Will Supremes Biden Unleash Red Raids Gun Raids?
President Joe Biden started his first attack on the second change This week he made it clear his intention to radically restrict Americans’ legal rights to own firearms. The White House boasted that Biden was nominating a “wild” lawyer David Chipman, head of the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Agency (ATF). Chipman, a former ATF agent, is so committed to banning offensive weapons that he is lied brashly last year on the 1993 federal attack in Waco alleging that Branch Davidians shot down two National Guard helicopters attack their home. Chipman, a Phillips Exeter Academy graduate who carries a hidden weapon himself, was an ATF case agent at the David Branch survivors’ trial in 1994, so he had no excuse for throwing this anti-weapon tale away.
Perhaps the greatest threat Biden has uncovered is his call for a national “red flag” law that allows police to preventively restrict the weapons of those accused of being a threat to themselves or others confiscate. The red flag laws were notorious trample due process and spur unjustified police raids that led to it killing innocent gun owners. It is naive to expect a fair game of gun owners’ rights when the politicians who pursue such policies are openly looking for excuses to disarm as many Americans as possible. Biden’s call for a red flag law could become far more dangerous to constitutional rights if the Supreme Court a potentially landmark case of arms seizure This could lift the prohibition of the fourth amendment against searches without guarantee. The Court heard arguments on the case last month and a decision is expected by June.
In 2015, after an elderly couple had a heated argument, Edward Caniglia put an unloaded revolver on the table and mocked his wife, “Why not? just shoot me and get me out of my misery? “His wife Kim was scared and had to stay in a hotel. When he didn’t answer the next morning, she called the police and asked them to check on him.
The police arrived and beat Edward Caniglia for a psychiatric examination in a hospital. He only agreed after the police promised not to confiscate his handguns. The psychiatrists confirmed him as healthy (by Rhode Island standards at least) and he returned home to find out that the police had confiscated his weapons. Both he and his wife applied for the weapons to be returned. Police refused to do so until Caniglia, who had never used violence or firearms in the past, filed a lawsuit. Caniglia also sued the City of Cranston and police officers for violating its constitutional rights.
At first glance, his case rested on a solid precedent. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980“It is a rationale of the Fourth Amendment Act that searches and seizures of a home without a warrant are believed to be inappropriate.” In 1948, declared the Supreme Court that the sanctity of private homes “is too precious to be entrusted to the discretion of those whose job it is to detect crime and arrest criminals”. But the police and their supporters relied on a tremendous extension of a 1973 Supreme Court decision made justified a warranty-free “inventory search” of a rental car to look for the revolver of a police officer in the trunk under the exception rule “Community Caretaking” for the fourth amendment. A federal judge and federal appeals court ruling in favor of the Rhode Island Police Department effectively concluded that a private home is “close enough for government work” to a rental car to warrant unfounded searches.
But what about that call to go to the 1967 Supreme Court? Decision that explains“Wherever a man is, he has the right to know that he will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” No problem, according to the first Amicus letter the Biden administration submitted to the Supreme Court. According to the Biden administrationThe only question in the Rhode Island case was whether the actions of the police officers in the case were “objectively reasonable”. Constitutional rights were practically controversial as the Cranston police were only concerned with “an impending security threat from the unjustifiable seizure of a potentially mentally unstable person and entry into their residence for the limited purpose of firearm removal”. For the Biden legal team, “seizure” was “removed” as smoothly as one of Falstaff’s servants turned “steal” into “transmit”.
On the same side of the fight, Marc DeSisto, the attorney who represents the Cranston cops, explained“The fourth change has only one test and that means that searches and seizures must not be inappropriate.” DeSisto was not required to take a literacy test and may have been unaware of the passage in the Fourth Amendment on Americans’ Right to Be Safe Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Unknown, and warrants are not issued, but out Probable reasons supported by an oath or confirmation and in particular by a description of the place to be searched and the people or things to be confiscated. “DeSisto and the Biden Administration believe that warrants are unnecessary, if not irrelevant, every time government officials claim that it is” reasonable “to enter someone’s home without a warrant” to ensure public health and safety ” . And who defines “reasonableness”? The same government officials who violate the constitution. As judge Stephen Breyer commented“If you make a janitorial exception and you read that into the word” sensible “there is no stopping. We don’t know how far we’re going to go.”
