9th Circuit - RODRIGUEZ V. CITY OF SAN JOSE - 4th Amendment

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by tmoore912, Jul 24, 2019.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
  2. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    Thats freaking crazy!

    Nemo
     

  3. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    503
    113
    Guys, it's the Public Safety exception to the Constitution. Didn't you know?

     
  4. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,440
    487
    83
    I got essentially the same ruling out of the 7th Circuit several years ago.
     
  5. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,793
    316
    83
    Sadly I don't see any court disagreeing with the rulings from the 7th and 9th. Good reason to keep guns separated in different locations (not that it matters for me as I lost all of mine in a boating accident presently).
     
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    So the city is allowed to confiscate and keep the weapons with no compensation to the lawful owners.
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    I like the idea of seizing guns from the possession, even home storage, of people that seem to be crazy, incapable of being a safe and responsible gun owner (at least for a temporary period due to their mental issues.)

    Quote from a Summary of the 9th cir. Opinion:

    " The panel emphasized that its holding that the warrantless seizure of the guns did not violate the Fourth Amendment limited to the particular circumstances before it: the officers had probable cause to detain involuntarily an individual experiencing an acute mental health episode and to send the individual for evaluation, they expected the individual would have access to firearms and present a serious public safety threat if he returned to the home..."


    But I DISAGREE that a wife's guns can be confiscated and held indefinitely even if she promises to keep them in her exclusive possession and not share them with the mentally ill husband. HER 2nd Amd. rights were violated.
     
  8. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    503
    113
    The courts are essentially saying, constitutional rights can be violated and curtailed so long as it hypothetically saves lives.
     
    StarJack likes this.
  9. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    I don't agree with the first part at all.

    It's not up to the government to define mental health.

    Folks need to be armed and prepared to defend themselves against crazies with guns. Letting the government disarm folks it accuses of mental instability is a completely unnacceptable violation of numerous rights and a massive overstep of the government. It also does nothing but discourage people who need help from seeking it.
     
  10. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,793
    316
    83
    I know that we don't like it, but are we really surprised that courts are ruling that constitutional rights or an individual can be infringed for the potential safety of others? In the ruling from the 9th, they cited probably cause to involuntarily admit the person for mental health evaluation as he made claims, among other things, that he wanted to shoot up a school. In such a case I think any law enforcement officer will want to seize any available weapons.

    Now, if the person had been an illegal alien with an detention request from ICE for manslaughter (this San Jose and not Berkley, CA so I'm assuming the term 'manslaughter' is still ok) or murder, then maybe everyone would look the other way.

    As I read this, the wife petitioned to get her pistol back, was denied by the City, even though the City and Court acknowledged that she isn't a legally prohibited person and could by another gun tomorrow. They view the husband (who is now a prohibited person for 5 years) as too great a risk. So, will the firearms ever be returned?
     
  11. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Supreme Court 'justices will be considering another Second Amendment-related case in conference later this month. Rodriguez v. San Jose is a case out of California, and the issue before the court is whether or not a woman’s Second Amendment rights were violated when police seized her firearms and refused to return them, because they believed her husband to be a danger to himself or others.'

    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/04/08/u-s-supreme-court-2a-case-conference/