frontlines

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE WARRANTLESS ENTRY CASE  February 12, 2021 | by Hannah Hill

Can the police enter your home without a warrant to take your guns?

That’s the question the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide in Caniglia v. Strom.

The court decision to review a landmark Fourth Amendment case involving illegal gun seizure is a remarkable about-face from the previous summer, when the justices dismissed ten key gun rights cases.

Caniglia v. Strom arose from a non-violent disagreement between a husband and wife (the Caniglias). Mrs. Caniglia told the police her husband might be suicidal, and the officers promised Mr. Caniglia that they would not take his two handguns if he agreed to go to the hospital for an evaluation.

Mr. Caniglia agreed to go, and was evaluated and discharged the same day.

After he left for the hospital, the police entered their home – despite the lack of a warrant – and seized two handguns.

This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

As the guns were seized without a legal process, there was no real process for recovering them.

Both Mr. Caniglia and Mrs. Caniglia attempted to get the guns back over the next month, and the police simply refused to return them until the couple filed this lawsuit.

The officers claim they acted under the “community caretaking” exception to the due process requirements for searches. This exception to the warrant requirement was created by the Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski:

“[P]olice officers…frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”

As long as it’s not “unreasonable,” the argument went, entering a vehicle for “community caretaking” purposes without a warrant was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, this only applied to vehicles, and the lower courts are divided on whether or not the exception should be applied to homes as well.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the question. Oral arguments have been scheduled for March 24, 2021.

Our legal team is watching this case closely, as well as other gun-related cases currently pending before the Supreme Court, and will provide updates.

Click here to make a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contribution to help the National Foundation for Gun Rights challenge anti-Second Amendment laws and rulings in the courts!

By Evan Gerstmann, Associated Press

The Supreme Court has just scheduled arguments for an important case on warrantless searches ...

The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime. 

There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise. 

However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner. 

Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.

Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for a warrant. As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional.

There is a vigorous debate about whether the community care exception can apply to searches of a person’s home as well as of their car. Vehicles have always had less 4th Amendment protection than homes, which are considered a person’s most private sphere. Federal courts have been divided on this question and the Supreme Court has not ruled on it until now.

The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal court just below the Supreme Court in Caniglia’s jurisdiction) sided with the police. The court wrote: “At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways.”

It is certainly true that the police need a good deal of discretion in carrying out their varied, complex, and sometimes dangerous duties. But they are also powerful agents of the government and their power is supposed to be restrained by the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect the home above all other places. And whatever one’s views on gun control may be, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to keep handguns in the home is at the core of the 2nd Amendment.

Unlike the “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid” exceptions, the community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant. And the question of what sort of caretaking falls under this exception is extremely vague. Will the police be able to use it to, for example, conduct warrantless searches of political protesters’ homes to make sure they aren’t planning on violent behavior at their next political rally? The Supreme Court is going to take a very close look at this case and there is a good chance that they will overrule the lower court’s decision.

'He's already a hero because he's a Vietnam veteran. Now he's even a bigger hero because he saved his family.'

A Missouri homeowner fatally shot a man in a suspected burglary of his home near Willard in the middle of the night last week, Greene County investigators told KYTV-TV.

POLL: What scares you the most?

What are the details?
What do we know about the suspect?

Deputies were called to a home in the 6000 block of West Hawthorn Court in the Meadows Subdivision for a burglary in progress around 4 a.m. Thursday, the station noted in a previous story.

Deputies found the suspect dead inside the residence, KYTV reported, adding that a front window was shattered.

"The suspect attacked the homeowner, and the homeowner was able to defend himself, and as a result the suspect is deceased," Deputy Jason Winston with the Greene County Sheriff's Office told the station.

"I'm a little shocked this is all going down next door," neighbor Jay Davis noted to KYTV.

Investigators did not identify the two other people who were in the house when the break-in occurred, the station said, adding that those two people weren't hurt. The homeowner, however, was taken to a hospital where he was being treated for injuries that were not life threatening, KYTV said.

"He probably saved them," Davis told the station regarding his neighbor. "He's already a hero because he's a Vietnam veteran. Now he's even a bigger hero because he saved his family."

Winston added to KYTV, "We're just glad the homeowner was able to confront this suspect and defend himself and his family against this attack."

Investigators identified the deceased burglary suspect as Ryan Altman, 37, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the station said.

The sheriff's office is working to figure out why the suspect chose to break into the house, KYTV noted.

"We have no idea as to why this suspect chose the home or why he made unauthorized entry into the home," Winston told the station. "Hopefully we get to the bottom of it as our investigators continue to figure out what happened here this morning."

Winston also noted to KYTV that the residents of the home "have no idea who the suspect is; there's no connection there."

Investigators added to the station that they are also looking to see if a pickup truck found in a ditch behind the home in question is related to the incident.

