Biden Administration urges Supreme court to let cops enter homes and seize guns without a warrant

[Okhotnik]

So many things messed up with this case on the both sides of the arguments.

First, raise your hand if you would place a gun on a table and ask your wife to kill you. That is batshit crazy stupid. Irresponsible handling of a firearm. If his wife told the police the specifics of the story (he pulled out a gun), they had every right to confiscate his guns based on the threat to his wife’s life. However, i think arresting him for brandishing a firearm in a threatning manner, then a warrant to confiscate his guns should have been the path police took. I do not agree with the officers approach in this case. Based on the details of the case provided in the article, they seem like ahole morons abusing power.

Look, I fully agree no cop should be allowed to come in your home and take anything without a warrant. I want our 4th and 2nd admendment rights to stand, but in this scenario, a lot of blame goes to Edward for being an irresponsible gun owner IMO.

People like Edward, individuals who open carry, those who push back on reasonable background check laws, are what is adding fuel to the anti-gun brushfire.

Again, just my opinion. I want and believe the case at the supreme court should not open up the door to more unwarranted searches. And I loathe the anti-gun movements that use cases like this to try and ban or get guns confiscated once and for all.

But the response from the gun community may be better served to focus on Edward’s reckless endangerment of his wife and how he should have been arrested, versus “the government is coming to take our guns” rhetoric. Once we show sympthay for the victim in that situation, then maybe others will hear our calls to not overreact by implementing the wrong laws.

At least thats how I’ll approach the converstation with my anti-gun friends who are likely practicing their debate with

New York City Cops - thats where a lot of police brutality stems from. Source: my cousin lives in Brooklyn and witnesses it all the time.

I worked 3 years with cops in in NYC and you're clueless and your anti gun bias is really showing again
me about this incident, and the Colorado shooting, right now as I type this.

lol

 

[Okhotnik]

New York City Cops - thats where a lot of police brutality stems from. Source: my cousin lives in Brooklyn and witnesses it all the time.

wow you are completely clueless. I worked over 3 years with cops in NYC and you have no idea what happens there. I imagine your cousin is an extreme left wing gun advocate too like you. Does the VA Gov Northam still wear black face and dress up in KKK outfits?

 

[Bubblehide]

Yes thats exactly what that means.

You sir are entitled to your opinion and to support whatever behavior you want, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[TheGDog]

So many things messed up with this case on the both sides of the arguments.

First, raise your hand if you would place a gun on a table and ask your wife to kill you. That is batshit crazy stupid. Irresponsible handling of a firearm. If his wife told the police the specifics of the story (he pulled out a gun), they had every right to confiscate his guns based on the threat to his wife’s life. However, i think arresting him for brandishing a firearm in a threatning manner, then a warrant to confiscate his guns should have been the path police took. I do not agree with the officers approach in this case. Based on the details of the case provided in the article, they seem like ahole morons abusing power.

Look, I fully agree no cop should be allowed to come in your home and take anything without a warrant. I want our 4th and 2nd admendment rights to stand, but in this scenario, a lot of blame goes to Edward for being an irresponsible gun owner IMO.

People like Edward, individuals who open carry, those who push back on reasonable background check laws, are what is adding fuel to the anti-gun brushfire.

Again, just my opinion. I want and believe the case at the supreme court should not open up the door to more unwarranted searches. And I loathe the anti-gun movements that use cases like this to try and ban or get guns confiscated once and for all.

But the response from the gun community may be better served to focus on Edward’s reckless endangerment of his wife and how he should have been arrested, versus “the government is coming to take our guns” rhetoric. Once we show sympthay for the victim in that situation, then maybe others will hear our calls to not overreact by implementing the wrong laws.

At least thats how I’ll approach the converstation with my anti-gun friends who are likely practicing their debate with me about this incident, and the Colorado shooting, right now as I type this.

Hrmmm... Could have sworn they straight out said the dude unloaded it first before using it as an attention-getter to snap his wife outta that mentally-abusive state she was in and persisting with in that moment. Therefore miss me with all this talk of "reckless endangerment" bullshit.

Before you go and judge this dude, you may want to walk a mile in his shoes first. Have you never dealt with a crazy bitch before? If not, very cool. Consider yourself extremely lucky. But... I hazard to guess that you have at some point in your life, therefore you should have some clue of what it's like dealing with one, and thus cut this dude some slack. He was obviously using that ploy to snap her out of that certain state she was in at the time. If you've never had to deal with a female like that, consider yourself very lucky.

