Biden’s administration gives out orders without previously questioning them, without discussing them with certain involved institutions!
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
And this order was given to the Supreme Court!
According to the Fourth Amendment, a warrant is needed if the police want to seize a weapon from an individual who has a licence and a permit to have it.
But the new instructions given out by Biden’s administration is surpassing this rule when it comes to possible information or threat from suicide. In those cases, the police can step inside the house and seize the weapons from the owner, without the need of a warrant.
“The case comes as President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats press for aggressive new restrictions on Second Amendment gun ownership rights, including controversial “red flag” laws, which allow gun seizures from law-abiding gun owners with limited due process, in the wake of highly publicized deadly mass shootings at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket on March 22 and at Atlanta-area spas on March 16,” the Epoch Times reports.
“In the case at hand, the Biden administration argued for expanding government power, telling the Supreme Court that police should be allowed to enter homes without a warrant to seize handguns.”
Two cases were discussed:
- Caniglia v. Strom, court file 20-157, (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-157.html) and
- Cady v. Dombrowski – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/433/(1973)
During the oral arguments, Department of Justice lawyer Morgan Ratner supported the city’s position, further arguing that this case was “fundamentally different from most of the court’s other Fourth Amendment cases because the question is not act now or get a warrant first. It’s act now or not at all.”
“There’s no warrant process in many non-investigatory situations, from welfare checks on elderly residents to intervention in current suicide threats,” she stated.
“Although there have been a lot of questions this morning about whether this is emergency aid or exigent circumstances or community caretaking or something else, the label you give it is not nearly as important as the principle. And the key principle is if someone is at risk of serious harm and it’s reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough,” Ratner said.
What do you have to say about this subject?
I, for once, am truly confused and can’t seem to make up my mind, since I do respect community caretaking, but I’m afraid of possible corruption in this field from the officers. Since, I think they already have their hand pretty much untied…
