What does it take for the cops to break into your house and steal your guns?

[Quantum Windbag]

A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.

Just fine considering what?

Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.

What potentially suicidal, or homicidal, nut? All they had was a single claim by someone they didn't even check out. I could have called them up, claimed to be a psychiatrist, and had them break into your house for no reason other than I claimed that you said something you didn't.

That might sound just fine to you, but it sounds like tyranny to me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just fine considering what?

Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.

What potentially suicidal, or homicidal, nut? All they had was a single claim by someone they didn't even check out. I could have called them up, claimed to be a psychiatrist, and had them break into your house for no reason other than I claimed that you said something you didn't.

That might sound just fine to you, but it sounds like tyranny to me.

What it sounds like to you and what it sounds like to rational adults are two very different things. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

this is a little bit more grey than you want it to be Windbag. had she not made that comment about blowing her brains out you would have a solid point. The cops would have violated her 4th amendment right.

Then again i can see the otherside and ask, where would this lead? But you have a doctor reporting it and not some person with a grudge..

I think i have to side on the cops overstepping. She wants to blow her head off, thats her issue.

But that being said if there is a state law that says the cops must send her to a psych ward then....I know California has one where if you claim the person is harming themselves, you get three 3 minimum.

She denies she made the comment. Frankly, given the innocent until proven guilty way the law is supposed to work, I am forced to actually believe her unless that doctor can produce something besides his claim that she said it.

Even if she did make the comment she obviously did not actually go home to blow her brains out, it took the cops nine ******* hours to find her, she clearly articulated that she was fine, and insisted that they not enter her home. On top of that, the gun was in a locked box when they did. If you think that justifies ignoring the Constitution you have a serious misunderstanding of how this is supposed to work.

As for the state law, it says no such ******* thing. What it says is that, if a cop fills out a form, they can ignore everything and force a person into medical lockup. If you are going to use a stupid law to defend the assholes who enforce it, at least get the ******* justification right. Getting it wrong just makes your authoritarian streak obvious.

In other words, you are a ******* asshole who is going out of his way to lie in order to defend the actions of power mad cops.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hint, it isn't a search warrant, or even probable cause.

Hint, the Robert's court has consistently ruled in favor of Law Enforcement over individual rights. You people have been fooled.

Problem is: you failed to understand that once you give government a particular form of power, you cannot control how subsequent administrations are going to use that power.

The link below is an example of how the rightwing Robert's court eroded individual property rights. ("At the time it seemed like a good idea") ... but what if a law enforcement agent exploits this erosion of individual rights to enter a house and search for guns? Don't you get it son? When your side makes the State more powerful, you cannot control how subsequent administrations will use that power. Click here.
Supreme Court rules in favor of police in home searches without objector present - The Washington Post

Or what about this gem (link below). You might think it's meaningless, but this is how your side incrementally strips property rights. They do it slowly but surely, making it easier for the government to enter the homes of individuals. This is what the Soviet Union did, until the state hardly even needed a reason to bust your door down. Why do you people keep electing presidents who nominate Soviet-style justices? Click this.
Justices OK some warrantless searches - USATODAY.com

Please stop putting people like Bush in office. We can't afford more rightwing justices who don't give a shit about property rights and privacy rights. Please turn off FOX News and look at what your side is doing. If you are worried about losing your guns, than stop giving big government law enforcement so much power. This is what happens when you pack the court with rightwing justices. Starting with Reagan, the power of law enforcement has increasingly trumped the rights of the individual. Learn this stuff so you can select better candidates. Research the power Reagan's War on Drugs gave to Federal and State Law enforcement. Use your google son. Yes, the Left capitulated, but only because your side always accuses the Left of being soft on crime. Well guess what? You won. Now we have exactly the big government you wanted, one that can enter your home for almost no reason at all. (Son, do you know where this kind of slippery slope ends?)

(Bush used the "terror" threat to build a surveillance bureaucracy. And your side cheered him on. Now it's easier for the government to watch, detain and jail citizens. What happens if an anti-gun administration inherits the Bush Surveillance State? Get it? This is why your side has to stop making government bigger.)

What people?

 

[AntiParty]

Perhaps someone can point out where in the Constitution of gives a shrink the right to order the police to detain someone?

Learn what Extra-Constitutional means. Most of the laws on the books are just that.

Some openly think that if the Constitution doesn't say it's ok, it's not ok. Yet the Constitution was more focused on what's not ok, than what is ok.

The Constitution set's boundaries law can have. It isn't the only law in the nation. It only set's boundaries for other laws.

Libertarians and Tea Party political novices are still confused by this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does it take for the cops to break into your house and steal your guns?
Hint, it isn't a search warrant, or even probable cause.

Wrong again, as usual.

What, exactly, did I get wrong, asshole? Did they have a search warrant? Did they have probable cause to break into the locked case that contained her gun? Keep in mind before you answer that I have the actual court decision where the judges said that the cops were wrong when they actually did that, but that she is still screwed because of the rules for immunity.

The premise of the thread fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, where the merits of the case are specific to this particular incidence, and can in no way be used by a given jurisdiction as ‘justification’ to ‘confiscate’ firearms as a general rule:

The premise of the thread is that the 4th Amendment is a ******* joke because the courts go out of their way to make up all sorts of exceptions to it, but thanks for making a foll out of yourself twice in one post.

[T]he Fourth Circuit has indicated that the community
caretaking exception may justify a warrantless residential
search when, as in Cady, the search is conducted pursuant to
routine procedure and not for purposes of criminal evidence gathering.
… “we have never explicitly held that the community caretaking functions of a
police officer permit the warrantless entry into a home[.]”

