Court: Cops Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Your Guns Without A Warrant If They Feel It’s In Your Best Interest

Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Guns Without Warrant Or Charges – Daily Sheeple

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

.

.
In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.

For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:

Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.

Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.

Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.

After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.

Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.

At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.

The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.

Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.

Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:

“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.

“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”

But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”

“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”

As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:

In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention – with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.

The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.

The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.

Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

Have the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal Signs Bill Into Law Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars And School Zones

Georgia Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars, And School Zones – CNS

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law Wednesday a bill that expands gun rights in the state to allow weapons in government buildings, bars, places of worship, and school zones under certain circumstances.

.

.
Under House Bill 60, also known as the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, school districts will get to decide whether to allow authorized personnel to carry weapons within school safety zones under certain circumstances.

In addition, church leaders will be able to decide whether to allow licensed gun owners to bring weapons into their place of worship. The law also removes fingerprinting requirements for renewal licenses.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action called the bill the “most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.”

Deal, who characterized himself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, said the measure “will protect the constitutional rights of Georgians who have gone through a background check to legally obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License.”

“Roughly 500,000 Georgia citizens have a permit of this kind, which is approximately 5 percent of our population,” Deal said in a press release. “License holders have passed background checks and are in good standing with the law. This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules – and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.”

“Our nation’s founders put the right to bear arms on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Georgians cherish their Second Amendment rights, and this law embodies those values,” he added.

Executive Director Pia Carusone of Americans for Responsible Solutions, which lobbied against the bill, called it “extremism in action.”

“It moves Georgia out of the mainstream,” Carusone said. “Since the Georgia House first passed this expansive legislation, thousands of Georgians and tens of thousands of Americans have said loud and clear that they are tired of the gun lobby advancing its extreme agenda at the expense of their families’ safety.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEOS* Bill Whittle IS Your Virtual President


VIRTUAL INAUGURAL ADDRESS

.
GUNS

.
HEALTH CARE

.
LEGISLATION

.
GAY MARRIAGE

.
ENTITLEMENTS

.
IMMIGRATION

.
VOTER FRAUD

.

Obama Regime Secretly Declaring Thousands Of U.S. Veterans Incompetent… Then Taking Away Their Guns

Outrage! Obama Administration Is Secretly Declaring Thousands Of US Veterans Incompetent… Then Taking Away Their Second Amendment Rights – Gateway Pundit

US veterans started receiving letters from the government last year informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both.

This comes on page 2 of the VA letter.

.

.
Here is the full copy of the letter-

Here is page 1 of the letter:

.

.
Here is page 2:

.

.
The majority of US veterans receive basically the same letter. Many of the veterans do not even know the VA declared them incompetent. The targeted veterans say the VA offers an appeals process but then does not share required information.

VA Benefits Administrators are the ones making these declarations against veterans robbing them of their due process rights and arbitrarily submitting their names to the FBI’s NICS database without cause and many times without a veteran’s knowledge.

This is an outrage!

Last April the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) filed a suit against the Obama Administration on behalf of these abused veterans.

Katharine Russ reported:

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) has filed the first lawsuit of what promises to be a string of lawsuits in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against the US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)…

…Current policies of the VA have caused more than 129,000 veterans to, arbitrarily, be deprived of their Second Amendment Rights to own firearms without due process simply because they were declared financially “incompetent.”

These arbitrary policies, in no way, consider whether a veteran represents a danger to themselves or to others.

It is, unequivocally, unsound and irrational thinking that sends our young men and women off to war and expects them to come home “whole.” Most veterans experience minor depression, minor PTSD, and even minor short-term memory loss when they return home but can still function- competently.

No court would find them incompetent and strip them of their second amendment rights for such minor diagnoses unless they were proven to be a detriment to society. In some these cases, the VA does not even offer reasons or evidence for such a Determination.

It is outrageous to think that over 100,000 US veterans are the victims of this sort of abuse.

US veterans deserve the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Feds Confiscate Completely Unrelated Files Of Reporter During Raid To Seize Husband’s Guns

Feds Confiscate Investigative Reporter’s Confidential Files During Raid – Daily Caller

A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August – leading her to fear that a number of her sources inside the federal government have now been exposed.