H.R. 127: A New Bill In Congress Would Literally End Your 2nd Amendment Rights Permanently  BY TYLER DURDEN,  WEDNESDAY, FEB 03, 2021

Authored by Michael Snyder via End of The American Dream blog,

If a new bill that has been introduced in Congress eventually becomes law, the 2nd Amendment will still be in the U.S. Constitution, but for all practical purposes the rights that it is supposed to guarantee will be dead and gone.  H.R. 127 was submitted on January 4th, and if you have not read it yet you can find the full text right here.  It contains a lot of technical language, and so in this article I am going to try to break down what it means very simply.  Now that the Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, there is going to be a major push to ram through some form of gun control legislation.  If it is not this bill, it will be another one, so we need to be diligent.

One of the biggest things that H.R. 127 would do is that it would create a national firearms registration system that would literally be accessible by anyone…

HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military – even the GENERAL PUBLIC! The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.

So if your neighbor, a co-worker, or someone that just wanted to rob your home wanted to know how you were armed, all they would have to do would be to look it up in the firearms registration system.

This bill would also apply retroactively.

Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored.

Needless to say, if the government knows where all of your guns are being stored, it would make it that much easier to grab them from you at some future date.

H.R. 127 would also require all gun owners to be federally licensed.

That would mean that owning a gun would no longer be a right.  Instead, it would be reduced to a “privilege” that the government could take away at any time.

According to the bill, the licensing procedure would include “a psychological evaluation”…

The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.

I know a lot of guys out there that would definitely not want to go through any sort of a “psychological evaluation” by a government-approved psychologist.

And it wouldn’t just be you that would get interviewed.

According to the bill, spouses and other family members would be interviewed as well…

For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to “further determine the state of the mental emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.” Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.

The goal, of course, is to make owning guns as difficult as possible.

Democrats figure that if they can put up as many barriers to gun ownership as possible, a lot less people will end up owning them.

Thirdly, this bill would also greatly restrict the type of ammunition that you can own…

Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of “large-capacity magazines” (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and “ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.”

I know that all of this sounds utterly ridiculous, but the restrictions in this bill actually sound very, very similar to what Joe Biden has been publicly proposing…

During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden promised a long list of gun control regulations. There is a reason that Michael Bloomberg spent $125 million helping Biden in Florida and something over $600 million nationally in the general election.

The agenda includes: classifying many semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 bullets as Class 3 weapons (which can require nine months or more for approval and a $200 fee), national gun licensing, “red flag” laws that let judges take away people’s guns without a hearing, background checks on the private transfer of guns, and bans on some semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military weapons.

Gun control is very high on the list of things that Joe Biden wants to get accomplished during the next four years.

So like I said, if it isn’t this bill, it will be another one that is similar.

They are coming for your 2nd Amendment, and they aren’t going to stop until they get what they want.

Meanwhile, this is all happening at a time when murder rates all across America are going through the roof…

“Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year,” the report states, calling the 30 percent surge “a large and troubling increase that has no modern precedent.”

We have never seen major city murder rates jump by an average of 30 percent in a single year.

Things are getting really crazy out there, and many believe that 2021 will be even worse.

For almost a year, there has been civil unrest in our cities on an almost nightly basis.  As I write this, civil unrest has erupted in Rochester, New York.  We live at a time when rioting, looting, arson and vandalism have become commonplace, and the senseless violence that we have witnessed so far is just the leading edge of the storm.

Millions of Americans can see what is happening to our society and they are quite concerned.  2020 was a record year for gun sales in the United States, and dealers have reported that demand is extremely strong so far in 2021 as well.

The Democrats do not like this one bit, and they are going to do their very best to put a stop to it.

Please let your friends, family and contacts know about H.R. 127, because an all-out attack on the 2nd Amendment is coming, but at this point most people are not even aware that it is about to happen.

By Bob Brannan    NY Senate bill S2844 and its companion NY Assembly bill A930 are currently in their respective committees and, as they may see movement forward, we need to be proactive in calling our representatives in the Assembly and in the Senate to express our opposition. You should have, when you call, the bill numbers and a brief description.

Essentially this bill authorizes the State Police to set up a bureau, financed by a fee you will have to pay. All federal NICS checks would have to go through this NY State Police Bureau instead of directly to the FBI, as has been the procedure. The NICS check acts on a “shall issue” basis while this NY State bureau could covertly serve its political masters and become a “may issue” basis.

Can anyone see the increased possibility of bureaucratic delay, either intentional or unintentional? As a hint to the answer: if a NICS check has no response within 3 days, the sale may proceed; under this NY State law, the time period until the sale may proceed is lengthened to 30 days.

If you are denied permission to purchase a gun, you must appeal within 30 days. But there is no time limit on NY State’s response to the appeal! A denial could become an indefinite denial.