 

[Rob5589]

View attachment 276996

Yep, based on that pic, damn near all white

 

[Red Letters]

Your correct, but if there is a report of poaching with minimal evidence, they certainly can and often do.

There doesn't have to be a report of anything, if you are on a public waterway, they will board your boat and go through everything on it. I watch a game warden show on tv and they arrest people regularly for drugs found going through girls purses, pockets and billfolds of people during those type searches.
I've read where they have installed cameras on private property in hopes of finding a violation. Another case where they raided a falconers home, put the guy in handcuffs because they thought he had an unlicensed bird...he didn't.
I didn't bring this up to start GW bashing, but they operate way outside of protections the 4th Amendment supposably spells out for us. Not a stretch to think something like in the OP is coming. Remember this is before the same Supreme Court that just ruled that NY prosecutors could dig through years of Trumps tax returns, not because they know of any criminal activity.....but because they HOPE TO FIND criminal activity.

 

[Ratbeetle]

This entire administration is a joke and the democratic party is disgusting. If you voted for Biden you should be ashamed of yourself.

Today's "press conference"...just wow.

Congrats Biden voters, you elected someone with severe cognitive problems to the most powerful office in the world.

But hey, at least he's not tweeting means things, right. Morons.

 

[Bubblehide]

There doesn't have to be a report of anything, if you are on a public waterway, they will board your boat and go through everything on it. I watch a game warden show on tv and they arrest people regularly for drugs found during those type searches.
I've read where they have installed cameras on private property in hopes of finding a violation. Another case where they raided a falconers home, put the guy in handcuffs because they thought he had an unlicensed bird...he didn't.
I didn't bring this up to start GW bashing, but they operate way outside of protections the 4th Amendment supposably spells out for us. Not a stretch to think something like in the OP is coming.

That directly relates to what I said earlier, If you are fishing, hunting or on your way to or from fishing or hunting, Wardens have the legal right to search despite the 4th amendment.

 

[Red Letters]

That directly relates to what I said earlier, If you are fishing, hunting or on your way to or from fishing or hunting, Wardens have the legal right to search despite the 4th amendment.

I wasn't disagreeing with you just adding to your post off my soapbox. I hear people say all the time they can't do the types of searches mentioned, evidently they can, because they do them regularly.

BTW I edited the post you quoted

 

[Bubblehide]

I wasn't disagreeing with you just adding to your post off my soapbox. I hear people say all the time they can't do the types of searches mentioned, evidently they can, because they do them regularly.

BTW I edited the post you quoted

No worries, I appreciate it. I was just clarifying, as it appears that some here do not understand Prima Facie laws.

 

[ozyclint]

Terrorist :
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Hmmm...........but that's what the Government does.

 

[Squincher]

That directly relates to what I said earlier, If you are fishing, hunting or on your way to or from fishing or hunting, Wardens have the legal right to search despite the 4th amendment.

Can you find that in writing somewhere? Because as I posted earlier, the USFWS doesn't know anything about it. Not saying you are less an authority on wildlife law than them, but........just sayin'.

 

[Bubblehide]

Can you find that in writing somewhere? Because as I posted earlier, the USFWS doesn't know anything about it. Not saying you are less an authority on wildlife law than them, but........just sayin'.

Dude-bro, don't be lazy, google is your friend; ..........just sayin.

What’s the Level of Wildlife Officers’ Search Authority?

What’s the Level of Wildlife Officers’ Search Authority? Helping friends fill their deer tags? Fishing for rockfish and fishing crab snares simultaneously? Pelagic red crabs.

californiaoutdoors.wordpress.com

445 FW 1, Searches and Seizures, Fish and Wildlife Service ...​

www.fws.gov › policy




Oct 23, 2007 — The Airborne Hunting Act. This statute authorizes Service officers to search with or without a warrant (16 U.S.C. 742j-1(d)).

https://www.slu.edu/law/law-journal/pdfs/issues-archive/v62-no3/travis_mclain_comment.pdf

Outdoor Report: State AG says DFW wardens can violate Fourth Amendment

In startling testimony before the Fish and Game Commission recently, the Attorney General’s office said Department of Fish and Wildlife wardens can

www.vvdailypress.com

It's the Law

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5423&context=lalrev

 

[Bubblehide]

Why don't game wardens need warrants? Isn't that unconstitutional?

