All throughout the presidential primaries, we heard Democrats say that they would be coming for our guns. They didn’t care if it went against second amendment rights. All they knew is that they wanted to promote a higher level of gun control in the United States.
Even now, as liberals fight to push gun control legislation throughout Congress, they talk about coming for our guns.
Do they even have any idea how impossible that would be? They would have to send people door to door across America to collect guns. And what happens when people say they don’t have any? Do they just break in and loot the place in search of guns and magazines?
Luckily, it looks as though liberals aren’t going to get their way. They’ve been put into their place once and for all by the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a case where Rhode Island police officers seized a man’s guns without a warrant. These were guns that were obtained legally, too. While Edward Caniglia was in the hospital for a mental health wellness check, the city of Cranston overstepped its bounds.
Caniglia sued the city because police officers entered his home, located his guns, and took them. The seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Guess what? The Supreme Court voted 9-0.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “the very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
Let’s be very clear about that. Every liberal politician who believes they can simply come for our guns needs to pay attention. Not only would that violate our Second Amendment rights to bear arms, but it also violates our Fourth Amendment rights.
As Americans, we are protected by the constitution so that we can retreat into our homes and not have to worry about “unreasonable” intrusion by the government.
Meanwhile, Beto O’Rourke spoke on a platform last year as though he’d personally kick in the door of every American who dared to own a gun.
The police in Rhode Island argued that they were within their rights with Caniglia because of an exception in the Fourth Amendment – community care-taking. They believed they could conduct a search in order to take care of the community.
Again, the Supreme Court rejected such things because Justice Thomas explained that was is reasonable for vehicles is different from homes. Put simply, the cops can search a vehicle but they cannot search a home.
Justice Samuel Alito touched on the issue of Second Amendment rights as it pertains to the ruling of this Fourth Amendment right. He explained how the Caniglia case could apply to rulings on red flag laws.
The liberals have to think about all that they’re pushing for because they’re not even paying attention to the law at this point. They think that they can write anything down and it will be law simply because that’s what they want. They have to work within the confines of the law – and the law is not on their side.
Right now, there’s legislation working its way around Congress that would ban magazines of 10 or more. It would also make it impossible for a gun owner to sell his or her gun without going through a third party. What happens when people do these things, though? Would the government even know if someone has a magazine of 10 or more? Nope. Would the government even know if someone sells a gun to his neighbor? Again, nope.
Unless the government is going to break down the door of every American’s home, they’ll never truly have the gun control that they want. And, since doing such a thing is illegal, as backed up by the Supreme Court, they may have to come to grips that they’re not going to get what they want.
Perhaps the liberal politicians need to focus more on mental health – since people with mental illnesses are the ones more likely to commit a mass murder.
