Biden considering EO that could lead to armed, door to door gun confiscations

[Anti Federalist]

If I had told you one year ago, that we would be on the verge of triple mask mandates, and people going to jail for opening their businesses, you'd have said I was nuts.

All the Covid tyranny we have suffered under is because the underlying law was put in place years ago (mostly the Model State Health Act) that, upon declaration of a national health emergency, vast dictatorial powers are granted to executives at all levels of government.

The mild measures noted in this article are nothing compared to what could be: massive armed gun confiscation sweeps, house to house raids, of course total bans on sales of all new guns and all ammo, just to name a few.

If you care to stop this at all, and I'm convinced most don't give a $#@! at all, but if you are one of the three percent, I implore you to start your local Committee Of Safety as soon as possible.




Report: Team Biden Weighs Declaring Gun Violence a Public Health Emergency

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...lth-emergency/

Charlie Spiering 25 Mar 2021

President Joe Biden’s administration is weighing the idea of declaring gun violence as a public health emergency, in order to take dramatic executive action to tackle gun rights.

Biden officials and gun control activists discussed the idea, according to the New York Times, as well as other executive actions that could tackle gun rights nationwide.

If Biden declared a public health emergency, he could shift more funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to increase their inspections of gun dealerships. It would also loosen up available funds for community gun violence programs.

The administration is also exploring a way to classify gun kits (including 80 percent uppers/lowers) as firearms, requiring a serial number and subject to background checks. Gun control activists describe gun kits as “ghost guns” as they are untraceable.

The third gun violence option under consideration would include strengthened background checks.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday the Biden administration would continue exploring ways to tackle gun rights through executive actions.

“He certainly believes that, but there are also executive actions under consideration that we will continue working through internally,” she said about Biden. “And there’s lots of levers you can take.”

[pcosmar]

Already Prohibited.


it might be interesting to Observe.

[Invisible Man]

If I had told you one year ago, that we would be on the verge of triple mask mandates, and people going to jail for opening their businesses, you'd have said I was nuts.

I wouldn't have. Because as of over a year ago, the previous administration had already implemented the US Government COVID-19 Response Plan, which included variations of those things already, to be enforced at the state level with federal support. This was not a bottom-up plan that governors all independently committed to. It was top-down, from the executive branch of the federal government.

[Anti Federalist]

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib...h=5c14408a2829

Nick Sibilla Senior Contributor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug.

In August 2015, 68-year-old Edward Caniglia joked to Kim, his wife of 22 years, that he didn’t use a certain coffee mug after his brother-in-law had used it because he “might catch a case of dishonesty.” That quip quickly spiraled into an hour-long argument. Growing exhausted from the bickering, Edward stormed into his bedroom, grabbed an unloaded handgun, and put it on the kitchen table in front of his wife. With a flair for the dramatic, he then asked: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tactic backfired and the two continued to argue. Eventually, Edward took a drive to cool off. But when he returned, their argument flared up once again. This time, Kim decided to leave the house and spend the night at a motel. The next day, Kim phoned home. No answer.

Worried, she called the police in Cranston, Rhode Island and asked them to perform a “well check” on her husband and to escort her home. When they arrived, officers spoke with Edward on the back deck. According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.”

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone.

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.

Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglia’s case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.

In their opening brief for the Supreme Court, attorneys for Caniglia warned that “extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment” because it “would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.”

That fear is not unwarranted. In jurisdictions that have extended the community caretaking exception to homes, “everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home,” a joint amicus brief by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union revealed.

This expansion could also have perverse effects and disincentivize people from calling for help. As that brief noted, “When every interaction with police or request for help can become an invitation for police to invade the home, the willingness of individuals to seek assistance when it is most needed will suffer.”

But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception,” their brief stated, “but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the Justice Department felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case.

As a fail-safe, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officers’ “actions did not violate any clearly established law so as to render the officers individually liable in a damages action.”

But the Biden Administration, along with the courts that have extended the community caretaking exception, overlook a key component of the Fourth Amendment: the Security Clause. After all, the Fourth Amendment opens with the phrase, “the right of the people to be secure.”

