Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

ABC News.

ATLANTA — Before dawn on Oct. 18, 2017, FBI agents broke down the front door of Trina Martin’s Atlanta home, stormed into her bedroom and pointed guns at her and her then-boyfriend as her 7-year-old son screamed for his mom from another room.

Martin, blocked from comforting her son, cowered in disbelief for what she said felt like an eternity. But within minutes, the ordeal was over. The agents realized they had the wrong house.

On Tuesday, an attorney for Martin will go before the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the justices to reinstate her 2019 lawsuit against the U.S. government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations.

A federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit in 2022 and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision last year. The Supreme Court agreed in January to take up the matter.

The key issue before the justices is under what circumstances people can sue the federal government in an effort to hold law enforcement accountable. Martin’s attorneys say Congress clearly allowed for those lawsuits in 1974, after a pair of law enforcement raids on wrong houses made headlines, and blocking them would leave little recourse for families like her.

FBI Atlanta spokesperson Tony Thomas said in an email the agency can’t comment on pending litigation. But lawyers for the government argued in Martin’s case that courts shouldn’t be “second-guessing” law enforcement decisions. The FBI agents did advance work and tried to find the right house, making this raid fundamentally different from the no-knock, warrantless raids that led Congress to act in the 1970s, the Justice Department said in court filings starting under the Biden administration.

In dismissing Martin’s case, the 11th Circuit largely agreed with that argument, saying courts can’t second-guess police officers who make “honest mistakes” in searches. The agent who led the raid said his personal GPS led him to the wrong place. The FBI was looking for a suspected gang member a few houses away.

Martin, 46, said she, her then-boyfriend, Toi Cliatt, and her son were left traumatized.

“We’ll never be the same, mentally, emotionally, psychologically,” she said Friday at the neat, stucco home that was raided. “Mentally, you can suppress it, but you can’t really get over it.”

She and Cliatt pointed out where they were sleeping when the agents broke in and the master bathroom closet where they hid.

Martin stopped coaching track because the starting pistol reminded her of the flashbang grenade the agents set off. Cliatt, 54, said he couldn’t sleep, forcing him to leave his truck driving job.

“The road is hypnotizing,” he said of driving tired. “I became a liability to my company.”

Martin said her son became extremely anxious, pulling threads out of his clothes and peeling paint off walls.

Cliatt initially thought the raid was a burglary attempt, so he ran toward the closet, where he kept a shotgun. Martin said her son still expresses fear that she could have died had she confronted the agents while armed.

“If the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a cause of action for anything, it’s a wrong-house raid like the one the FBI conducted here,” Martin’s lawyers wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court.

Other U.S. appeals courts have interpreted the law more favorably for victims of mistaken law enforcement raids, creating conflicting legal standards that only the nation’s highest court can resolve, they say. Public-interest groups across the ideological spectrum have urged the Supreme Court to overturn the 11th Circuit ruling.

After breaking down the door to the house, a member of the FBI SWAT team dragged Cliatt out of the closet and put him in handcuffs.

But one of the agents noticed he did not have the suspect’s tattoos, according to court documents. He asked for Cliatt’s name and address. Neither matched those of the suspect. The room went quiet as agents realized they had raided the wrong house.

They uncuffed Cliatt and left for the correct house, where they executed the warrant and arrested the man they were after.

The agent leading the raid returned later to apologize and leave a business card with a supervisor’s name. But the family received no compensation from the government, not even for the damage to the house, Cliatt said.

Martin said the most harrowing part of the raid was her son’s cries.

“When you’re not able to protect your child or at least fight to protect your child, that’s a feeling that no parent ever wants to feel,” she said.

First, he’d better be glad he never reached for that shotgun. He’d be dead now. Second, if they had a dog in the house, the dog would be dead too. Third, notice what the attorneys for the FedGov said: “Courts shouldn’t be second guessing law enforcement decisions.”

In other words, the constitution doesn’t apply to them. They call it “second guessing.” The arrogance of this statement is remarkable.

