SCOTUS finally takes a gun case

This really is a 4th amendment case, not a 2nd. Sure the guy owned guns, but the core issue seems to be the legality of the search.

Wow. Riveting. Just look at them go. I’m sure this will turn out great for firearms owners...

Having zero faith in “elected officials” and even less in appointed ones, I will use my Fakir powers and predict the outcome...

Yup. We lose another right to privacy and personal property. After all, society comes before the individual.
They would have chosen a different case if not.

Hahaha, they are not going to choose a case that gives us more rights, or clearly states our rights for posterity.
They should.
But they won’t.

I do not see the courts taking back all of the special privileges they have given government agents to violate our rights. This is one of those things where you look at it and say if there's ever a case where government should have gotten a search warrant first, this is certainly it. But you can bet your bottom dollar the courts are going to carve off another chunk of our rights.

I don't recall any of these exceptions actually being in the Constitution anywhere. The courts just made them up whole hat.

Link is dead w/ 404 error page.

What happened to "interpretation of the Constitution as written" ?

I'm crossing my fingers that the FOID case here in Illinois works its way to SCOTUS. The fact that by law the state has 30 days to issue one and the current wait time is nearly 120 days adds ammunition (pun intended) to the case IMO. Constitutionality of charging a fee for the exercise of a right aside (which I think is the best argument against it), if the state can't meet their own requirements in the law it clearly needs to be thrown out.

wiscoaster said:

Link is dead w/ 404 error page.

Click to expand...

The website seems to have taken some kind of precautions to prevent people from linking to their articles.

Ahhhh ... no hotlinks allowed. Got it. Thanks....

hotlink: a web link published on one website that links to a page on another (external) website without going through the other website's "front door" (which can detect where the http request is coming from). If the link is to a resource (such as an image) hosted by the external website, then that link is automatically accessed and reloaded to render the page where it's referenced, resulting in bandwidth usage on the external site's host server without any benefit to publishing its own website.

Thanks for finding and posting a working link.

^^ Thanks, I always wondered exactly what hotlink meant.

There are times I think the Courts are in the employ of the government to protect government's rights.

Oh, wait...

Never mind.

BigBL87 said:

I'm crossing my fingers that the FOID case here in Illinois works its way to SCOTUS. The fact that by law the state has 30 days to issue one and the current wait time is nearly 120 days adds ammunition (pun intended) to the case IMO. Constitutionality of charging a fee for the exercise of a right aside (which I think is the best argument against it), if the state can't meet their own requirements in the law it clearly needs to be thrown out.

Click to expand...

That would be a good one.
This case may be dipping our toes in the water. If it turns out well...
It may just be another gesture of "see we're doing something".

Note: above post #11 edited to expand on hotlink explanation, including why it's frowned on.

wiscoaster said:

then that link is automatically accessed and reloaded to render the page where it's referenced, resulting in bandwidth usage on the external site's host server without any benefit to publishing its own website.

Click to expand...

Web Admins can frown on this for that very reason--the local server winds up with a copy of the image taking up disk space. Images can be a real burden on data storage.

Also image owners can be very snooty about just who has their images (koff Photobucket koff)

Which is one more thing to be thankful for--our web admins here are incredibly liberal about images.

This case is probably important as a 4th Amendment case (which affects us all). If you are in a car wreck, and go to the hospital, does that give "the authorities" free reign to go toss your domicile?

There will always be griping about what cases get cert before the Court, too. IIRC SCOTUS is sent a bit more than 3000 cases per year, and can only hear about 400, fewer if thorny issues. So, many issues will not meet certitori.

Now, there is a 2A side to this, too--the specific case was a Red Flag without even bothering to Red Flag. Even in places that have RFL, following the procedure ought to be implicit.

230RN said:

There are times I think the Courts are in the employ of the government to protect government's rights.

Click to expand...

When was the last time the courts actually ruled in favor of individual rights? I can't remember it actually ever happening. There are cases like Brown versus Board of Education that people bring up but those were really mostly about the power of the federal government to enforce its powers against states.

People might also mention Miranda but really Miranda is no about enforcement of any rights but some crazy idea that government has to inform you of your rights. I don't see this anywhere in the constitution either.

ilbob said:

When was the last time the courts actually ruled in favor of individual rights? I can't remember it actually ever happening. There are cases like Brown versus Board of Education that people bring up but those were really mostly about the power of the federal government to enforce its powers against states.

