The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 7, 2011, 05:15 PM   #26
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Whatever bozo posturing "lawmaker" drafted this ridiculous proposal obviously doesn't care about it being constitutional.

The very last part of the 5th amendment reads " 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."

To be expected to turn something in to the state without being compensated, at the penalty of criminal violation, seems to be against our constitutional rights.
AH.74 is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 08:14 PM   #27
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 531
I would have to agree. Even if they take property by eminent domain, they have to pay you for it. I don't see this going anywhere.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 10:04 PM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,188
They will no doubt argue that by giving you the option of removing the offending magazines from the state, they are not forcing you to give them up without compensation.

But, vis a vis the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my view as a common serf who never attended law school is that, if I'm in Connecticut and my magazines have to live in [some other state], I have been "deprived" of my property. If I haven't been deprived of my property, why isn't my property here where I can pick it up and use it?

But ... I'm not a lawyer.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 01:42 AM   #29
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74
...The very last part of the 5th amendment reads " 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."

To be expected to turn something in to the state without being compensated, at the penalty of criminal violation, seems to be against our constitutional rights...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
...But, vis a vis the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my view as a common serf who never attended law school is that, if I'm in Connecticut and my magazines have to live in [some other state], I have been "deprived" of my property. If I haven't been deprived of my property, why isn't my property here where I can pick it up and use it?

But ... I'm not a lawyer....
Confiscation of contraband, i. e., something you can not legally possess, is not a 5th Amendment taking for a public use; and therefore no compensation is required. If that weren't the case, every drug dealer who got arrested would be entitled to reimbursement for any confiscated stash.

In general, due process would ordinarily be satisfied by the fact that a statute was enacted. However, I do see a possible problem with making something contraband that was initially legally owned.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 02:33 AM   #30
ncpatriot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 350
What a shame, especially in a gun producing state. Wasn't CT once know as "the nation's arsenal"?

Didn't a few state leaders years ago invite firearms manufacturers to move from CT and MA to their states? I think I remember that. Would serve a state right to lose a corporate taxpayer & job provider over insane regulations. Do you think Samuel Adams & Paul Revere are rolling over in their graves at the behavior of their region?

All these schemes stem from public officials lacking the courage to fight the criminal, then attacking the citizen hard to compensate. Easy to attack the good guy & look strong. Also, the politician fears the citizen will one day realize how the politico has bled him dry. He doesn't want the citizen armed when that light bulb comes on.
__________________
Remember the American heroes of Flight 93.
ncpatriot is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 09:18 AM   #31
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
Confiscation of contraband, i. e., something you can not legally possess, is not a 5th Amendment taking for a public use; and therefore no compensation is required. If that weren't the case, every drug dealer who got arrested would be entitled to reimbursement for any confiscated stash.

In general, due process would ordinarily be satisfied by the fact that a statute was enacted. However, I do see a possible problem with making something contraband that was initially legally owned.
Confiscation of cash during a crime, or cash obtained by criminal action, is not the same thing as just mere confiscation of legally owned property.

This is not confiscation- it is being required to turn your property in to the state or face criminal charges. I see that as being applicable. I also don't see any way this actually moves forward without modification.
AH.74 is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 10:37 AM   #32
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74
...Confiscation of cash during a crime, or cash obtained by criminal action, is not the same thing as just mere confiscation of legally owned property....
I wasn't talking about cash. I was talking about drugs held by drug dealer, also know as "stash."

And if this law were to be enacted, possession of high capacity magazines would be prohibited. Therefore they would no longer be legally owned property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74
...This is not confiscation- it is being required to turn your property in to the state or face criminal charges....
That is substantially the same, and the difference is of no legal significance. The point is that this is not a 5th Amendment taking of property for public use, and therefore, you would not be entitled to compensation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74
...I also don't see any way this actually moves forward without modification....
I hope so for the sake of the gun owners of Connecticut. It's an awful law.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 12:20 PM   #33
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
I wasn't talking about cash. I was talking about drugs held by drug dealer, also know as "stash."
Sorry, I misread that word. But my sentiment remains the same, cash or stash it's really the same issue.

