Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Cops Can Take Over Your Home As They See Fit
http://www.truthandaction.org/police-state-federal-judge-rules-police-can-take-home-see-fit/ ^

Posted on 07/04/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Okimi2200

The Third Amendment was created to protect your home from being quartered by soldiers without your consent. It has very rarely been a matter of debate or litigation, until now.

Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon recently ruled that the police are exempt from the 3rd Amendment with a case out of Henderson, Nevada after a family had their home broken into and seized by local law enforcement who stated they needed the home to gain a “tactical advantage” against suspected criminals in a neighboring house.

Police actually forced their way into this family’s home, pepperballed the father and his dog and then incarcerated the man for a day.

(Excerpt) Read more at truthandaction.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 3rdamendment; donutwatch; freedom; news; policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: null and void; Old Sarge; EnigmaticAnomaly; Califreak; kalee; TWhiteBear; freeangel; ...

Federal Judge Rules Cops Can Take Over Your Home As They See Fit

"When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you - you know your nation is doomed."
-Ayn Rand

41 posted on 07/04/2015 2:12:00 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2312894/posts


42 posted on 07/04/2015 2:14:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You can help: https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBTX0095/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Umm, I think it’s right that using 3A in this way was part of the court discerning emanations of penumbras that find new rights.

Quartering of soldiers is prohibited. That had a quite precise meaning at the time.

This case was not it.

To my mind, you cannot object when the court finds a “new right” in the Constitution that you disagree with, but want the courts to find new rights you approve of.


43 posted on 07/04/2015 2:21:46 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

I’m sorry you don’t agree with decision, but it’s a case of reading the whole decision, not just some headline writer’s version of it.

Last week we were all upset when SCOTUS did not rule that the ACA letter of the law was exact in dealing with state-established healthcare funds.

In this case, the judge ruled that the Constitution means what is says. Exactly: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

#!: This was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure homeowners did not incur the COST of quartering soldiers. It was in response to the British Quartering Acts of 1765 which required homeowners to house, and pay for the cost of housing British soldiers. This law required the homeowner to provide, bed, food, washing, etc. AT THE HOMEOWNER’S COST. This Amendment was designed to address that cost issue , not the entry into a home.

#2: Cops were there for 7 to 9 hours. That is not quartering.

#3; Government has the right to abridge occupancy and ownership laws in emergencies. For example; they can prevent you from entry into your home if it is on fire, a hostage is being held there, or it can be reasonably be expected that your entry would expose you to harm, such as gunfire from a neighboring house.

#4; The law specifically applies to soldiers, and only soldiers, not cops. That’s the exact wording of the amendment.

On ANY of these grounds, this case must fail.

If we want exact wording of the Constitution to apply, and I do, then it must apply in all cases, not just the ones we like.


44 posted on 07/04/2015 2:21:54 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East (90% of MSM is lies, except the National Enquirer, of course :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; null and void; Old Sarge; EnigmaticAnomaly; Califreak; kalee; TWhiteBear; freeangel

Please see 44


45 posted on 07/04/2015 2:24:03 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East (90% of MSM is lies, except the National Enquirer, of course :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Crystal Palace East; Old Sarge; EnigmaticAnomaly; Califreak; kalee; TWhiteBear; freeangel; ...
”Image

.

Back to the thread.

Check out # 44 .

Thanks for the ping, Crystal Palace East.

46 posted on 07/04/2015 2:28:50 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

Tresspassers will be shot.

Have a nice day.


47 posted on 07/04/2015 2:29:27 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Then it was an illegal takings under the fifth amendment, because the fourth amendment didn't apply because their property wasn't seized as evidence in a crime.

-PJ

48 posted on 07/04/2015 2:31:03 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

I would most likely hunt each one of them down until I got caught.


49 posted on 07/04/2015 2:37:49 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

This is a case of another Federal Judge violating the Constitution. Please note that Judge Andrew Patrick Gordon was appointed by Barack Obama. That is where most all of these bad decisions come from.


50 posted on 07/04/2015 2:39:04 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

2nd Amendment says they better have good reason. And knock.


51 posted on 07/04/2015 2:49:06 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

Please read #44.


52 posted on 07/04/2015 2:53:56 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East (90% of MSM is lies, except the National Enquirer, of course :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

And, sadly, every single one of the “conservative” Judges would agree.


53 posted on 07/04/2015 2:56:03 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Back to the thread.

That looks like magnet wire to me. ;-D

54 posted on 07/04/2015 3:00:42 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

Did the lawyers also make a seizure sans due process argument?
Excessive force?
Eminent domain compensation?


55 posted on 07/04/2015 3:08:29 PM PDT by BlueNgold (May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

That wont keep them alive if they come my way...


56 posted on 07/04/2015 3:20:40 PM PDT by SouthernBoyupNorth ("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Okimi2200

Truthfully, I think the judge was technically correct in this case, and it was a poor legal strategy to claim a violation of the 3rd Amendment, since it has very little precedent.

It *should* have been brought on 4th Amendment grounds. Had they done so, they would have likely won.


57 posted on 07/04/2015 3:24:07 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

But, but, but.... What about the Penumbra of the Amendments?

And the Interstate Commerce clause.....?

And a Woman’s Right to Privacy....?

/S


58 posted on 07/04/2015 3:57:39 PM PDT by BwanaNdege (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Are you sure you are not thinking of Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/381/479.html#sthash.oXszuUAR.dpuf

Note it is a dissenting opinion


59 posted on 07/04/2015 4:20:44 PM PDT by Paperpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: null and void
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Law abiding citizens can just shelter in place and STFU. It's for their safety. /s

60 posted on 07/04/2015 4:39:20 PM PDT by TADSLOS (A Ted Cruz Happy Warrior! GO TED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson