No Warrantless Home Gun Confiscation

Unanimous Supreme Court decision came out today!

I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but it looks like a very significant 2nd and 4th Amendment case.


:partying_face: :boom: :fireworks:




Great news.


I just finished reading most of it. Justice Alito’s concurring opinion expressly states this case is not about “red flag” laws:

“This case also implicates another body of law that pe- titioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§18125–18148 (West Cum. Supp. 2021); Fla. Stat. §790.401(4) (Cum. Supp. 2021); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 140, §131T (2021). They typi- cally specify the standard that must be met and the proce- dures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”


The Supreme Court today gave us a fantastic decision in a case where Gun Owners of America and its foundation (GOF) were involved!

In Caniglia v. Strom , the Supreme Court today struck down an attempt by Rhode Island police to conduct warrantless searches for guns in a home using the so-called “community caretaking function.”

This made-up doctrine, which is a purported exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, permits police to engage in warrantless searches and seizures when they are carrying out any of their duties other than criminal law enforcement. For example, police may enter homes to help persons in need of emergency assistance, or may search a vehicle to recover the gun of an off-duty officer they had just arrested.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), stated:

“The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun grabbers across the nation. The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”

According to GOA’s brief, after a husband and wife had an argument, the police entered their home without a warrant to search and seize the husband’s firearms based on the supposed “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Rhode Island district court and the First Circuit plucked two words from a court-created doctrine in an effort to empower police to grab guns in homes whenever it seems to be a good idea.

Writing for a unanimous Court in a short opinion, Justice Thomas denied the application of the doctrine to justify the search, distinguishing between a rule that applied to an impounded car and "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Gun Owners of America and its foundation are continually bringing lawsuits across the country to defend firearm rights. GOA is unwavering in its defense of gun rights and remains the only “no compromise” gun lobby.

So GOA wishes to express its thanks to those members who assisted in this case.

the brief is 17 pages
https: //



:partying_face: :boom: :fireworks:


And THAT is why I support GOA whenever I can. :+1:t2::+1:t2::+1:t2::+1:t2::+1:t2:


I merged similar threads to the earlier one.


I wish we could interpret this ruling to mean the government is no longer able to take your money without your consent, too.



Yeah, it is a real problem. And not just thru taxes.

For example, there is Civil Asset Forfeiture. I have heard horror stories of innocent people trying to get their cash back after some cop took it on an otherwise normal traffic stop. Not sure what all approaches have been used, but this approach (traffic stop used to confiscate the person’s cash), seems a bit too common. This link shows a ranking by state of their civil asset forfeiture standards of proof thresholds:

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

Note: The states with the strongest requirements before allowing civil asset forfeiture to be executed: Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico.

Also, if/when they do confiscate someone’s guns (via Red Flag laws or other means), the gun owner would have to fight (aka spend a lot of money on court costs and lawyer fees), to get them back.


Red colored state = Has Red Flag law(s) in effect
Blue colored state = Has anti-Red Flag law(s) in effect

Also, when they search/raid someone’s home, anything they break or damage in the process, from what I have read and heard, they are not liable to repair or replace, or even reimburse for damages.

The list goes on and on, unfortunately.

So, be careful out there! And, try not to carry much cash as you may end up losing it to the cops or some other “law enforcement” officers.


Yes, I don’t agree at all with civil forfeiture laws applied without any due process and against one who hasn’t even been charged with a crime. I think most people also despise those laws, but I guess the law enforcement lobby is too strong to sway legislators from repealing these laws or at least strictly curtailing their use.


SCOTUS only gives rulings if it thinks its rulings will be followed. Because we the people rose up and protested, and because of the 2A sanctuary movement taking the states by storm, SCOTUS felt confident enough to rule like this.

Keep it up, patriots!