RED FLAG LAWS: Supreme Court to Decide Whether Police Can Enter Your House, Seize Your Guns Without a Warrant

A case before the US Supreme Court Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement officers have the right, under the 4th Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, to enter your house and take your legally owned firearm(s) without a warrant.

The High Court has announced it will hear the case of Caniglia v. Storm. This case centers around 68-year-old Edward Caniglia of Cranston Rhode Island who asserts that police officers illegally seized his firearms after a wellness investigation initiated by Caniglia’s wife. These are the type of actions made possible by Red Flag Laws.

In 2015, Mr. and Mrs. Caniglia had an argument, during which Mr. Caniglia dramatically placed an unloaded handgun on the table telling his wife “shoot me now and get it over with.” In the end, Mrs. Caniglia spent the night at a local hotel.

The next morning, when Mrs. Caniglia couldn’t reach her husband, she called police to execute a “wellness check” at their home fearing her husband may have become suicidal.

After interviewing Caniglia, the police officers were able to convince him to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation on the promise that his firearms would not be confiscated or removed from the house by law enforcement. Caniglia was examined by a nurse and a social worker and discharged that same day.

During Caniglia’s psychiatric examination, police officers searched the house on information from Mrs. Caniglia that her husband owned two firearms. Without a warrant – and after promising Mr. Caniglia that his firearms would not be confiscated, police seized Caniglia’s firearms and on several occasions afterward refused to return them to Caniglia.

Caniglia fled suit claiming that the warrantless search and subsequent seizure of firearms by police action violated his 4th Amendment rights.

OMG - how can this even go up to the Supreme Court. We have the right to bare arms. "

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments." (https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html)

Unfortunately with some of the rulings coming out of the Supreme Court lately, I am concerned.

Replies

Robert Schock February 9, 2021 at 5:03pm

PLEASE don't come here for the few I have. REALLY don't think the local cops would have the balls to start out here in the country especially if you haven't broken any laws?!?!?!?!?!!?
- Skeptical > Robert Schock February 9, 2021 at 6:24pm
  
  If a vet came to hank a dogs healthy teeth, would you be surprised if he bit?
  
  So, should we be surprised too?
Skeptical February 9, 2021 at 2:18pm

Government has not the competence. But would it try?
Andy Withers February 9, 2021 at 12:46pm

And these cops and local politicians are AMAZED that anyone would file suit against their CLEARLY unconstitutional actions!!!

DISGUSTING.
Loenzo Gonzales February 9, 2021 at 10:01am

This is an attack on our Second Amendment and the Supreme Court should make it loude and clear the Constitution of the United States belongs to the people not the government.
- Jeff Noncent > Loenzo Gonzales February 10, 2021 at 7:37am
  
  This is as n attack between Evil and God therefore God has the final word
Oleg Gielman February 9, 2021 at 9:02am

Typical institutional lunacy, just find one example of an idiot and use it as an excuse to apply a new law on a "collective" of hundreds of millions
Jeff Noncent February 9, 2021 at 8:58am

this is bull crap.
Martha A Loew February 9, 2021 at 8:07am
OMG - how can this even go up to the Supreme Court. We have the right to bare arms. "

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:
- The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
- The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
- The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
- The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
- The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments." (https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html)
Unfortunately with some of the rulings coming out of the Supreme Court lately, I am concerned.
Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy has been narrowly defined by case law and various statutes.
- Les Landers > Martha A Loew February 9, 2021 at 5:14pm
  
  Your are right, the Supreme Cowardice Court of AMERICA has proven it self incompitent to stand up for the CONSTUTION of These United STATES of AMERICA, in numerous, especially recient rulings.

of 3

This reply was deleted.