.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, journalist Audrey Hudson revealed that the Department of Homeland Security and Maryland State Police were involved in a predawn raid of her Shady Side, Md. home on Aug. 6. Hudson is a former Washington Times reporter and current freelance reporter.

A search warrant obtained by TheDC indicates that the August raid allowed law enforcement to search for firearms inside her home.

The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.

But without Hudson’s knowledge, the agents also confiscated a batch of documents that contained information about sources inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, she said.

Outraged over the seizure, Hudson is now speaking out. She said no subpoena for the notes was presented during the raid and argues the confiscation was outside of the search warrant’s parameter.

“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson said this week. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”

She provided TheDC with a photo showing the stack of file folders in a bag marked “evidence/property.”

On Thursday, a spokesman for the Maryland State Police declined to address any specifics about the search.

“Due to the ongoing criminal investigation and the potential for pending criminal charges at the state and/or federal level, the Maryland State Police will not discuss specific information about this investigation at this time,” spokesman Greg Shipley said in a statement to TheDC.

At about 4:30 a.m. on Aug. 6, Hudson said officers dressed in full body armor presented a search warrant to enter the home she shares on the bay with her husband. She estimates that at least seven officers took part in the raid.

After the search began, Hudson said she was asked by an investigator with the Coast Guard Investigative Service if she was the same Audrey Hudson who had written a series of critical stories about air marshals for The Washington Times over the last decade. The Coast Guard operates under the Department of Homeland Security.

Hudson said that investigator, Miguel Bosch, identified himself as a former air marshal official.

But it wasn’t until a month later, on Sept. 10, that Hudson was informed by Bosch that five files including her handwritten and typed notes from interviews with numerous confidential sources and other documents had been taken during the raid.

“In particular, the files included notes that were used to expose how the Federal Air Marshal Service had lied to Congress about the number of airline flights there were actually protecting against another terrorist attack,” Hudson wrote in a summary about the raid provided to TheDC.

Recalling the experience during an interview this week, Hudson said: “When they called and told me about it, I just about had a heart attack.”

She said she asked Bosch why they took the files. He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was “legitimate” for her to have them.

“‘Legitimate’ for me to have my own notes?” she said incredulously on Wednesday.

Asked how many sources she thinks may have been exposed, Hudson said: “A lot. More than one. There were a lot of names in those files.”

“This guy basically came in here and took my anonymous sources and turned them over – took my whistleblowers – and turned it over to the agency they were blowing the whistle on,” Hudson said. “And these guys still work there.”

The Daily Caller reached Bosch on his cell phone on Thursday. “Before I talk to you, I’m probably going to have to run this by our legal department,” he said.

Carlos Díaz, the chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said in a statement that the Coast Guard Investigative Service was asked to participate in the raid because the search involved a Coast Guard employee. Flanagan is an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore.

Díaz explained that the files were taken because they found official government papers, which Hudson had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO – For Official Use Only (FOUO) – and LES – Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” Díaz said.

“The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act,” he said.

Diaz said Flanagan was notified that the documents were cleared and he later picked them up after signing for the files.

But Hudson doesn’t buy the explanation: “That explains the one file they took but does not explain why they took four other files with my handwritten and typed interview notes with confidential sources, that I staked my reputation as a journalist to protect under the auspices of the First Amendment of the Constitution,” she said.

Hudson said she and her husband knew something was up in February when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wanted to talk about a purchase Flanagan made about five years ago.

The court documents note that ATF investigators asked Flanagan if he obtained “possible machine gun parts from a Swedish National.” Flanagan responded that he once purchased a potato gun but threw it away because it didn’t work.

In July, according to the documents, Bosch interviewed several of Flanagan’s Coast Guard colleagues, who said Flanagan spoke often about being a “firearms collector.”

“One party that was interviewed remembered distinctly about Flanagan advising he had recently purchased a Bersa .380 handgun, and observed pictures of firearms similar to AK-47 semi-automatic rifles which were identified by Flanagan as being his,” the court documents state.

The documents also note that Victor Hodgin, the trooper in the criminal investigation division of the Maryland State Police whose name is on the search warrant, accessed Flanagan’s Facebook account in his investigation.

“Records maintained by Facebook.com will allow him to further implicate Paul Roland Flanagan in the illegal possession [of] firearms,” he wrote.

Hodgin didn’t return a voicemail left on his phone. Shipley, the spokesman with the Maryland State Police, said the “evidence and information developed during this investigation is currently under review by both the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office.”

“A determination will be made by officials in these offices regarding the state and or federal charges that may be placed as a result of this investigation,” he said.

Hudson told TheDC that the couple had a run-in with the Maryland State Police about six years ago. “A neighbor complained on New Years Eve about one of us shooting a gun off the pier here,” she said. “We live right on the bay.”

Hudson said the police gave them a slap on the wrist then. “They knew then we had these guns,” she said. “If this was a problem – that he wasn’t supposed to be around them – they should’ve told us then.”

During the raid, the officers also went after Hudson’s three pistols and three long guns, which she obtained legally.

“I’m a Kentucky girl,” she said. “I come kitchen trained, and firearm ready. I grew up with guns and I’ve always been around guns.”

Hudson has been a reporter in Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years and was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize. She is a freelancer for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer.

While at the Times, Hudson reported extensively on the air marshal program – specifically about whether Homeland Security officials had lied to Congress and reported protecting more flights than they really were. Using her sources inside the government, Hudson has also reported for years about possible terrorist “dry-runs” on airplanes.

Unlike some other reporters whose sources have been targeted in recent years by the government, Hudson said none of the information she had was classified or given to her by someone who broke the law.

“None of the documents were classified,” she said. “There were no laws broken in me obtaining these files.”

Hudson said she wants to let her sources know that they may have been exposed.

“Part of the reason I’m coming forward with this is I’m scared to contact them,” she said. “I’m terrified to contact them…I’ve got to let these guys know somehow.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Concealed carry permit holder stops potential mass shooting by shooting man armed with rifle

Of course the media will not have time for this story

 

This is a story of a mass shooting that might have been if not for the efforts of a concealed carrier. However, don’t expect to see this story on the national news since there were no fatalities.

Several guests, in their 20′s and 30′s were attending a party at a Glendale, AZ home when one of the guests, identified only as a 27 year old male, got into an altercation with several people at the home.

The 27 year old was asked to leave, which he initially did. However, shortly thereafter, the 27 year old returned, this time armed with a rifle.

The suspected shooter fired rounds off outside the home and when he pointed the gun at other guests, a 39 year old guest drew a concealed handgun and fired on the suspect, who was hit by the gunfire.

The concealed carrier waited for police, explained what happened and was released after giving a statement to police.

 

Stick to tennis, OK Martina

Doug Powers has an example of how shallow and simplistic the minds of Liberals can be

I’m always amazed by how the liberal mind works — or doesn’t as it were.

Here’s a question about guns from tennis legend Martina Navratilova:

As a law abiding citizen without a gun,how can I tell a difference between the law abiding citizen with a gun and the criminal with a gun?

Powers gives a good answer, basically that the criminal will use their gun to ROB or harm you, but allow me another response.

Martina, not sure where you reside, but if you live here in Texas, or Florida, or any other stare that has the good sense to allow shall issue carry permits, you pass people with such permits carrying guns every day. They are beside you in stores, restaurants, walking on the sidewalk, most any place you are, you will encounter them. Of course, you would never know they are carrying. Their weapons are secured in holsters, out of sight, and frankly you have nothing at all to fear from them. Of course that guy thinking of committing a crime like assault, rape, armed robbery, etc does not know who is armed either. And that guy, unlike you, has every reason to be wary don’t they? Concealed carry laws have reduced the violent crime rate in states that pass them.

So, as to how you tell the difference? Well, as Doug Powers said

The question she should be asking is “How do the criminals with guns spot law-abiding citizens without guns?” 

That is a very important question because those criminals AVOID armed citizens, so, yes, the very presence of SOME armed citizens makes everyone safer, because that bad guys do not know who is prepared to fight back with equal or greater force.