There is no such thing as a crime against the state, there are only crimes against individuals.  The best way to repay damages for theft is that the thief becomes a slave until the debt is paid.  So let me say it again.  I believe in slavery.  So does the bible.

But back to the point.  Guns are the least of the problems if the man is really intent on doing harm.  He could just go down to his local Lowe’s and buy fertilizer, or easier, a few cans of gasoline.

I prefer to sentence people for crimes when crimes are actually committed rather than relying on witchcraft to determine the future.  I don’t gamble, I don’t buy lottery tickets, and I don’t believe in witchcraft.

Via reader Fred, this comes from ZeroHedge.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.

The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”

These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any  Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.

It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.

I applaud the effort.  But more is needed.  Hopefully this will be a model law for other states to follow, at least in the beginning.

The next steps will be a state law which prohibits any agents of the FedGov from enforcing said laws in Oklahoma, punishable by imprisonment.  The legislature must use its powers to prevent the state courts from reviewing constitutionality of the law by state courts (a tool the Congress has against tyrannical power by the supreme court, but has never used).  The law must further stipulate that federal court reviews of this law will not be honored in the state of Oklahoma.

Ammoland.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren’t any actions against him.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court’s office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff’s office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.

Read the rest.  And he still doesn’t have his firearms back.  I know I feel safer today.  Do you?

Rex gives them.

News from Florida:

LAKELAND — A 32-year-old woman was arrested on June 15 when she gathered her husband’s guns to turn them over to the Lakeland Police Department.

According to Courtney Irby’s arrest affidavit, she told police her husband had been taken to jail for trying to run over her with a car. Irby said she went to Joseph Irby’s apartment on Village Center Drive in Lakeland and searched for the guns she knew he had.

When she told a Lakeland police officer she had the guns with her to turn them in, he replied, “So are you telling me that you committed an armed burglary?” and Irby answered, “Yes, I am, but he wasn’t going to turn them in, so I am doing it,” according to reports.

Oh don’t even think that the cops had any sympathy for the husband or disagreement with the confiscation of guns.  The main problem here for the cops is that she broke the law.  It would have been okay if the cops did the deed.

Don’t you know – we can’t let people enforce the law, only LEOs can do that.