When we read the Fourth Amendment it tells us that every citizen of this country has the right to be secure in their persons, their homes, their papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government without a warrant. Most of us are not trained as a Lawyer and it hinders our understanding of the law most of the time. But the fourth should be crystal clear to the majority of us. What was the state basing its decision on when it stated, “had a diagnosis of major depression with suicidal tendencies”? Was this during his teenage commitment or was it more recent? I will assume it was based on the aforementioned institutionalization as a teen. If the state is basing its decision on that particular incident, then I feel Todd has a valid argument as to the state’s wrongful seizure of his “automatic weapons”. I feel that Todd has a particularly good case against the state as I believe this very well could be ex post facto. He could legally possess these weapons before the enactment of this new law. Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing a law that applies ex post facto where Article 1 section 10 applies it to the states (Ex Post Facto, 2020). Also, I saw no indication of due process where Todd was in court or was represented in court to argue this as well. I’ll conclude with this, in Federalist, No. 46 James Madison said this: “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
respond to this discussion question in 100 words