Lawyer Shay Dvoretzky, who represented Caniglia before the Court, warned,
“Almost every crime has an impact on public safety. So if you waive the warranty obligation when the police can point out a health or safety motive, the fourth change will be withdrawn. Virtually every criminal situation can also be described in terms of health or safety. In any drug or alcohol situation, the police could simply tell them to go inside to make sure the suspect is safe. “
As Justice Neil Gorsuch asked“What does the government do if it’s not about health or safety?” Lawyer at the Institute of Justice Joshua Windham wrote“A rule that allows the police to break into your home without a warrant if they feel like ‘community administrators’ is a threat to everyone’s safety.” A joint effort by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, and American Conservative Union Foundation warned this maintenance The Rhode Island search could “give the police free rein to enter the house for no probable reason or warrant” and would be “unwise”, unmanageable and unnecessary, and it opens the door to police abusive behavior. ”
The Biden administration’s hostility to the second amendment has increased the stakes on the Rhode Island case. The Second Amendment Law Center, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and California Gun Owners warned the Supreme Court The
Fourth amendment does not include a “guns” exception … The extension of the “community caretaking” exception to the house is used by the police in jurisdictions with incriminating or constitutionally questionable gun restrictions to turn any call into a house into a search for guns transform the pretext to help those present. “
Anyone who doubts whether legitimate “church maintenance” could open an authoritarian Pandora’s box should read the minutes of the Supreme Court hearing. Lawyer DeSisto claimed that the nursing doctrine would also authorize police raids to enforce mandatory COVID mask requirements when “they can see that many people have gathered who are not wearing masks”. Governor Cuomo is the bell tower here again. In November, Cuomo sentenced the New York District sheriffs for acts like a “dictator” because they refused to forcibly enter private homes in order to enforce Cuomo’s mask mandate. Since the pandemic began, Biden has ripped open masks like a silver bullet to beat COVID-19 (regardless of the fact that tens of millions of Americans have been infected with the virus since the mask Compliance reached over 80 percent in public places). Biden has already contracted Wearing masks in national parks and on federal property. How far could it go if there is another spike in Covid cases?
Justice Sandra Sotomayor commented during the hearing“If we allow the police to search and seize without a standard, we run the risk of situations like this occurring [Rhode Island case] to repeat. “ However, many Antigun activists view the case as a model rather than a glitch in the legal system. Some court observers expect the Biden position to win; Reuters hit the headlines His report of the hearing states: “With regard to the elderly, the US Supreme Court was careful to restrict police entry to their homes.” Arms confiscation defenders in Rhode Island insist that government officials need discretion in order to forcibly protect people from themselves. But consider New Yorkers’ experience of the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) law, which Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted immediately after a Connecticut shootout in 2012. Declared Cuomo: “People with mental health problems shouldn’t have weapons. You could hurt yourself, you could hurt other people. “But tens of millions of Americans visit therapists every year, and“ mental health problems ”are vague enough for endless political nonsense.
More than 85,000 New Yorkers lost their second amendment rights due to a “mental health” exclusion clause in the SAFE Act. As a columnist Jacob Sullum watched“The law effectively gives ‘mental health professionals’ the ability to disarm people and they don’t even need a judge’s approval.” James Jacobs, professor of law at New York University watched that“Based on a single brief emergency room interview,” a person “does not even need to be informed that their name has been included in a database of people whose weapons license must be revoked and whose weapons must be surrendered”. Medical professionals and others were already required by law to notify the police if a patient was making a “credible threat” of violence, but the 2013 law provisions were far more extensive.
If the Supreme Court approves “Wellness Check” attacks without guarantee, the Biden administration could invoke the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic Statistic Manual (DSM) category 313.81, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, to justify targeting outspoken opponents of the government. After the clash at the Capitol, Biden wasted no time denouncing the January 6 demonstrators as “domestic terrorists”. Press reports about the protesters’ arrests reported breathlessly how many firearms were found in their homes – regardless of the fact that these people were not carrying their AR-15s, shotguns and Glocks when they “illegally” entered.Temple of Democracy“, The US Capitol. Any such action would have legions of cheerleaders in the mainstream media.
The Biden government’s support for lawful police raids regardless of the community must be seen in the light of previous perverse legal innovations that instigated tyranny. Back to the 18thth In the 19th century, British and American judges recognized that “a man’s home is his castle”. But the drug war erased that thought with legal doctrines that should have been laughed at out of court. Instead, the combined threat of narcotics and flush toilets lifted the limits of police violence. In a 1995 letter to the Supreme Court, Clintons Ministry of Justice emphasizes that “various indoor plumbing … didn’t exist in early America” when the knock-and-announce rule for house searches was passed. In a 1997 letter to the Supreme Court, the Clinton administration declared that “it is usually sensible for police officers not to knock or announce before entry.” The subsequent Supreme Court The decision included a few arguments, but effectively sanctified no-knock raids if police made “reasonable suspicions” that evidence might be destroyed. The New York Times listed in 2017 that no-knock warrants were routinely granted to “allow the most extreme force in tracking the smallest amounts of drugs, since a few grams are flushed faster than some bales”. The Clinton Doctrine of Flush the Fourth sparked an explosion of deadly no-knock raids across the country. A New York Times Investigation found that “from 2010 to 2016 at least 81 civilians and 13 police officers were killed in raids. Numerous others were maimed or wounded.”
“Government as a bloody rascal” was the unwritten premise of the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers saw enough ill-treatment by British agents that they saw the folly of holding office with absolute power. The Bill of Rights is full of prohibitions (“should not make law”), precisely because the founders did not trust politicians to be judges, juries and executioners if they were “reasonable”. Nothing that Biden or his agents have said or done so far justifies the liberation of Thomas Jefferson’s admonition of 1799 “To bind with power those whom we must trust … from calamity by the chains of the constitutions.”
James Bovard is the author of Lost rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public order hooligan. He is also a USA today Columnist. Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard.