Picking And Choosing What Works For Their Agenda: The Supreme Court Wants To Decide Whether Or Not Police Can Enter Your Home To Seize Guns

“If this is revised by the courts, you can count on the fact that it will further strip the people from the rights that God has clearly given them.”

​History of dubious Supreme Court rulings

It is something that I noticed decades ago, the Supreme Court likes to pick and choose the cases that make way for the global agenda.

The Supreme Court decided if prayer should be a part of school curriculums and was involved in the removal of the Ten Commandments. The oligarchy overreached its authority by stating that they were not permissible objectives. What do they make reference to in deciding cases? (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 25:1).

The Supreme Court decided to sanction the murder of the innocent and called it a choice (Proverbs 6:17).

Then, they decided to overreach into the affairs of the Church and determined what is permissible when it comes to marriage and called it love (Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 1:24-32).

This just scratches the surface when it comes to these injustices taking up that which they have not been given authority to rule against. The Lord has already decided these issues (Hebrews 17:8)

​The latest Constitutional trap: “community caretaking”

Forbes reported that the Supreme Court will decide whether police can enter a home to seize guns without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer or any other government official can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.

However, there is a broader cousin to these exceptions called the “community caretaking” exception. It derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.

We need to stop right here.

​Examples of overreach in policing that the Supreme Court has (tacitly or explicitly) allowed

As you well know, this is a will to a broad and unlawful misconstrued and misinterpretation of the courts. Just consider the source and their histories. They are doing this while gutting the pith and marrow of the Fourth Amendment. If they are to have their way, it will lead to gun confiscation which is a violation of both the Fourth and the Second Amendments (Psalm 94:20). You can mark my words.

Let’s take a quick look at the TSA in the airports today, brought about by the US Government under the guise of stopping terrorism.

All of it was sold to us as for “our safety” and yet, to date, the TSA has not one given case of protecting us from any terror attacks. This is a total violation of the Fourth Amendment.

What has government gained through the ignorance of the people with the use of terror and the TSA? They have gained a free hand in accusing every one of us as being a potential terrorist by putting their hands upon us and searching our bags while the borders are left wide-open and the mayors across the country then allure illegals into America. By the way, did you know that illegals do not have to produce identification?

Behind the mainstream media’s silence, the Muslims, which the government told us were the responsible party for 911, are covertly taking to governmental positions.

​Such overreach should not have to come before the Supreme Court

Friends, this is the government overreaching once again. It is the furtherance of the encroachment upon the people’s God-given rights in an attempt to strip them away in hopes that they can revise what our rights plainly mean.

In conclusion: These Injustices have no business whatsoever deciding what the law is and our God-given rights are because they have already been determined. Like corrupt politicians, these judges are to sit during good behavior (Article 3, Section 1 US Constitution), and if they fail in doing so, they are also to be impeached and prosecuted for their transgressions (Article 2, Section 4; Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 US Constitution).

​Editor’s Note

In fact the Supreme Court must act to correct an error of a lower court. The case (Caniglia v. Strom) began when a wife called police after her husband played a joke during an argument. He placed an unloaded gun on the table between them and told her to shoot him. When police arrived, they encouraged the husband to take an ambulance ride to hospital for psychiatric evaluation. But they also told the wife the husband had just consented to a search of their home for more guns. She told them he kept two guns in his home. They seized them.

The husband sued the city because the police lied to his wife when he couldn’t correct the lie, and took his guns. And the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sided with the police. They applied the “community caretaking” standard.

Unless the Supreme Court acts, the Constitutionally errant ruling stands. CNAV takes the views that:

1. “Community caretaking” is a false standard, since a “well-regulated militia,” meaning armed citizens, can take care of their own community.
2. In any event, a man playing a sick joke on his wife to advance an argument or show how she hurt his feelings presents no danger to anyone.
3. Absolutely no legitimate doctrine of police power can ever construe as, or constitute, a license to lie. When police lie, their power ends.

The Supreme Court could have let the faulty ruling stand. But to reverse it, they must “take the case.”