Make that 3 times, this is a 7th Ciruit case, not a 4th Circuit case.

Your on a roll buddy.

Moreover, the incident in no way constitutes a Second Amendment ‘violation’:

The court rejected Sutterfield’s contention that the seizure
of the gun and concealed-carry licenses also constituted a
violation of her Second Amendment rights on the facts of this
case. In the court’s view, neither McDonald v. City of Chicago,
130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), nor Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.
570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), forecloses the possibility that an
individual’s firearm may be seized by the police for certain
purposes.

If the OP had bothered to read and comprehend the actual ruling linked in the blog post, as opposed to the spin and lies found in that blog post, he would have seen the case law in support of the court’s decision, and not needlessly embarrassed himself with this thread.

Funny, I don't recall mentioning the 2nd Amendment anywhere, are you drunk?

 

[Pete7469]

We need a revolution in this country to get back or freedoms.

Molon Labe

Uhhh....

Maybe not.

It depends on who's leading the rebellion.

We could end up with something more horrific than obozo quite easily.

We need an electoral revolution. That way we all keep our guns (even the moonbats who have them), and no one has to be slaughtered en masse.

Did I say a shooting revolution? Why claim I dais something that I didn't?

Molon Labe

Thanks for clarifying that.

I jumped to conclusions. I apologize.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again you would need to go to the state law and see what that says. If they have a law on the books stating that a doctor must call if patient is in danger than you are going to have trouble arguing 4th.

Since when does State laws override the Constitution?

Molon Labe

since this is not a clear violation of the 4th.

It is a very clear violation of the 4th Amendment. If you don't believe me, read the ******* thing, it is only 54 words long, which shouldn't tax your Twitter brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.

What potentially suicidal, or homicidal, nut? All they had was a single claim by someone they didn't even check out. I could have called them up, claimed to be a psychiatrist, and had them break into your house for no reason other than I claimed that you said something you didn't.

That might sound just fine to you, but it sounds like tyranny to me.

What it sounds like to you and what it sounds like to rational adults are two very different things. Therein lies the problem.

What makes you think you are a rational anything?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps someone can point out where in the Constitution of gives a shrink the right to order the police to detain someone?

Learn what Extra-Constitutional means. Most of the laws on the books are just that.

Some openly think that if the Constitution doesn't say it's ok, it's not ok. Yet the Constitution was more focused on what's not ok, than what is ok.

The Constitution set's boundaries law can have. It isn't the only law in the nation. It only set's boundaries for other laws.

Libertarians and Tea Party political novices are still confused by this.

One person thinks you are intelligent, unfortunately, you are wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What potentially suicidal, or homicidal, nut? All they had was a single claim by someone they didn't even check out. I could have called them up, claimed to be a psychiatrist, and had them break into your house for no reason other than I claimed that you said something you didn't.

That might sound just fine to you, but it sounds like tyranny to me.

What it sounds like to you and what it sounds like to rational adults are two very different things. Therein lies the problem.

What makes you think you are a rational anything?

Decades of performance as such.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What it sounds like to you and what it sounds like to rational adults are two very different things. Therein lies the problem.

What makes you think you are a rational anything?

Decades of performance as such.

Did you know that crazy people are incapable of admitting they might be crazy?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What makes you think you are a rational anything?

Decades of performance as such.

Did you know that crazy people are incapable of admitting they might be crazy?

Another thing to add to the list of things you think you know, but don't. They are often the first to admit they might be nuts.

And sanity isn't what you think it is either. Much of what is sane sounds crazy to the average dummy.

http://www.sanityscore.com/

 

[TemplarKormac]

Decades of performance as such.

Did you know that crazy people are incapable of admitting they might be crazy?

Another thing to add to the list of things you think you know, but don't. They are often the first to admit they might be nuts.

And sanity isn't what you think it is either. Much of what is sane sounds crazy to the average dummy.

Argumentum ad hominem. You can't hold a candle to QWB's argument, so you call him names. What a joke.

This "average dummy" knows you lost this argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did you know that crazy people are incapable of admitting they might be crazy?

Another thing to add to the list of things you think you know, but don't. They are often the first to admit they might be nuts.

And sanity isn't what you think it is either. Much of what is sane sounds crazy to the average dummy.

Argumentum ad hominem. You can't hold a candle to QWB's argument, so you call him names. What a joke.

This "average dummy" knows you lost this argument.

I called him irrational and childish, which his is, as are you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another thing to add to the list of things you think you know, but don't. They are often the first to admit they might be nuts.

And sanity isn't what you think it is either. Much of what is sane sounds crazy to the average dummy.

Argumentum ad hominem. You can't hold a candle to QWB's argument, so you call him names. What a joke.

This "average dummy" knows you lost this argument.

I called him irrational and childish, which his is, as are you.

You were offended when I pointed out how irrational you are, I just laughed when you called me names.

Which is more rational?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Argumentum ad hominem. You can't hold a candle to QWB's argument, so you call him names. What a joke.

This "average dummy" knows you lost this argument.

I called him irrational and childish, which his is, as are you.

You were offended when I pointed out how irrational you are, I just laughed when you called me names.

Which is more rational?

I don't get offended by what kids on the Internet say.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL. PMH.

And what does his being irrational or childish have to do with this debate? Do you even know what your original point was?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

LOL. PMH.

And what does his being irrational or childish have to do with this debate? Do you even know what your original point was?

Yep. And the reason he doesn't understand what happened, and why I approve of it for the most part, along with the courts, is because he is irrational and childish.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now you're spewing gibberish. There is no more need to interact with you.