Quote:
That is substantially the same, and the difference is of no legal significance. The point is that this is not a 5th Amendment taking of property for public use, and therefore, you would not be entitled to compensation.
I still disagree. Confiscated means taken, and whatever the use is it is by the state. Whether that means they are destroyed, it is still a use by the state. I still believe the state cannot just make things illegal, take them and not owe you anything.
AH.74 is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 01:06 PM   #34
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,188
For once I have to disagree with fiddletown. If I own something (let's call 'em widgets) legally, and the government enacts a law that says as of July 1 your widgets will be illegal, turn them in within 90 days after July 1 or you're a felon -- and the government does not provide for paying me the significant cash value of my widgets -- that represents an uncompensated "taking" for a purported public purpose.

Without the proviso for removing the widgets from the state, such a law could not possibly pass constitutional scrutiny. With that proviso, the state can argue that they aren't really "confiscating" anything since they allowed the option of retaining ownership (but not possession) by removal from the state. That argument might, in fact, pass legal scrutiny, but morally and intellectually it's completely bankrupt.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 01:45 PM   #35
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74
...I still disagree. Confiscated means taken, and whatever the use is it is by the state. Whether that means they are destroyed, it is still a use by the state. I still believe the state cannot just make things illegal, take them and not owe you anything....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
For once I have to disagree with fiddletown. If I own something (let's call 'em widgets) legally, and the government enacts a law that says as of July 1 your widgets will be illegal, turn them in within 90 days after July 1 or you're a felon -- and the government does not provide for paying me the significant cash value of my widgets -- that represents an uncompensated "taking" for a purported public purpose....
[1] Sorry, but the legal reality is that confiscation of contraband is not a taking under the 5th Amendment for which compensation is required. See this article:
Quote:
Confiscation is the taking of private property for public use without compensation. It may occur legally when the government seizes property used in illegal practices, such as a boat used to smuggle illegal drugs. Confiscation may also be referred to as forfeiture. Congress has enacted over 200 civil forfeiture statutes authorizing forfeiture for items ranging from contaminated food to the pelts of endangered species. ...
[2] Of course these various forfeiture laws have been the subject of considerable criticism. Courts have, in some cases, limited their application on various constitutional grounds. But many have also been sustained.

[3] The real, and significant, question is whether and to what extent a state law can turn something which was legally owned into contraband and thus subject to confiscation. If this law is enacted, I'm afraid you'll have a chance to find out the answer in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
...That argument might, in fact, pass legal scrutiny, but morally and intellectually it's completely bankrupt....
Nonetheless, if the argument passes legal scrutiny, you will lose -- even if you consider the argument morally and intellectually bankrupt. There are no style points in court.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 8, 2011, 02:12 PM   #36
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
Nonetheless, if the argument passes legal scrutiny, you will lose -- even if you consider the argument morally and intellectually bankrupt. There are no style points in court.
I understand that completely. I hope the other participants in this discussion do, as well.

And that's one of the reasons we need to be so careful about who we allow to represent us, and why we need to remain ever vigilant about what our legislators are legislating.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 15, 2011, 11:28 PM   #37
telcomfaust
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Middletown, Connecticut
Posts: 28
update---The Bill Did not make it out of committee

the Bill Did not make it out of committee


http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_wat...acity-amm.html
__________________
Greg
Emergency Dispatcher Police/Fire/EMS
EMT Emergency Medical Tech
State of Connecticut Carry Permit
telcomfaust is offline  
Old April 15, 2011, 11:41 PM   #38
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,616
Good it's dropped, now be sure to vote out of office, any office, every person who even looks like they would support such a law. It's not enough to challenge the sponsor of such things, their support structure needs to be shown the political door. Get them off the school boards, local councils, commissions, everything.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10560 seconds with 7 queries