Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes

[rmc51]

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bondi-doj-backs-warrantless-invasion-gun-owners-homes

Quote:
In an amicus brief, DOJ argued that when police are "providing aid" rather than investigating a crime, they should not need probable cause or a warrant. That claim, if accepted, creates a dangerous loophole: police may simply reframe their role to avoid constitutional limits.

The risks are obvious. A neighbor calls for a welfare check. Officers arrive, say they are caretakers, and enter without a warrant. Inside, they confront a homeowner startled by strangers in his house. The encounter escalates, and the mere presence of a firearm becomes justification for force. What began as a welfare check ends as a shooting.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment to prevent precisely this kind of abuse.

Judicial oversight was designed to ensure that government agents could not force their way into private homes unless a neutral magistrate agreed the evidence justified it. By lowering the bar from probable cause to suspicion, the Montana court has eroded that safeguard.




 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[MajorClay]

huh?

[Smokin Joe]

"providing aid"?

SO, this means that someone can anonymously call the police, say you need 'aid', and you end up getting 'swatted'.

Oh, Hell no!

[Sighlass]

This would probable end badly for me, one breaks in my door, well... odds are unless I can positively ID you on the fly, I would probable end up dead (and hopefully only me, not my family).

[Smokin Joe]

This would probable end badly for me, one breaks in my door, well... odds are unless I can positively ID you on the fly, I would probable end up dead (and hopefully only me, not my family).

Well, my Malinois would be the first responder, which would cost me one family member.

But the only reason to shoot my dog is to get to me.

I'd have to respond to the lethal threat appropriately.

No, this would not end well.

[libertybele]

Well, my Malinois would be the first responder, which would cost me one family member.

But the only reason to shoot my dog is to get to me.

I'd have to respond to the lethal threat appropriately.

No, this would not end well.

I had to do a 'google' search to see what kind of dog you have because I had never heard of a Malinois -- beautiful type of shepherd.

[libertybele]

As for Bondi she continue to prove to be worthless.  I cringed when Trump mentioned her at Charlie Kirk's ceremony when he told her she was doing a good job?  What???  What has she truly accomplished???  Not jack squat.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Great.  Now every lazy and corrupt cop is going to do a warrantless search and seizure justified by 'I was responding to report of a person in distress.'

There will be no poisoned evidentiary tree.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, my Malinois would be the first responder

Ah yes a Belgian Malinois, what German Shepherds aspire to be when they grow up.

[rmc51]

Trump’s DOJ Falling Short: Betraying Gun Owners in Key Battles for Second Amendment Rights
https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/2025/10/22/trumps-doj-falling-short-betraying-gun-owners-in-key-battles-for-second-amendment-rights/



https://youtu.be/sng29myW4dQ

https://twitter.com/GunRightsPrez/status/1976843151064416535

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1219331155847041026



 
Be careful, Be ready, Be prepared.
Buy ammo

[Hoodat]

In an amicus brief, DOJ argued that when police are "providing aid" rather than investigating a crime, they should not need probable cause or a warrant. That claim, if accepted, creates a dangerous loophole: police may simply reframe their role to avoid constitutional limits.

The risks are obvious. A neighbor calls for a welfare check. Officers arrive, say they are caretakers, and enter without a warrant. Inside, they confront a homeowner startled by strangers in his house. The encounter escalates, and the mere presence of a firearm becomes justification for force. What began as a welfare check ends as a shooting.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment to prevent precisely this kind of abuse.

Uh, no.  That's not at all what the Fourth Amendment is about.  Besides, this is a civil case, not a criminal case.

[Kamaji]

I'm seeing very little that makes any sort of sense here.

[Smokin Joe]

I had to do a 'google' search to see what kind of dog you have because I had never heard of a Malinois -- beautiful type of shepherd.

She is. I have beautiful kids and grandkids and even great grandkids, but she's my pretty girl (and she knows it).

[Fishrrman]

bele complains:
"As for Bondi she continue to prove to be worthless.  I cringed when Trump mentioned her at Charlie Kirk's ceremony when he told her she was doing a good job?  What???  What has she truly accomplished???"

OK, bele, gonna give it right back at ya.
This is what happens when you put a woman into a position that should ONLY be held by a man.

Sorry if anyone does not like this reply.

[BobfromWB]

its Zerohedge - a known Russian operated site - believing it is like believing Tass ...