People might also mention Miranda but really Miranda is no about enforcement of any rights but some crazy idea that government has to inform you of your rights. I don't see this anywhere in the constitution either.

Click to expand...

Heller v. D.C. affirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, so there's that. The fact that the dissent expressed an opinion that it is not an individual right but a collective one is very concerning though.

Starting to wander, folks. Is this case really a focused gun case that will change the landscape of existing state infringements of rights (bans, carry, etc.) or potential federal actions?

If not, it's not really news for us to ponder.

GEM said:

If not, it's not really news for us to ponder.

Click to expand...

For 2¢ we need more info.
If this was a half-donkey-ed Red Flag, then, it's decidedly "gun" related.
If it's just about taking advantage of a comatose patient, that's going to be less so.

The published bit about the pt being "on suicide watch" may be the key factual item for THR.

One should understand SCOTUS cannot act unless two District Courts issue contrary decisions on the same matter. They cannot simply pick their preference of cases without regard to legal complications.

Amy Coney Barrett

Do her views as an "originalist" increase the chance of her ruling for individual rights in this type of case?

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

ilbob said:

When was the last time the courts actually ruled in favor of individual rights? I can't remember it actually ever happening. There are cases like Brown versus Board of Education that people bring up but those were really mostly about the power of the federal government to enforce its powers against states.

People might also mention Miranda but really Miranda is no about enforcement of any rights but some crazy idea that government has to inform you of your rights. I don't see this anywhere in the constitution either.

Click to expand...

Brown concerned state and local governments, not the Federal government.

The Brown Court held that segregation policies in education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A ruling clearly in favor of individual rights.

The same is true of Miranda v. Arizona; holding that government must inform citizens of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments – another victory for individual rights limiting the authority of the state.

More recent examples of the Court ruling in favor of individual right is Obergefell v. Hodges, upholding the 14th Amendment right of same-sex couples from government excess and overreach, and June Medical Services v. Russo reaffirming the right of individuals to be free from government interference concerning citizens’ private lives.

And the case in the OP seeks to limit the authority of the state and government’s search and seizure powers to the benefit of individual rights.

The courts often in favor of individual rights.

jdc1244 said:

The courts often rule in favor of individual rights.

Click to expand...

And those are your examples? They have to tell us of our rights as they arrest and jail us, and the government doesn’t get to interfere in elective medical operations? That’s us winning?

jdc1244 said:

holding that government must inform citizens of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments – another victory for individual rights limiting the authority of the state.

Click to expand...

How does that limit any of their authority as they put you in a cruiser?

I hate to be the Doubting Thomas, but with the way things fall, it’d be better if they never took a firearms case again.

It would be great if, in a time of vulnerability, the government didn’t steal your possessions.
The fact that we need a court case to provide for it is depressing. Especially since it will have no effect on the executive firearm confiscation they desperately clamor for at every turn.

jdc1244 said:

Brown concerned state and local governments, not the Federal government.

The Brown Court held that segregation policies in education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A ruling clearly in favor of individual rights.

The same is true of Miranda v. Arizona; holding that government must inform citizens of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments – another victory for individual rights limiting the authority of the state.

More recent examples of the Court ruling in favor of individual right is Obergefell v. Hodges, upholding the 14th Amendment right of same-sex couples from government excess and overreach, and June Medical Services v. Russo reaffirming the right of individuals to be free from government interference concerning citizens’ private lives.

And the case in the OP seeks to limit the authority of the state and government’s search and seizure powers to the benefit of individual rights.

The courts often in favor of individual rights.

Click to expand...

Brown was very clearly about the power of the federal government over states. Had very little to do with individual rights, other than as a side issue. It was mostly about the 14th amendment which is part of the Federal Constitution I might add, to empower the federal government to overrule state governments. Whatever individual rights were involved was a side issue.

Miranda involved the bizarre idea that government somehow had to tell you what your rights were. This is not anywhere in any constitution that I'm aware of. So not really about rights.

As for abortion and homosex, again these are not in the constitution anywhere. The courts just made them up out of thin air. I always find it curious that there's some kind of right of privacy to have an abortion or homosex but no other right of privacy seems to exist.