To answer the previous question...
Namely, if a person refuses to give up their firearms under a "red flag" law, could authorities enter their house and seize them... The Tenth Circuit just ruled in US v. Shrum, No. 17-3059. Defendant called 911 to report that his girlfriend, aged in her 30s, had suddenly died. (The autopsy found she'd ODed on meth). Police responded, thought the death unusual, held him for 11 hours outside the house, noticed that he had ammunition, determined that he was a convicted felon, and tipped off ATF which searched the house and found guns, ammo, and meth.
The 10th Circuit found there was a Fourth Amendment violation, going back to when police refused to let him enter his house for an extended period of time; that was a seizure. They had no probable cause to believe he'd committed a crime; at best they had a suspicion. There was no reason to believe he'd destroy evidence, since police then knew of no evidence. As the Court notes, "Quite frankly, this would have been a much more straightforward case both in the district court and here if the Government had conceded the obvious, that is, the unconstitutionality of the initial seizure of Defendant's home."
As I recall, years ago (in an Arizona case) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no "murder scene" exception to the Fourth Amendment. I'd think there is no "red flag law" exception, either.
NRA vs. Cuomo: first round goes to NRA
The District Court for the Northern District of New York rejected Cuomo's motion to dismiss, finding:
""allegations of direct and implied threats to insurers and financial institutions because of these entities' links with the NRA, and the allegations of resulting harm to the NRA's operations, are sufficient to make out plausible First Amendment freedom-of-speech claims."
Among the "direct and implied threats" is one contained in a press release Cuomo issued in April stating, "I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message."
"Red Flag Law" leaves man dead
Story here. His niece seems to be suggesting that the victim's sister sought the order in retribution for a family quarrel. Any process that can be used can be abused, and will be abused unless there are consequences for abuse. Here there are none.
I wonder how those laws square with the Fourth Amendment? Unless the person on the receiving end cooperates, police must search the home. There's no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. And a residence is at the core of Fourth Amendment protections. Would the courts uphold a search warrant based upon a relative's prediction that the homeowner is at risk commit a crime in the future, unless stopped?
Jeff Sessions has resigned
Not that he's done enough to where it'll be noticed....
My experience in government was that the political appointees always had a big turn-over after the mid-terms. It wasn't really a "shakeup." It was that a lot of those positions were patronage, position given in exchange for political services in the previous election, and now there's been another election, the administration is indebted to other people, and the first group has had their time.
Military considering a 6.8 mm
Story here, albeit written by someone whose knowledge of ballistics is limited.
It'd be nice to have a military cartridge designed for military needs (say a good amount of taper, to ease extraction) rather than just upgrade a varmint hunting round, as we did the last time. Considering that this round may be around, like the 5.56, for fifty years, some serious design work ought to be done.