We can get large groups of people to agree that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern technology. The claim that "people have agreed that current gun laws are constitutional," requires the acceptance of the notion that the founders did not in fact mean what they wrote in the constitution, and that "shall not be infringed" in fact was just a suggestion.
Accepting laws is a personal choice that isnt going to change anything. The law of the land isnt validated by YOUR acceptance of it. You still live under it, oppressed by it if you feel that way, but its still there and you are still subject to that "unconstitutional law" that was ruled actually constitutional by the body that does that as part of its mandate. Its not the people , or a majority of the people, but just 5 out of 9 justices. .
The government says so, so it must be, gotcha.
The same courts that are legislating from the bench? The same courts that are using non-constitutional law to interpret the constitution? The same courts that have self avowed Marxist judges appointed by and for globalists? The same courts who have refused to hear cases of direct and dire constitutional importance? The same courts who have leaked decisions in an effort to intimidate non-conforming judges? The legislative branch is corrupt, the executive branch is corrupt, but we are supposed to believe the judicial branch isn't?
Indeed.
It doesnt matter one bit if you put your faith in anything. Thats the system you live with.
WELL! Apparently you haven't noticed that the so-called SUPREME court and all of the shadow courts that it controls all use a flag with GOLD FRINGE!!!!
Got me there. New world order George Soros stuff right there..
What exactly are you trying to get at then? Are you trying to convince us to be defeatists like yourself, or are you actually arguing in favor of government overreach?
Yep, like beer and aspirin for breakfast,
There is the system it started as... then there is the system it has become.
This here makes a wee bit o' sense…. plus SCOTUS recently ruled 9-0 against a "red flag" issue, so….
Well, it was a police sergeant doing a warrantless search and seizure and not a EPO issued by a court, so I guess Tuckers record is intact
I never said the plaintiff in that case wasn't a DF…. LOL!Well, it was a police sergeant doing a warrantless search and seizure and not a EPO issued by a court, so I guess Tuckers record is intact
During an argument with his wife, petitioner Edward Caniglia placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to "shoot [him] and get it over with." His wife instead left the home and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning, she was unable to reach her husband by phone, so she called the police to request a welfare check. The responding officers accompanied Caniglia's wife to the home, where they encountered Caniglia on the porch. The officers called an ambulance based on the belief that Caniglia posed a risk to himself or others. Caniglia agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation on the condition that the officers not confiscate his firearms. But once Caniglia left, the officers located and seized his weapons. Caniglia sued, claiming that the officers had entered his home and seized him and his firearms without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers. The First Circuit affirmed, extrapolating from the Court's decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, a theory that the officers' removal of Caniglia and his firearms from his home was justified by a "community caretaking exception" to the warrant requirement. Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the "public highways" are often called to discharge noncriminal "community caretaking functions," such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee is the right 2 CANIGLIA v. STROM Syllabus of a person to retreat into his or her home and "there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of "community caretaking" tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4. 953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions.
As is Tucker for getting that entirely wrong
Meh, he's still correct about the political elite's motives and goals.