The bill of rights is precisely for protecting citizens from actions by the government, and all legal cases involve second guessing. It’s what happens in court when a jury decides whether rights have been violated (or in this case, the courts). That courts are making the determination is obscene because officers of the court are deciding whether other officers of the court have violated constitutionally protected rights.

Remember why raids like this are terrible, horrible, no-good and very bad. First, they violate God given rights. A man’s home is his castle and he has the right to protect it from all home invaders. Second, innocent men, women and children get injured and in some cases killed. Third, even if police need evidence, they can always get that evidence the old fashioned way – by detective work and investigation. There is nothing stopping them from entering the premises when people are not home.

Fourth, if they need to apprehend an Indvidual, the same rule applies. They can do it safely rather than causing risk to the home owners. I have no interest in minimizing risk to cops. I have every interest in minimizing risk to others. Fifth, sometimes they get the addresses wrong, and sometimes they listen to very unreliable people as CIs and do things they shouldn’t be doing based on bad information. Sixth, criminals have begun to mimic police SWAT teams in home invasion tactics. If a man and his family must lay on the floor and beg for mercy against home invaders, then that’s the end of the second amendment as it concerns protection of family, hearth and home.

None of this is good or righteous. Any man who engages in these acts is engaging in an unrighteous action. But it actually concerns me that the supreme court will hear the case. I expect the “law and order” types to side with the cops. Nothing could be worse than for the SCOTUS to justify bad law and make this precedent-setting.

What will happen in the Snope v. Brown case, with it having been distributed for conference twelve times now?

Yep. I think there’s a good chance we get a Caetano-like per curiam in Snope.

— Stephen (@Stambo2A) April 22, 2025

David Codrea.

SCOTUS keeps kicking that can down the road.

More specifically:

Reuters is mischaracterizing this a bit. The SCOTUS rejected an interlocutory appeal, not certiorari of the final case. I think GOA will have to ask for en banc review now before appeal to the supreme court.https://t.co/zZ4s3r7Ziy

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) April 7, 2025

But it’s just an excuse. They’re cowardly and don’t want to deal with it. They also don’t want to deal with the Snope AR ban case from Maryland or any other state.

I understand that there may be other issues at play here. For example, Thomas and Alito may not be allowing this to be taken up on certiorari because they know they don’t have the votes and they don’t want to set bad precedent. After all, the great libertarian Gorsuch hinted during the bump stock ban case that congress should make them illegal.

Either way, this continues the cowardly behavior of the court. The priests in black robes aren’t all that, are they? They’re scared of their own shadows.

Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.

Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York,  has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Let’s briefly revisit statements made by Justice Roberts concerning the authority of the court.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday warned about a rising number of threats to the judiciary’s independence, including calls for violence against judges and “dangerous” suggestions by elected officials to disregard court rulings they disagree with.

He didn’t just come out with this statement once, but felt obligated to reiterate his concerns in March of this year.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in the statement.

Make no mistake. He’s saying the same thing regardless of how the caution is worded. This is remarkable since the NY court decision is clearly in contravention of the Caetano ruling. Let’s quote.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N.E.3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”

Id., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller ‘s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 ; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ “). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U.S., at 624–625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Thus, the hearing was granted. This is their conclusion.

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Su preme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weap ons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.

Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasons—or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person. See Brief for Arming Women Against Rape & Endanger ment as Amicus Curiae 4–5. “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. I am not pre pared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her con science, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsi est of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

This was a Per Curiam judgment, with the citations above belonging to Alito, with Thomas concurring. Lyle Denniston writes that “The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much.” I disagree.

The criteria was clear. Stun guns are “in common use for lawful purposes.” Thus, they are protected by the second amendment as the supreme court found in Heller and McDonald. For a weapon to be disallowed, it must be dangerous and unusual (according to the decision). Alito found that stun guns were not unusual.

Neither are AR-15s for that matter. Yet the fourth circuit concluded that a ban on them didn’t violate second amendment rights. That case is currently before the supreme court, having been redistributed for conference nine times (Snope v Brown). The supreme court is apparently too cowardly to take this case up and declare once and for all that AR-15s are not dangerous and unusual.

