It's less polarized than people think. Most people just don't care about most opinions. ~1/3 of opinions are unanimous.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260310212334/https://fivethirt...

https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...

You would think so. Strangely, even though warrants have to be specific, police are allowed to seize things they come across during the search, even if those things aren’t on the warrant ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ ).

It’s not a free-for-all, though. If the warrant is for a stolen car, the police can’t open up pill bottles during the search; they have to look in places where a stolen car could be hidden ( https://www.fletc.gov/audio/execution-search-warrant-i-mp3 , do a text search for “elephant”). And the things being seized have to be obvious contraband ( https://www.rothdavies.com/criminal-defense/frequently-asked... ).

If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).

Well, also just looking at the first page, while I think there are analogous circumstances where this would've been infuriating (e.g., the government executes an unrelated search warrant, discovers both marijuana and the gun and charges him with it), in this case, it seems as though he both surrendered the gun to them and freely admitted to using marijuana which he also directed them to. That said, the search warrant was related to terrorism and it's very likely it would've authorized the agents to search for any drugs and firearms or other weapons.

No downside, all upside. Qualified immunity, etc. There are no consequences for this behavior by law enforcement and prosecutors unfortunately.

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."

The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced.

> but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign

Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless”

Keep reading...

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.

"Well regulated" refers to their ability to shoot straight, and a militia is a civilian force. This language is about civilians being capable of handling weapons.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s about the right.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.

The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

> The chief purport of these amendments was to annex to the Constitution a more specific bill of rights. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press were thereby secured; ...; the private right to bear arms;

~ History of the United States Volume II - James Schouler 1880

> [T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such States or districts without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.

~ Freedmen's Burea Act extension overriding presidential veto - Congress 1866

> The physique and the manly appearance of the American people seems to make them well suited for the military profession. The young people very early get used to traveling and toil. Hunting is the young men's chief pasttime. This not only strengthens them bodily but teaches them to handle guns and thus prepares them for the hardships of war. In addition to this every free man has a right to keep arms in his house and to use them when he wants.

~ America 1818-1820 - Baron Klinkowstrom

> The constitution of the United States contains a number of expres limitation upon the Federal legislative power. In addition to those contained in the first then Amendments relative to freedom of religion, speech, and press, the quartering of troops, the right of the people to assemble, to petition, to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...

~ Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States (1917) - Westel Willoughby

> The provision in the federal constitution on the subject is; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

~ The United States Constitutional Manual (1845) - Mordecai M'Kinney

> I. Personal Rights of Individuals ... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

~ The Federal Government; it's officers and Their Duties (1871) ~ Ransom H. Gillet

> The constitution makes it the right, the laws make it the duty, of all citizens within certain ages, to bear arms.

~ Education in a Republic (1838) - Edward Everett

> A man may arm himself for a case of probable danger; he may do it with a view to no specific occurrence, and he may do it in self-defense. Who can object to it? The constitution guarantees to every man the right bear arms. No law takes it away, and none every can. The right of self-defense is an inherent one, given by God, to man. It is our own natural right, and, as Blackstone says, no human legislation can ever take it from us.

~ The Life of John J. Crittenden With Selections From His Correspondence and Speeches (US Rep, US Senator, US AG, Gov of KY) (1871) - Edited by His Daughter, Mrs. Capman Coleman

...but... it continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"