rgvag11 said:

---

LOL. The fact that you can not expound on the supposed contradiction and on the legal merits for allowing this exception that would dramatically limit people's rights exposes a puerile understanding of "legal knowledge". And I'm not a lawyer.

---

Who said I can't expound on the contradiction? Just because I didn't expound upon it - thinking it would be obvious (which it is to others, one of whom pointed that out in his response to your post noting that felons can't own firearms) - doesn't mean I "cannot." Let me help you out, as you're clearly out of your depth.

The Second Amendment, by its language, is ABSOLUTE. No exceptions for felons. No exceptions at all. Zero. The Supreme Court has narrowed that over the years, much like it's done for the First Amendment (free speech/religion/etc.). They've ALSO narrowed the meaning of the 4th Amendment, which I mentioned previously. Plain View, Exigent Circumstances, etc.

You're clearly not a conservative or a Republican, and thus, we know that you're someone that doesn't support an unabridged right - as the Constitution's plain language DEMANDS - to keep and bear arms. That means that you support an interpretation of an Amendment contained in The Bill of Rights that narrows that language. Ergo, it stands to reason that you should also support the concept that there would be some exceptions (i.e., "narrowing") to ANOTHER such Amendment's (also contained in The Bill of Rights) restriction on searches and seizures that require a warrant, of which there are already several that have been added by the Supreme Court over the years.

I think I comprehend the benighted nature or your retorts quite well.

And as someone else has stated, your question is a logical fallacy known as a 'strawman'. Nobody is arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant, but to think that the 4th amd automatically yields to exceptions allowing LEO to search without a warrant is harebrained.

WOW. You drifted there. We are not talking about the 2nd amd.

Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant.


ETA: An exception diverges from a rule. Usually, normal people, want to know why. You have never stated 'why'. Your argument has been, 'exceptions have been allow, so why not this one.'

Be sure to have coffee and donuts ready!

"You violated my rights, so I support others rights bring violated"...the gop 2025

rgvag11 said:

---

WOW. You drifted there. We are not talking about the 2nd amd.

Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant.


ETA: An exception diverges from a rule. Usually, normal people, want to know why. You have never stated 'why'. Your argument has been, 'exceptions have been allow, so why not this one.'

---

Do you understand WHY the 2nd (and the 1st) Amendments are being mentioned? They're called "analogous" because they involve a very similar premise the one upon which the current question relates.

Why should a LEO be able to search a person's property without a warrant? Well...I just gave you MULTIPLE exceptions that allow them to do that, Mensa. You seem to have a lot of trouble following the conversation, and zero regard to the fact that it's very obvious others know a LOT more than you about this subject.

Let me restate your last paragraph into a comprehensible question that most intelligent people can understand: "Why do you believe THIS circumstance should be an exception to the general rule"? Assuming that's what you're asking, I never actually said it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. I made fun of you for clearly being ignorant that there already exists multiple exceptions to the rule, along with other similar rules that you no doubt SUPPORT exceptions on. For me to have an opinion on whether this should be an exception, I'd need to know the facts of how it's implemented. If you'd actually been to law school - and it's clear, you shouldn't ever even bother to try - you'd realize that the way the Court has determined these existing exceptions is through CASES that provide actual facts that allow them to determine: 1) whether an exception should apply; and 2) the constraints upon any such exception.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Who's arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant?

---

There were posts that say there should be no circumstances in which LE can enter a home without a warrant.

Plenty here are arguing that these Constitutional searches are unconstitutional, so I'm trying to determine why they think so. This seems like a good first place to start.

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

WOW. You drifted there. We are not talking about the 2nd amd.

Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant.


ETA: An exception diverges from a rule. Usually, normal people, want to know why. You have never stated 'why'. Your argument has been, 'exceptions have been allow, so why not this one.'

---

Do you understand WHY the 2nd (and the 1st) Amendments are being mentioned? They're called "analogous" because they involve a very similar premise the one upon which the current question relates.

Why should a LEO be able to search a person's property without a warrant? Well...I just gave you MULTIPLE exceptions that allow them to do that, Mensa. You seem to have a lot of trouble following the conversation, and zero regard to the fact that it's very obvious others know a LOT more than you about this subject.

Let me restate your last paragraph into a comprehensible question that most intelligent people can understand: "Why do you believe THIS circumstance should be an exception to the general rule"? Assuming that's what you're asking, I never actually said it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. I made fun of you for clearly being ignorant that there already exists multiple exceptions to the rule, along with other similar rules that you no doubt SUPPORT exceptions on. For me to have an opinion on whether this should be an exception, I'd need to know the facts of how it's implemented. If you'd actually been to law school - and it's clear, you shouldn't ever even bother to try - you'd realize that the way the Court has determined these existing exceptions is through CASES that provide actual facts that allow them to determine: 1) whether an exception should apply; and 2) the constraints upon any such exception.

