Unlawful search and seizure may just become the norm...
- Thread starter Peglegjoe
- Start date
HansGruber
Ronin
Hate to break it to you, but:
If SCOTUS rules in favor of the gov’t on this one...they cannot be unlawful searches, by definition.
(do NOT take this as thinking I agree with the gov’ts position; I most certainly do not—however, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t lawful/Constitutional...so if they say such searches/seizures are lawful, they are lawful; that’s the way it works)
If SCOTUS rules in favor of the gov’t on this one...they cannot be unlawful searches, by definition.
(do NOT take this as thinking I agree with the gov’ts position; I most certainly do not—however, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t lawful/Constitutional...so if they say such searches/seizures are lawful, they are lawful; that’s the way it works)
C. Sumpin
Custom
With most things Soviet, the programs have fits and starts and not generally in fell swoops but over process of time and failures and for however long it takes the end result will appear. As in hunting game; often won't be heard or noticed but after a long wait it appears, as it had been there all along - a deer in the dawn or dusk. So it is likely to be with the 2nd, as it already is with the 1st., the law will be there and you'll be unable to pinpoint when it arrived and then decision time.......do you submit or accept the consequences?
Personally, I don't trust any of the three branches of Government to preserve our God given rights; it's as if the three are slowly joining forces against us (and our Constitution). And the kicker? Some of your neighbors will have swallowed the propaganda and lies and now believe Uncle Sam is correct, others will know better but be too cowardly to speak or act. And the pubic schools will instruct your children it is honorable to snitch on you. Being a firearms enthusiast is going to be a lonely position.
Faith is the force of life.
Tolstoy
Personally, I don't trust any of the three branches of Government to preserve our God given rights; it's as if the three are slowly joining forces against us (and our Constitution). And the kicker? Some of your neighbors will have swallowed the propaganda and lies and now believe Uncle Sam is correct, others will know better but be too cowardly to speak or act. And the pubic schools will instruct your children it is honorable to snitch on you. Being a firearms enthusiast is going to be a lonely position.
Faith is the force of life.
Tolstoy
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
In this particular case especially ...... sad, sad, sad but true!
Han's, Going along with what you stated, I do agree with what you're saying.
But, look at results of alcohol prohibition for example? Crime and gun deaths rates soared and taxes dwindled because of it until prohibition was repealed. It was partial reason for banning machine guns too if remember right. Personally, I see if a gun prohibition was enacted that the outcome would likely mean much more crime and far worse than the 1st prohibition. It wouldn't be a good time at all for anyone.
wmg1299
Professional
This case centers on a very complex issue, and many commentators on both sides are missing the bigger picture. The issue of warrantless searches is often approached by listing the type of situations that allow for an exception to the warrant requirement. This serves as a distraction that takes focus away from the larger threat to personal liberties.
SCOTUS has recently been requiring LEO's to get warrants in more situations than in the past. The Court's reasoning is based on the fact that technology now allows officers to apply for warrants electronically with relative ease. Officers no longer have to head to the police station to type and print a warrant, then "wake up a judge" by driving the warrant to the judge's home for a signature. Therefore, the entire issue of warrantless searches is becoming moot.
Arguing about which particular emergencies are exigent enough to require officers to act immediately becomes irrelevant when Red Flag Laws allow police to obtain warrants based on "community caretaking" instead of probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed. We don't need to be overly concerned about which situations require a warrant. We need to focus on what sort of evidence justifies a warrant being issued in the first place.
SCOTUS has recently been requiring LEO's to get warrants in more situations than in the past. The Court's reasoning is based on the fact that technology now allows officers to apply for warrants electronically with relative ease. Officers no longer have to head to the police station to type and print a warrant, then "wake up a judge" by driving the warrant to the judge's home for a signature. Therefore, the entire issue of warrantless searches is becoming moot.
