Common Sense- how do you gun grabbers like it now?

[Gdjjr]

From a somewhat unexpected source, while addressing the ambiguity (caveat) in the 4th amendment-
We've had an infection, again, from the PPE crowd who assert "common sense" has to do something to placate their fears- while completely ignoring the rights, (clearly out lined lines to not be crossed), by the miscreants in the District of Criminals, in the rules for them, the real criminals- yes I'll be happy to address that- start a thread if you want the reason I call it like it is.

In the mean time, feast your eyes-

"I am deeply concerned about the 1st Circuit's claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities,"

Sonia Sotomayor Questions Warrantless Gun Seizure in Big Fourth Amendment Case
“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”

 

[justinacolmena]

“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”

And I didn't do anything wrong to hurt a soul, but the police decided on their own to have my rights revoked under a fraudulent civil commitment process when they grabbed my guns so they could list me on their NICS extended anal probe background watch list as a criminally insane idiot having been adjudicated as a mental defective and/or committed to a mental institution for the rest of my life.

There is no defense or recourse or appeal to those cases in America's rotten and corrupt court system. When members of "the community" have unspecified "concerns," the court system allows them to peremptorily revoke the rights of suspects for life by fiat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From a somewhat unexpected source, while addressing the ambiguity (caveat) in the 4th amendment-
We've had an infection, again, from the PPE crowd who assert "common sense" has to do something to placate their fears- while completely ignoring the rights, (clearly out lined lines to not be crossed), by the miscreants in the District of Criminals, in the rules for them, the real criminals- yes I'll be happy to address that- start a thread if you want the reason I call it like it is.

In the mean time, feast your eyes-

"I am deeply concerned about the 1st Circuit's claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities,"

Sonia Sotomayor Questions Warrantless Gun Seizure in Big Fourth Amendment Case
“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”

There are no "gun-grabbers," the notion is a ridiculous lie; the thread topic is evidence of that.

 

[Gdjjr]

There are no "gun-grabbers," the notion is a ridiculous lie; the thread topic is evidence of that.

Right- so, you choose to deflect and not address the article- BTW, gun grabber- try it.

 

[Gdjjr]

Where are all the "common sense" crowd- this is a noted leftist making that decision- why no argument?

 

[justinacolmena]

There are no "gun-grabbers," the notion is a ridiculous lie; the thread topic is evidence of that.

What? Guns are for sale and nobody's buying? Really?

Every local police station has an armory stocked up with military surplus firearms, plenty of ammunition and other gear, in preparation for a great slaughter and purge of adjudicated mental defectives and social undesirables.