Joe Biden called for massive firearm reform Tuesday, of course under the guise of the Boulder shooting. Biden says that assault rifles should be banned by the legislature, but his wording left the door open for more executive orders.
“President Joe Biden on Tuesday called for a ban on assault weapons and tighter gun control measures as he stepped into the familiar role of grief counselor for a traumatized nation after a mass shooting left 10 people dead in Colorado.”
Joe Biden is the nation’s grief counselor as of Tuesday? Joe makes a pretty terrible grief counselor, as they’re supposed to stay out of politics with their clients and allow grief to manifest naturally while not pushing gun control under the guise of public safety. If Joe wants to counsel Americans on grief, perhaps he should start with the millions of people who have lost their livelihoods to COVID-19 lockdowns and the innocent Americans who live near the Mexico border and are now subjected to Biden’s daily immigrant cartels.
Biden has urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to allow warrantless searches and warrantless confiscation of guns “for your safety,” via Caniglia v Strom, a case with that asks:
“Issue: Whether the ‘community caretaking’ exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.”
“Community caretaking” might as well be called “your safety” because that’s what it entails…removing rights provided by the Constitution under the guise of “safety.”
“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.”
The case has enormous implications for people across the country, and it could negatively impact those who are calling for help. Caniglia, if expanded by the US Supreme Court, is a clear violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments, but the Biden camp’s amicus brief argues that it’s time to protect Americans…from themselves.
When people can no longer live safely and securely in their homes without government intrusion, we have reached total tyranny. The Boulder shooting will be used for decades to force unconstitutional gun legislation.
The left’s main goal is to remove as many rights as possible, all in the name of safety, in order to create an easily controlled populace. Like clockwork, a “surge in shootings” has taken place since Biden assumed the Presidency. The media has completely taken over the anti-gun narrative, and the Constitution has gone out the window.
Within an hour of beginning their story, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Americans have no Constitutional right to carry. Posts on social media about the alarming overreach are just that…social media posts. You won’t do anything about it, and neither will we. The Biden administration is coming for your guns, and we will all allow it, much in the same manner we allowed mask mandates, the closure of businesses, and critical race theory education.
Give us your guns. It’s all for your safety.