---

So you were trolling and never answer the question. (mensa material) (ETA: I made clear that I know rights have exceptions -- you continue to play games)

And you still haven't answered the question. (cause its not worth it to a mensa)

And it seems like you won't answer it, because you can't, as you admitted. Not because the information needed is not available, but because you can't.

rgvag11 said:

---

I think I comprehend the benighted nature or your retorts quite well.

And as someone else has stated, your question is a logical fallacy known as a 'strawman'. Nobody is arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant, but to think that the 4th amd automatically yields to exceptions allowing LEO to search without a warrant is harebrained.

---

your next post...

"Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant."

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

WOW. You drifted there. We are not talking about the 2nd amd.

Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant.


ETA: An exception diverges from a rule. Usually, normal people, want to know why. You have never stated 'why'. Your argument has been, 'exceptions have been allow, so why not this one.'

---

Do you understand WHY the 2nd (and the 1st) Amendments are being mentioned? They're called "analogous" because they involve a very similar premise the one upon which the current question relates.

Why should a LEO be able to search a person's property without a warrant? Well...I just gave you MULTIPLE exceptions that allow them to do that, Mensa. You seem to have a lot of trouble following the conversation, and zero regard to the fact that it's very obvious others know a LOT more than you about this subject.

Let me restate your last paragraph into a comprehensible question that most intelligent people can understand: "Why do you believe THIS circumstance should be an exception to the general rule"? Assuming that's what you're asking, I never actually said it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. I made fun of you for clearly being ignorant that there already exists multiple exceptions to the rule, along with other similar rules that you no doubt SUPPORT exceptions on. For me to have an opinion on whether this should be an exception, I'd need to know the facts of how it's implemented. If you'd actually been to law school - and it's clear, you shouldn't ever even bother to try - you'd realize that the way the Court has determined these existing exceptions is through CASES that provide actual facts that allow them to determine: 1) whether an exception should apply; and 2) the constraints upon any such exception.

---

So you were trolling and never answer the question. (mensa material) (ETA: I made clear that I know rights have exceptions -- you continue to play games)

And you still haven't answered the question. (cause its not worth it to a mensa)

And it seems like you won't answer it, because you can't, as you admitted. Not because the information needed is not available, but because you can't.

---

Holy **** you are challenged.

READ WHAT I WROTE. MF.

InfantryAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I think I comprehend the benighted nature or your retorts quite well.

And as someone else has stated, your question is a logical fallacy known as a 'strawman'. Nobody is arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant, but to think that the 4th amd automatically yields to exceptions allowing LEO to search without a warrant is harebrained.

---

your next post...

"Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant."

---

As it relates to the case in the OP -- did I really need to spell it out. ffs

Yep. You never answered the question.

You are struggling.

ETA; The case is in the OP. You are welcome to read it and then try again, but I'll keep my expectation low.

rgvag11 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I think I comprehend the benighted nature or your retorts quite well.

And as someone else has stated, your question is a logical fallacy known as a 'strawman'. Nobody is arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant, but to think that the 4th amd automatically yields to exceptions allowing LEO to search without a warrant is harebrained.

---

your next post...

"Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant."

---

As it relates to the case in the OP -- did I really need to spell it out. ffs

---

Let me hold your hand like a small child and explain:

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE OP. It's a stated policy. When we have a "case" in legal terms, the courts can flesh out whether it complies with the 4th Amendment's requirements.

Good Lord.

rgvag11 said:

---

Yep. You never answered the question.

You are struggling.

ETA; The case is in the OP. You are welcome to read it and then try again, but I'll keep my expectation low.

---

Pal, you are so far out of your depth I'm going to call the f'n Lifeguard.

J.G.G. v. TRUMP

I won't hold my breath on getting a real answer.

rgvag11 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I think I comprehend the benighted nature or your retorts quite well.

And as someone else has stated, your question is a logical fallacy known as a 'strawman'. Nobody is arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant, but to think that the 4th amd automatically yields to exceptions allowing LEO to search without a warrant is harebrained.

---

your next post...

"Try to get back to the 4th amd, if you can, and try to explain, if you can, why LEO should be able to search a person's property without a warrant."

---

As it relates to the case in the OP -- did I really need to spell it out. ffs

---

As it relates to the OP, under what circumstances would LE be able to enter without a warrant. This has not been posted anywhere here. Again, just conjecture.

The case is J.G.G. v. TRUMP.

Read all about it and then try come up with a more insightful response that actually contributes to the conversation. .

rgvag11 said:

---

The case is J.G.G. v. TRUMP.

Read all about it and then try come up with a more insightful response that actually contributes to the conversation. .

---

1- OP posts about LE being able to enter houses without warrant.
2- posters complain it's a 4th Amendment violation.

You point to a case having to due with foreign nationals having due process.

Not seeing the connection to what this thread is discussing.

Am seeing you move the goalposts.

rgvag11 said:

---

I won't hold my breath on getting a real answer.

---

The only people starring your posts are idiots.

Here's an idea: since you posted the original post on why it SHOULD NOT be allowed as exception to a constitutional amendment that you clearly don't understand, perhaps the burden should be on you?