While this bureau was authorized in the “Safe Act”, it was never funded. This bill finances it with your fees. The wording in this bill states that the fees charged shall not exceed the amount of the costs to run the bureau. (And, of course, government bureaus are known for their efficiency and cost effectiveness.) While this bureau is set up to work on gun purchases, it could be easily expanded to cover the purchase of ammo.

Currently, the FBI does not charge for a NICS check. This bill will require a Federal Firearms Licensee to pay NY State (amount currently unknown) for the background check. Then, the dealer will directly or indirectly charge the customer. As with all taxes, you eventually pay them.

In the end we will be funding NY’s efforts to limit guns/ammo by creating more costs, roadblocks, paperwork and regulations to infringe on our constitutional rights.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a federal law that makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties most firearms directly to their owner. Can we expect this new NY State bureau to obey the law?

These are the same folks who want to legalize pot and sports gambling (while increasing funding efforts against those addictions). They let felons out of jail and ignore crime if committed for “approved” reasons. We must be proactive...or else!

The links below will bring up the bills we are referring to.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a930

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s2844

* On the right side of the screen is a box asking if you support this bill. * Please click on “nay”.

NYS Assembly Member Directory:
https://scopeny2a.org/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?linkAndRecipientCode=JeFf2M7uK8U8MRyfZItiGTYS59oml7xixFZBxtLYgr4VisdLb6bTK4cLKB2YxeIrcdu8IwjSEE%2fHqZztrbGgUTeHc2erC6I4aAQFF56%2fVAQ%3d

NYS Senate Member Directory:
https://scopeny2a.org/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?linkAndRecipientCode=%2bBCYbRIcTRm0xufhsAcZYPVwb%2bOAxzNpyKY2RXd1OqggxQpVYLIopVZ1s6%2b57qv%2b%2fFC7caXduCILwb%2fagFInB9XzKdBq43AthnwtZr519o0%3d

Biden will ‘Defeat The NRA’  by Zachary Sieber, The Epoch Times, January 10, 2021

President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 8 promised to “defeat” the National Rifle Association while he’s in office.

Biden’s official Twitter account was responding to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was among 14 people wounded in a shooting rampage by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson in 2011; six people died in the attack. Giffords had recounted how her life and community “changed forever.”

“But the attack did not break me—or the people I represented in Congress. We came together, turned pain into purpose, and found hope in each other,” she wrote, adding that she continues to work to “achieve a safer America.”

Biden responded, saying: “Your perseverance and immeasurable courage continue to inspire me and millions of others. I pledge to continue to work with you—and with survivors, families, and advocates across the country—to defeat the NRA and end our epidemic of gun violence.”

The NRA, which has more than 5 million members, seeks to protect and educate people about their Second Amendment rights.

While the association didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Biden’s post, its lobbying arm recently published an article that says Biden would “begin a concerted attack on the rights of American gun owners” after being inaugurated.

“We must be ready for the onslaught,” the post reads, adding that a Biden administration, if officials get their way, “will ban and confiscate the most-commonly-owned rifle in the United States” and “will arbitrarily limit the number of guns that can be bought per month,” among other measures.

Biden’s website says he has a plan to end “our gun violence epidemic” and boasts that he has taken on the NRA twice and won, referring to his help passing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993 and in passing a 10-year ban on some weapons and magazines the following year.

“As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again,” the site states.

Some of the proposals include banning the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, restricting the number of guns one person may buy per month to one, and prohibiting people convicted of hate crimes from owning guns.

Paul believes his maintenance would provide a more professional website since all chapter sites would be consistent.

Senate Bill S1605 2021-2022 Legislative Session

Requires a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to submit to a mental health evaluation . . .

Here's the link to the full text of the bill:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S1605?utm_content=new_prev_ver&utm_campaign=bill_alerts&utm_source=ny_state_senate&utm_medium=email

Posted  by Gary Marbut, Ammoland Inc. 

Armed Rallies At State Capitols? Beware: Potential False Flag Events?
There are some who claim that such proposals are provocateur efforts to create false flag incidents to demonize gun owners. I can't say for sure, but that's possible.

None of the major gun rights groups are advocating such demonstrations.

You may have heard Internet or other chatter urging armed rallies at state capitols for and before the inauguration.

What I do know for sure is that any such demonstrations are not encouraged or supported by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I also know that things in Montana are going our way politically. My well-developed political instinct is that now is not a good time, to aid our political progress, for any “in your face” type of direct action in Helena. Such action would most likely offend political friends who are currently very much with us. Said differently, it is my judgment that a confrontational armed rally at the Montana capitol would most likely be counterproductive to the political gains we expect to make this legislative session.

So, if you've heard about and maybe wondering about any proposed armed rallies at state capitols, I can't say what the benefit or effect might be in other states. But, in Montana, where I know the political turf, I believe such a demonstration would not be a good idea. Plus, the possibility exists that this idea is being circulated by anti-gunners trying to bait us to sticking a leg into a bear trap.