HarrisBiden* regime argues before Supreme Court that "government officials" can seize your guns without a warrant. Really.

See, there's this rumor that this nation was founded by smart, brave men, who wrote out what they considered the "supreme law of the land."  They called it the Constitution.

Of course that's only a rumor--no one is sure the Constitution really existed, because government sure as hell no longer obeys those rules.

Of course you think I'm just being "alarmist," like conspiracy theorists.  That's because either you have no idea what cases the corrupt Supreme Court.is hearing this week, or you don't know what the Constitution actually says.

For example, I'll bet some of you think the Constitution has a provision saying the government can't enter your home and take your property without some mythical piece of paper called a "warrant."

(If you know where that provision IS in the mythical Constitution, you're probably over 50, since the schools don't teach that anymore--since the Constitution is just a myth, citizen.  Ask your highschool kid where that provision is.)

In August of 2015, during the reign of the emperor, a guy and his wife got into an argument.  He ended up putting an unloaded gun on the table and saying, in effect "Why don't you just shoot me and put me out of my misery."  He didn't threaten her in any way, but she spent the night somewhere else.

The next day she called home.  No one answered, so wifey called the cops and asked them to do a "welfare check" on her husband.  Cops arrived, chatted with the guy, and left.  Later the husband went out and the wife came home.  Cops falsely told wife that husband had consented to have them seize his guns.  Wife showed 'em the guns, they took em, and refused to return 'em.

The guy sued the cops, saying he'd done nothing wrong and they didn't have a warrant or pretext to take his guns.  Case has bounced from one federal court to another, with various corrupt judges ruling against him.  It's now reached the Supreme Court.

Critically, when the cops seized the guy's guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger.  Instead, the city claims the cops had (and have) the absolute right to take any damn thing they want, without a warrant, under a theory called “community caretaking.” 

Ah yes, it's right there in Article 5 of the Constitution.

Of course that's horse shit.  It ain't in the Constitution--which we're not sure exists anyway, but work with me here.

The courts have carved out what liberals call "a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement:" "community caretaking."

See, the guy posed no threat, so they couldn't use "imminent danger to himself or others," so they pulled this "community caretaking" rabbit out of their hat.  And of course every Democrat/socialist/liberal in this poor, abused country is totally fine with it, cuz who could possibly be against "caretaking," eh?  It's as wonderful as socialism, citizen.

 Last Wednesday the court heard arguments in this case (Caniglia v. Strom, if you wanna read it).  And something VERY interesting happened:  The HarrisBiden* regime filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief arguing that "government officials" have the absolute right of government to seize guns without a warrant, under the same "community caretaking" theory.

Seriously.  The paragraph below is the lead 'graf from the regime's amicus brief:

QUESTION PRESENTED:  Whether the Fourth Amendment precludes government officials, who reasonably believe that a potentially mentally unstable person presents an impending threat of harming himself or others with a firearm, from a warrantless seizure of his person to facilitate a medical evaluation and of firearms from his residence to fore-stall potential harm to him or others.

Wait, would you socialist legal rat-bastards (hereafter "SLR's") mind defining "potentially mentally unstable"?  Under ordinary rules of construction, that could be construed as everyone.  And I notice you declined to use the term "imminent threat," instead substitutling the modifier "impending."  How long in the future do you claim a threat would still qualify as "impending"?  A decade?

Finally I notice that the SLR's who wrote this brief clearly aren't screaming about "impending" threats of harm using a knife (which kill four times more people than rifles every year) or a car, or a baseball bat, but focus on the one weapon they want to ban and seize:  firearms.

Of course you know what this means, so we're done here.

Wait, I hear a couple of people saying they're not sure what it means, so here ya go:  The Dems have long wanted to disarm all citizens.  They know they can't get two-thirds of the states to agree to repeal the Second Amendment, so they've tried other ways:  slapping a huge tax on ammunition (CA), banning guns that hold more than 3 rounds in the mag (CA and NY), banning black rifles (congress 20 years ago), requiring super-expensive gun locks that will only let the gun fire if the owner is wearing the magic decoder ring and so on.  

Some of these are still in force, awaiting a court date, so the Dems want to have Plan B ready.  The first is simple:  An "executive order" from HarrisBiden* banning guns.  But they know such an order--actually a "decree"--would stoke opposition, so Plan C is to get the Supreme Court to agree that any guns can be seized without a showing of threat or danger, and without a warrant, under the theory of "community caretaking."

Now:  I'm betting you never heard about this case, now being decided by the SC.  Further, I'm betting you won't hear a word about it on the mainstream media, since they don't want you to know.

Finally, I'm betting the SC--a bunch of corrupt wusses who refused even to HEAR the vote-fraud case filed by the state of Texas against 5 swing states that threw observers out of counting rooms while Trump was ahead, then continued "counting votes" until at 3 am, or 5 am, 300,000 votes allegedly came in, all for Biden, tipping the so-called "win"--will rule that "community caretaking" (not mentioned in the mythical Constitution) does allow "government officials" to seize your guns.

After all, how could anyone possibly object to "caretaking," eh?

Read about the case here.

Read the regime's outrageous amicus brief here.