Shotgun Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.
According to Caniglia v Strom, a lower court had previously determined that police confiscating the guns without a warrant fell under the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, but a 9-0 vote from the nation’s top court struck down that ruling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Kind of sad that our current leadership is so resolved on protecting us from ourselves. On the face of this I would go along with the disarmament, who knows a man better than his spouse? If the guy does go postal, all she can say is I am sorry, and that I told you so. The truth is we cannot afford to even consider letting this kind of thing get started, let the power drunk bureaucrats get something they disagree with successfully confiscated, and we are done. Wouldn't a small dose of common sense be a welcome thing?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The problem lies with women who will lie just to "get even" or something like that. I've seen it a number of times. Something along the lines of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

I kind of liked the way the Army did it with the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice).

If it's he said-she said, it's a push and nothing happens. There has to be at least 1 additional witness or it didn't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
No argument here. At the risk of getting my windows knocked out with empty perfume bottles, I would second the motion. I too have seen the angry woman scenario played out. I don't think we can generalize though, each case is an individual with individual players.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
True, every case is different, but how do you separate the wheat from the chaff in a he said, she said? That's the problem and that's why I'm opposed.

Case in point: When I got divorced, my wife's lawyer got a restraining order against me saying I was physically abusive. This could have gotten my firearms taken away from me.

A couple of years later I ran into her lawyer accidentally and asked him about it, told him I wasn't physically abusive. He said that he knew that, but he always filed a physically abusive restraining order against husbands because the courts tended to give more money to the women in the divorce if they thought the husband was abusive.

So he got a bunch of women to lie in order to get themselves more money. I'm sure this is pretty widespread in the U.S. as this guy can't be the only sleazy lawyer out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Divorce lawyers must be a special breed. The more infighting between the partners, the more court dates, the more money to be made. I do not think I could do a job where my income was based on the misery level of others. People continue to get married every day, the lasting success rate is diminishing, so I guess somebody has to sort things out. Sad.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
A little more info with respect to "a woman scorned."

My wife and I had no kids and she was a payroll supervisor for Viacom, so she made good money. We sat down and split everything right down the middle on paper. 50-50 which was more than fair since I made 2/3 of the money.

She talked to her friends and they said "go for the throat" and gave her the name of the shyster lawyer. Next thing I know I had the restraining order and their demands for alimony for life and almost all the money and assets we owned.

This is reality today.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top