SCOTUS Rules 9-0 Rejecting Warrantless Seizure Of Guns From Home — Cites Violation Of Fourth Amendment

Written by K. Walker on May 18, 2021

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

Bad news, gun grabbers. Even activist justices are backing up the rights of the citizen in this case.

This is exactly the kind of ‘red flag’ case people like Biden would love to use to hammer gun owners. If you can’t prevent the ownership of guns altogether, the next closest thing is find some pretext to take them away.

What is the problem with such cases? Simple. The allegations are not always legitimate. The gun owner’s rights still come into play, including, one might argue, the presumption of innocence.

A Rhode Island case has made it’s way to the Supreme Court where it managed to receive a 9-0 unanimous ruling.

Police responded to a domestic disturbance call at Mr. Caniglia’s place of residence. His wife alleged he was suicidal, and the two handguns in his home were confiscated. There was no record of violence or any other criminal history on Caniglia’s part.

Charges were not laid, and the homeowner agreed to a psychological evaluation. When his guns were not returned to him by the police, he lawyered up, claiming his 4th Amendment had been infringed. SCOTUS agreed.

“The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. “The ‘very core’ of this guarantee is ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’” —WashingtonTimes

The rule allowing for the search of a motor vehicle is a very different principle than walking through a citizen’s home.

The community caretaker standard was first described in the 1973 case of Cady v. Dombrowski in which the Supreme Court ruled that police can legally search a vehicle in its possession following the arrest of an intoxicated driver. The exception has since been applied in cases when a search is not part of a criminal investigation.

But the high court said Monday that cars and homes should be treated differently, because law enforcement responds to accidents on the highway.

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Thomas wrote. —WashingtonTimes

We may not taken issue with a number of their rulings in the past year or so, but at least they were all on the same page backing up the rights of a citizen in his own home.

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll