Quote:
It has everything to do with it. It's exactly the point. This goes to the root of our civil and criminal law. What a person does uses or owns today, will not be made criminal by legislation tomorrow. Purchase and possession of a weapon which is legal today, can't be confiscated tomorrow.
Not only is this protected by Article I, Section 9, it's also protected by the Fifth Amendment, which states in part, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
|
I fail to see what Article I, Section 9 has to do with it, as this is neither a bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. Good point on the fifth amendment, though, and I guess I'll just have to poke around when I get a chance to see if this is something that has happened before, or if it has ever been ruled on.
I will say that it probably wouldn't be impossible to show the removal of such weapons from civilian hands as a compelling interest, and provided it addressed other crime-related issues (not that ARs are generally used in crimes anyway, but whatever) I could see it
possibly meeting a strict scrutiny standard for an exception to that clause.
Quote:
|
What we have in this discussion, is a lot of supposition that smacks of "black helicopter and blue helmet" fear.
|
From some, perhaps. It's not uncommon. I hope it's clear that I don't think this actually
will happen...it's not something that concerns me in the slightest (though even an AWB
with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, and not nearly as far-fetched). I'm merely arguing that it
could happen. Like, legally.
To which you've made a fairly compelling rebuttal.