In an amicus brief, the Institute for Justice noted that “to the Founding generation, ‘secure’ did not simply mean the right to be ‘spared’ an unreasonable search or seizure” but also involved “harms attributable to the potential for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Expanding the community caretaking exception to “allow warrantless entries into peoples’ homes on a whim,” argued the IJ brief, “invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers” and would undermine “the right of the people to be secure” in their homes.

The IJ brief further argued that extending the “community caretaking” exception to the home would “flatly contradict” the Supreme Court's prior rulings, which “has only discussed community caretaking in the context of vehicle searches and seizures.” In those cases, “the animating purpose for the exception [was] to allow officers to remove damaged or abandoned vehicles that pose a risk to public safety.” By contrast, the IJ amicus asserted, “that justification is entirely absent” when it comes to homes.

“The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Joshua Windham. “A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

[Anti Federalist]

[Joe McCarthy]

Everyone knows what can happen when the police in the US actually have a warrant. Remember Waco Siege? Or the less known Ruby Ridge incident? I can only wonder what will happen when they are able to do it without a warrant

[TheTexan]

The science does say however that people who own guns are 97% more likely to disobey mask mandates than people who don't own guns.

Maybe it would make sense to confiscate people's guns for just 2 weeks, to you know, flatten the curve.

[Occam's Banana]

3D printer go brrrrr ...

[Anti Federalist]

One of the mentally ill bureaucrats that will have the power to disarm you by executive fiat.

[Occam's Banana]

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

First created conjured from out of nowhere by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads.

Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglia’s case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies is a holy and god-like creature, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room jack boots to take appropriate action,” the court added.

Fixed it for them.

So, the same court that complains that the doctrine's "reach" is "ill-defined" then proceeds to both (1) definitively assert that the cops did act within the doctrine's "proper province," and (2) invoke "infinit[y]" as part of its justification for expanding the already admittedly ill-defined reach of the doctrine (because, you know - infinity always does so much to better define the limitations of the things it is added to ...).

Who the hell do these mealy-mouthed $#@!s think they're fooling? They're just pulling $#@! out their asses and then trying to spray verbal perfume over the turds. For all the difference it would make, they might as well just come right out and say, "Because we said so! And if you don't like it, you'd better grin and eat it anyway, or else Officer Friendly here might have to thump yer head for ya - all in the name of 'community caretaking,' of course." (At least that would be more honest ...)

[Pericles]

Ghost Gunner action

[Pauls' Revere]

The science does say however that people who own guns are 97% more likely to disobey mask mandates than people who don't own guns.

Maybe it would make sense to confiscate people's guns for just 2 weeks, to you know, flatten the curve.

Gawd ... truth, that's how it'll be spun.

[Todd]

I know alot of Police and military who will refuse to do it.

Unfortunately I also know too many walking order sponges who will gladly enforce any law in order to keep their jobs and lifestyle.



I think this is all smoke and mirrors. Totalitiarian weapons are much more thought out today. (Face capture by games....Terrorist definitions and laws for travel on Airplanes in order to get Real ID) All one has to do is drive the price up of Ammo or make it scarce like they did about 10 years back or start prosecuting gun manufacturers and guns are pretty hard to use. Of course declaring it a health problem would be a new inventive way to see how many would comply.

[Anti Federalist]

I know alot of Police and military who will refuse to do it.

Unfortunately I also know too many walking order sponges who will gladly enforce any law in order to keep their jobs and lifestyle.



I think this is all smoke and mirrors. Totalitiarian weapons are much more thought out today. (Face capture by games....Terrorist definitions and laws for travel on Airplanes in order to get Real ID) All one has to do is drive the price up of Ammo or make it scarce like they did about 10 years back or start prosecuting gun manufacturers and guns are pretty hard to use. Of course declaring it a health problem would be a new inventive way to see how many would comply.

Those things are all coming as well.

Look for bans on primers and their components.

[TheTexan]

Those things are all coming as well.

Look for bans on primers and their components.

Noone really needs smokeless powder.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[pcosmar]

///

Door to Door Vaccination.