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're arguing with someone that runs circles around you both professionally and monetarily. You're not even in tune with WHY you have absolutely no idea what the **** you're talking about.

Once again, your are the one advocating for an exception to the 4th that has never existed. The onus is on you.

With all your supposed expertise and blustering, you can't answer the question.


Just take the L.

rgvag11 said:

---

Once again, your are the one advocating for an exception to the 4th that has never existed. The onis is on you.

With all your supposed expertise and blustering, you can't answer the question.


Just take the L.

---

Buddy, anyone with any semblance of legal knowledge that has read this thread agrees with me on these two central points: 1. You have no idea what you're talking about; and 2. You couldn't follow a conversation if you had a map.

Let me explain this to you again so that perhaps it will sink into your smooth brain: every exception that exists didn't exist until an actual case came before the Court. There have been no, zero, nada cases on this issue before the Court to date and thus, we have no way of knowing if the Court will determine this calls for a new exception, fits into an existing exception, or shouldn't be an exception at all. You're clearly too dense and ignorant to understand this concept.

I truly can't believe that you'd continue to argue this issue with someone that quite obviously is 10k times more qualified than you to speak on this issue. It's absolutely amazing.

Once again, you've dodged my request to posit why this SHOULDNT be allowed under the 4th Amendment, which, considering you started the ****ing thread, should probably be required before you try to make others lay out their reasoning otherwise.

We both know why you won't.

More blustering and still no answer.

So pathetic.

rgvag11 said:

---

J.G.G. v. TRUMP

---

THIS CASE ISN'T BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

Until it is, perhaps you should be quiet.

rgvag11 said:

---

More blustering and still no answer.

So pathetic.

---

What "answer" are you looking for? You posted the thread and haven't put forward a single argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed. You're arguing with multiple people, including me, who argue big cases in federal courts for a (very very good) LIVING.

Holy *****

You can still opine.

Pretend you are a supreme court justice and answer the question.

Eta: For God sake, if you can't remember the question, then just give up.

rgvag11 said:

---

You can still opine.

Pretend you are a supreme court justice and answer the question.

Eta: For God sake, if you can't remember the question, then just give up.

---

Why don't you opine first? You posted the thread.

I want to hear your legal reasoning as to why this shouldn't be permitted. If it's your earlier espoused "plain language" argument, then you've already kicked your own ass. Anyone starring your posts is just as ignorant and dense as you are.

Once again, you are the one advocating for an exception that has never existed. The onus is on you.

I think you are a complete fraud and can't answer tge question and your desperation is on complete display to everyone. It's very sad.

rgvag11 said:

---

Once again, you are the one advocating for an exception that has never existed. The onus is on you.

I think you are a complete fraud and can't answer tge question and your desperation is on complete display to everyone. It's very sad.

---

Buddy, show me where I advocated for an exception. You continue to refuse to explain to all of us why an exception isn't warranted when you're the one who made the the initial post. The only point you've attempted to advocate is one that myself and another attorney quickly slapped down by showing your own clearly contradictory positions involving two additional rights contained within the same constitutional structure.

A fraud? Pal you can look me up online and on the Texas Bar's website. The only people starring your idiocy are others who like you, have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

The whole point of this thread is about the federal government trying to carve out a new exception to our 4th Amendment right.

I asked you why this new exception should exist, and you have deflected with exceptions that already exist, and for which we were not discussing. You then followed this up by asking me to justify why this new exception to our 4th Amendment right shouldn't exist, as if you have no concept of people's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion into their lives and property.

Anybody can pretend to be a lawyer. There have been many here that have done it before. IMHO, a person that "own(s) a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for (them)" would not commit so much time and effort to a fruitless conversation. Add in all the ego trips and it comes off as too desperate.

Weren't you agreeing that the plain view exception should apply?

schmellba99 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Illegals do have rights, they are just limited to a certain subset that are basic constitutional rights for all human beings under the authority of our government. If they are hostile agents however, those rights are limited in the context of any ongoing threat to the USA. This might mean they can be pursued or sought on private property without protection if they are engaged in ongoing threatening activities.

---

What about the rights of the homeowner?

---

If ICE or whomever is at the point that they believe illegals are being harbored or held in a house that they invoke this Act as authority to enter without a warrant, they are at the point where they could use probable cause anyway.

And if they do F up and enter a house without a warrant and without probable cause or reasonable justification - hope the government gets its ass handed to them in court and the homeowner is compensated very well for such an egregious error on their part.

---

Then make them use ****ing Probable Cause.

This reminds me of some conversations I had with hunting buddies where they insisted that a Game Warden could go anywhere he wished without a warrant.

Quote:

---

If ICE or whomever is at the point that they believe illegals are being harbored or held in a house that they invoke this Act as authority to enter without a warrant, they are at the point where they could use probable cause anyway.

---

Uhhhhhh, he got that VERY wrong!

An illegal being inside a house is not "probable cause" to enter the house!

I just find it shocking any time someone considers themselves to be conservative/small government/doesn't trust the government/etc looks at something like this and goes "Yep, that's a win for the good guys"