There's a reason this was a unanimous ruling -- the police claim here that warrantless confiscation was a valid use of the "community caretaking" exception was completely ridiculous from start to finish.
Here's a good win against gun seizures:
I honestly couldn't believe the police even tried that argument, to say nothing of the lower courts upholding it.There's a reason this was a unanimous ruling -- the police claim here that warrantless confiscation was a valid use of the "community caretaking" exception was completely ridiculous from start to finish.
Yes, this was the veredict(lol) in other board I frequent; guns were a red herring in this case.So yeah, even though it was about guns, I'm not surprised the liberal judges came down against it too. This was a situation where the precedent was much too dangerous in the larger scheme for them to be blinded by the fact guns were involved.
Second Amendment scholar David Kopel sits down with us to set the stage for a big issue we’ll hear a lot about over the next year: What “keep and bear arms” means outside of the home. Whether it’s conceal carry or open carry, does the Constitution protect that right, and if so, how? There’s a case at the Supreme Court from the Second Circuit challenging New York’s conceal carry law, and another case waiting in the wings from the Ninth Circuit. We get into some history, some legal tactics, and some judicial speculation—although only of a healthy kind.
Transcript: ij.org/wp-content/uploads/20…74_otter.ai-FINAL.pdf
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett (cert petition), www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…on%20FINAL.pdf
Young v. Hawaii, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…4/12-17808.pdf
Errors of Omission, www.illinoislawreview.org/online/error…of-omission/
David Kopel, davekopel.org/
Anthony Sanders, ij.org/staff/asanders/
Of course, I'm sure the AG will kick it up the chain, but it's still good progress.
I only wish it wasn't...immediately stayed? Pre-stayed? Whatever the legal terminology is.
twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1412766506635730951
Big ruling from Judge Rodriguez (W.D. Tex.):
After a bench trial, he's ruled that the federal government is 60% responsible under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting, and will hold a separate trial to determine damages:
This is bullshit. Suing the *gun store* is fair game in my opinion because they made an illegal sale, but the gun manufacturer did nothing wrong. The claim that AR-15s are "easily convertible" to full auto is especially absurd considering the degree to which *all* post-ban ARs are modified to prevent that.
This will be apealed and struck down, by the supreme court if need be.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
There is no serious argument that the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, as recognized and preserved by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, does not extend beyond the home. But the state law at issue here, New York’s infamous Sullivan Law, infringes on that right and effectively eliminates any meaningful exercise of the right outside a person’s domicile. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to prevent states from disarming disfavored and marginalized citizens—at that time the recently freed slaves. When New York passed the Sullivan Law in 1911, it was motivated by animus against another marginalized group in society—recent immigrants from Europe. For many years New York has gotten away with barring all but a privileged few of its citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms outside the home, and this case presents a chance to right that Constitutional wrong.
In upholding the Sullivan Law, the Second Circuit incorrectly evaluated the law using intermediate scrutiny. That improper standard of review violated this Court’s dictate in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634–35 (2008), that interest-balancing tests are not to be used in Second Amendment cases.
The Court should reverse the Second Circuit’s decision and clarify that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to carry a handgun outside the home, and that this right is not subject to interest balancing.