Arguing about which particular emergencies are exigent enough to require officers to act immediately becomes irrelevant when Red Flag Laws allow police to obtain warrants based on "community caretaking" instead of probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed. We don't need to be overly concerned about which situations require a warrant. We need to focus on what sort of evidence justifies a warrant being issued in the first place.
Good point. Wasn't over looked by me, just not mentioned is all.
Can see "wellness checks" becoming abused as well.
wmg1299
Professional
I may have misused the term "commentators". I was referring to the supposed legal experts appearing on cable news networks (both left and right) to discuss the issue. I was not referring to forum users commenting on our posts. I apologize if any of the forum members thought I was talking about their posted replies.
No issue here!
Keystone19250
SAINT
Well written post but “God” had nothing to do with writing the constitution, it was the founding fathers of an extremely old government that obviously had a group of people that was more level headed then our current government. The times they are a changing.
C. Sumpin
Custom
With all due respect: The founding fathers, to a man as far as we know, were all men of deep Faith, referring often to God and spiritual matters and specifically stating that our rights were God given, not Government granted! but to be protected by Government; "laws of nature and nature's God", "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" God had plenty to do with the writing of the Declaration of Independence of The United State of America and our Constitution; next to the Scriptures perhaps the most Eloquent & Inspired words recorded. The "extremely old government" you refer to was a single individual, a King and a Tyrant. As far as being "level headed", that is better done with Faith and a God based value system, nor is any world view accurate in the absence of it. It is agreed " the times they are a changing".
HansGruber
Ronin
And Jefferson wasn’t a particularly fervent one, either.
Christians?
Both Franklin and Jefferson were heavily into science and how things were created and worked.
In a sense, were the opposite direction, with a common goal with Christians. Sort of a realized balance?
Christianity and science are generally considered opposites even though far from true.
Both Franklin and Jefferson were heavily into science and how things were created and worked.
In a sense, were the opposite direction, with a common goal with Christians. Sort of a realized balance?
Christianity and science are generally considered opposites even though far from true.
Peglegjoe
Professional
From catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/misquoting-our-founding-fathers.html which has many more quotes from our Founding Fathers.
They ABSOLUTELY believed in God, and His place in civilized society (and the government thereof).
The Second Amendment is not "permission" for us to bear arms; it is an enumeration of the fact that self-protection is a God-given right to all of mankind, and a guarantee that the government of the United States of America would not be able to remove that God-given right from any man, for any reason.
HansGruber
Ronin
I’ve found the trend lately to almost...deify...the founders profoundly disturbing.
The were men. Flawed men, at that. We ignore, or at best gloss over that, at our risk.
The were men. Flawed men, at that. We ignore, or at best gloss over that, at our risk.
"Christianity and science are generally considered opposites even though far from true."
- The Vatican has a vast science collection. Many priests are also scientists, astronomers, economists, ect.
Also have a very nice gun collection from what have heard.
Yup, they were human. Many frailties there.
Risks? Too many times media glorifies pedestals and forgets what that pedestal is actually made of or meant for? As in misguided likely innocent miffs of George Washington and chopping down cherry trees perpetuate untruths as being okay when they also mislead? If one's okay, the next miff is too? Fabrications of truth can also be it's destruction.
The foundations of anything are also the basic building blocks that are meant to guide and build future improvements on top of and not meant to destroy the very foundations upon which they stand. Sadly, too many politicians don't see that?
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
I won't, nor do I care to debate which founders were or were not Christians, but I do think they all 'in general' believed in a higher power. I also think they were pretty much in agreement when the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Any way you cut it, there are certain rights that are inalienable. They are not gov't given, they are not provided by any man, and no man should be allowed to take them away...... the 2nd is one of the most important in my mind. Every man should have the right to self defense and preservation without infringement.
Any way you cut it, there are certain rights that are inalienable. They are not gov't given, they are not provided by any man, and no man should be allowed to take them away...... the 2nd is one of the most important in my mind. Every man should have the right to self defense and preservation without infringement.