Answer (1 of 13): Game wardens don't need a warrant because if you're suspected of committing a crime like over the daily limit of fish or an untagged dear in your home we're allowed to enter with no warrant, even if we didn't see you do it.

www.quora.com

 

[Squincher]

Dude-bro, don't be lazy, google is your friend; ..........just sayin.

What’s the Level of Wildlife Officers’ Search Authority?

What’s the Level of Wildlife Officers’ Search Authority? Helping friends fill their deer tags? Fishing for rockfish and fishing crab snares simultaneously? Pelagic red crabs.

californiaoutdoors.wordpress.com

445 FW 1, Searches and Seizures, Fish and Wildlife Service ...​

www.fws.gov › policy




Oct 23, 2007 — The Airborne Hunting Act. This statute authorizes Service officers to search with or without a warrant (16 U.S.C. 742j-1(d)).

https://www.slu.edu/law/law-journal/pdfs/issues-archive/v62-no3/travis_mclain_comment.pdf

Outdoor Report: State AG says DFW wardens can violate Fourth Amendment

In startling testimony before the Fish and Game Commission recently, the Attorney General’s office said Department of Fish and Wildlife wardens can

www.vvdailypress.com

It's the Law

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5423&context=lalrev

The actual statute in the blurb from California appears to apply to commercially licensed operations.

The link to FWS.gov lays out exactly the same search and seizure laws that apply to any LEO.

The others are Law Journal Articles expressing the opinions of the authors, and news article about an AG's opinion (with no mention of any actual cases involved).

 

[Squincher]

Why don't game wardens need warrants? Isn't that unconstitutional?

Answer (1 of 13): Game wardens don't need a warrant because if you're suspected of committing a crime like over the daily limit of fish or an untagged dear in your home we're allowed to enter with no warrant, even if we didn't see you do it.

www.quora.com

No LEO would need a search warrant in that situation. Warrantless probable cause searches of vehicles during traffic stops is an exception to the search warrant requirement that is allowed for any LEO.

Did you read any of the things you posted, or do you just not understand them?

 

[Bubblehide]

No LEO would need a search warrant in that situation. Warrantless probable cause searches of vehicles during traffic stops is an exception to the search warrant requirement that is allowed for any LEO.

Did you read any of the things you posted, or do you just not understand them?

Did you read the last one?

 

[TheGDog]

People like Edward, individuals who open carry, those who push back on reasonable background check laws, are what is adding fuel to the anti-gun brushfire.

What do you define as a "reasonable" background check law?

Do YOU think it's "reasonable" for your governance to have a national registry of what you have?

What nefarious things can be done with such a registry? (confiscation)

What happens if somebody manages to hack into this registry? (shopping list for crooks)

What happens if you move your residence and forget to kindly tell your looky-loo govt you've moved those guns as well, within some brief window of time they will hold you to and you then become a felon, at which point you've given them carte blanche to come take your shit?

If your weapons are on a registry, this effectively gives them a way to just up and create a legal scenario whereby you are not in compliance with their future unethical laws, thus manufacturing the "reasonable" conditions under which they will then be "justified" in their confiscation of your property and the subsequent further loss of your rights going forward. And all of it... thought up by some dis-connect SJW snowflake lacking a grasp of how the real-world works.

 

[brocksw]

I agree. Violates the 4th amendment at the very least. Indefensible.

Just as indefensible as when Trump said this same exact thing, for the same exact reason.

Instead of starting a new thread we could've just continued on the thread that was started when Trump made those same comments.

Trump puts NRA on defensive with stunning gun comments

President Trump has touched off new tensions with the National Rifle Association after urging Republican lawmakers not to be "afraid" of the powerful gun lobby and openly entertaining more gun restrictions during a rare public debate with Hill leaders.

www.foxnews.com

 

[DWhitt]

Gee, that sounds like the rallying cry of the people who invaded the U.S. Capital. Look where it got 400+ of them, and still counting.

Not everyone is Patriots.., some like to sit back and watch the country and our freedoms go down the toilet while others post on rockslide about how they cant believe people are doing that. But its ok....BHA is fighting for public lands