[Here I understand that other things might be going on. Thomas and Alito might know that they don’t have the support of the other justices, and don’t want bad precedent to be established. Even the supposed “libertarian” justice Gorsuch was heard suggesting in oral arguments on the bump stock ban case that congress ought to make them illegal.]

How ironic is it that the court system is allowing an inferior court to completely ignore its ruling in Caetano (or at least, the inferior court judge doesn’t care what Caetano says, and that judge certainly knew about the precedent), and that the court is allowing the fourth circuit to contravene its rulings in Heller, McDonald and Bruen by declaring an AR-15 ban constitutional, while striking out at the executive for suggesting that the court system needs reform?

What’s not surprising is that the executive might need to ignore the courts. What’s ironic is that not even the courts pay attention to the courts. They can’t even get their own house in order. Openly flouting supreme court precedent by the inferior courts is about as disorderly and vulgar as one can imagine.

Roberts has no right to criticize the executive until he cleans house. It should have been embarrassing to have issued those statements.

What a sham. Here is the decision.

I understand what happened. The lawyers took this up under the administrative procedures issue. Hindsight is 20-20, but I wish they had taken it up under the 2A. Even if we had lost, it would have prevented the justices from hiding under administrative procedures and fully come out of the closet as anti-2A. Even the great “libertarian” justice Gorsuch is on record during the bump stock oral arguments suggesting that the Congress should take action to make them illegal.

But if we implement my recommendations, there’s still a lot to be gained.

This would give us Judge James Ho and Don Willett. And the SCOTUS could be overruled by the fifth circuit. It's a win-win!

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 27, 2025

One can only hope the supreme court does the right thing. This is a very big deal for firearms manufacturers.

Additionally, if this goes forward in the states, you know who pays the cost? Firearms owners. They will have to pass the cost on or not survive. So, it affects all of us who own firearms. I’m certain that’s part of the strategy. Legal costs are exorbitant.

https://t.co/RyDth3Sz4W

Except it's not that simple.

Judge pauses Trump plan to put USAID staff on leave https://t.co/ky7SIoQkA4

How long before SCOTUS stops this silliness of district courts ruling for the entire nation? About the same time they grant cert to the AR ban cases

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) February 8, 2025

First up, Mark Smith assesses the recent delay of the Snopes case.

Second, Mark assesses the potential picks to head the ATF. Personally, I would prefer to see the ATF completely eradicated. Its mere existence of prima facie unconstitutional. The existence of federal gun laws is prima facie unconstitutional. But if all we get out of this is an eradication of the “secret” gun registry and a prohibition on enforcement of laws by the ATF, then it’s very important who runs the FBI.

I would also suggest that it makes sense to send 90% of the employees of the FBI and ATF to the border to enforce border laws. As for those still trying to come across, send the Marine Corps to shoot them. If that sounds harsh, think of this as an invasion. What do you think Russi and China would do in such a case? They care about their borders, and we don’t. To most of the American elite, America is an idea, not a sovereign nation with borders.

This whole problem with the border could be solved in an instant. Stop traffic. All traffic, including trade. Allow no one to cross the border, not even for work. But you see, home builders, yard workers and house cleaners are needed for the elite, so that’s not going to happen. As is stands, they get the middle class to pay for medical care via socialized medicine while they get to pay lower wages than they otherwise would, and we bear the brunt of the deal.

Finally, Mark further assesses the inside baseball maneuvers in the SCOTUS on 2A cases.

How do we know that? Because we know the type of people who work in the FedGov.

And he even failed to bring up muzzle loaders, which will be considered firearms depending on the outcome of VanDerStok.

By the way, I listened to some of the arguments. Most of the people talking seemed like utter morons to me, including the supreme court justices.

Listen carefully to what he says. Sometimes what he says can get buried in detail. If it’s the case that a single drill hole can convert a non-functioning part into a semi-automatic firearm, then perhaps it’s the case that a single drill can convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun.

See the point?

The AR-15 must have magnificent powers for the FedGov to be so worried about it.

I listened to part of the questions. It sounded like the idiots run the asylum.