The Supreme Court is currently considering whether or not to allow police to enter people’s homes without warrants and seize their guns.

Even though such an insane and tyrannical proposal blatantly contradicts both the Second and the Fourth Amendments, SCOTUS is apparently at least willing to give it the time of day.

“Community Caretaking”

Like all crazy and tyrannical proposals, this one comes with its own Orwellian-sounding name. That name is “community caretaking,” and of course, the Biden administration thoroughly supports it. When jackbooted representatives of the police state bash down your door and stomp on your face, they are apparently doing it to take care of you.

Surprisingly, the left-leaning ACLU opposes this measure, fearing that it will “give police free rein to enter the home without probable cause or a warrant.” Less surprisingly, the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute and the American Conservative Union also oppose this proposal for much the same reason.

The case where this issue will be decided is called Caniglia v. Strom. The Court is set to hear arguments pertaining to the case. It must do so because two lower courts—of course—sided with the police.

The Hard Truth About Courts and the Rule of Law

A long-held ideal within the American justice system—an ideal passionately believed in by many conservatives—is that the rule of law should always prevail over the rule of man.

The stark truth, however, is that no such thing as the rule of law truly exists, or ever has existed. All legal language is inherently vague and subject to interpretation. Most importantly, the way any given piece of legal language is interpreted depends on which people are doing the interpreting. That leaves open massive loopholes by which people who don’t like certain laws or constitutional provisions can either ignore said laws or simply “reinterpret” them into something that is more in line with their desires.

Anyone who needs an example of this happening need only look at the Second Amendment. Even though it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” left-leaning justices continue to look for excuses by which to restrict people’s gun rights.

Such people simply are not behaving in good faith. For them, “law” is merely a means by which to exert power and enact their preferences.

Even if the conservatives on today’s Court are not likely to allow a measure as insane as the one the Court is considering today to stand, a future Court, composed of different justices, could easily do so.

Those who value their freedom, their independence and their guns need to remember this fact and prepare accordingly.