Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door and Seize Guns Without Warrant or Charges. If you have firearms, or ever want to own firearms, never, ever, go to a headshrinker.

Leave a Reply

15 Comments on "Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door and Seize Guns Without Warrant or Charges"

Notify of
Not so silent
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid

Tyranny here we come. The vets have become this administration’s enemy.

poppajoe49
Member

They have no idea.

poppajoe49
Member

Now they’re saying that the VA shrinks were doing the same thing with the phony lists, and some guys committed suicide while waiting for an appointment! All the while the VA is bombarding the TV with ads telling Veterans to call them when they are having mental health issues! I think they’re just trying to compile a list of guys to go after their guns, since they’re not actually helping them!

sa_rose
Member

Or finding the ones the figure will break fastest.

pickle squirt
Member

That’s bad news for liberals… they’re all in need of a headshrinker.

ooddballz
Member

That’s bad news for liberals… they’re all in need of a headshrinker.

Beg to differ, liberals should never be allowed near firearms anyway.

Bonfire of the Absurdities
Member

Risk of suicide? I guess the police are going to follow her around and prevent her from going into tall buildings as well. Hey, she lives in Milwaukee, maybe they should forbid her from going outside at all….

RKae
Member

If you have firearms, or ever want to own firearms, never, ever, go to a headshrinker.

Never, ever go for any reason.

stinkfoot
Member

More proof of the surreptitious nullification of the Constitution. This progressivism needs to be forcibly overthrown and its champions imprisoned… if not executed.

PsychoDad
Guest

Going to disagree in part — the danger here is in where it may lead, not in what happened. Given the precise circumstances of the case, I would agree that the police were justified in acting under the long-established “clear and present danger” standard to act without a warrant. They had been warned by a knowledgeable professional that a person was possibly suicidal and had made a statement to that effect. It’s impossible to know now, of course, but they very well may have saved her life that night. This is neither “progressivism” nor any “surreptitious nullification”. It is well-established law which balances Constitutional protections with the exigencies of the moment. Take care to note too, that there is no question here of the woman being considered in any way a criminal, or that this is all somehow connected to SOP for “search & seizure” in a criminal sense. To repeat the most important point here, the ruling is only upholding established law — it is NOT opening up some new “loophole” or Constitutional end-run. The danger lies not in this, but with what might be done with this law by the unscrupulous — but that is always a danger with the power-hungry and unscrupulous. I honestly don’t think this is a story. What I DO think, begging your pardons, is that this alarms us simply because a gun was involved and our Spidey-senses tingled.

Let me put it this way — if my son called me and said he was in the bathtub at Motel 6 with an old-fashioned straight-razor ready to carve his arms up, even if it is April 1st, you can bet I am calling the police, and God help their sorry arses if they waste a microsecond getting there and busting the door down and taking him into whatever kind of custody they have to until things are figured out. Now. Does it all make better sense that way?

Bonfire of the Absurdities
Member

What you say does make sense. And as the article states, she did suggest to the doc that she was going to kill herself, perhaps jokingly, but the doc could not afford to take that chance because then he would’ve been hung out to dry if it turned out she was serious. And though she later told the doc “never mind”, neither he nor the police could afford to leave it at that, again for the same reasons. It comes down to that these days certain things can NEVER be taken as jokes. It’s been known for years (by sensible people, anyway) that you NEVER joke about bombs while waiting on line at an airport and now another one is NEVER joke about suicide when talking to a doctor or police. Not unless you enjoy a bucketful of hassle.

stinkfoot
Member

In which case it might be necessary for the police to gain entry but it’s up to them to find a peaceful way of doing so. The manner in which they barged in escalated the situation in my opinion. Having said that your points (yours and PD’s) are well taken.

In a big picture sense this serves as a lesson on carefully measuring words offered to a mental health professional- which I see as a field to be co-opted by law enforcement on the grounds of being compassion when in fact such individuals will be given the power to designate individuals as being potentially unstable and a danger to selves and others to be entered directly into the public record and used to justify forcible entries and confiscating of any weapons.

In the progressive Utopia, people will need to pay for legal representation to go to their shrink.

GhostntheMachine
Member

@stinkfoot, there’s a tangent in there, I know I saved them, look later… it’s about the huge increase in “no-knock” warrants, the # of cops and citizens* killed, and the militarization of the police (and the Fed cyber-snitches who vacuum data illegally and ‘pass it on to the locals’). And how they’re stretching the intent of the original law.

* I refuse to use the word civilian when talking about police… the cops who use the word scare the s#!t out of me. Now, a Marine I can understand…

sa_rose
Member

Certainly if someone is suicidal or homicidal, an entry such as this is asking for trouble. And considering the person may be psychotic, this could lead to a very bad ending indeed. One should approaching t he mentally ill quietly, not burst in with drawn weapons, screaming at t HEM!

wpDiscuz