Connecticut is at it again! - Page 2

AH.74 · March 7, 2011, 05:15 PM

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.

Conn. Trooper · March 7, 2011, 08:14 PM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 7, 2011, 10:04 PM

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.

**Frank Ettin** · March 8, 2011, 01:42 AM

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.

ncpatriot · March 8, 2011, 02:33 AM

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.

AH.74 · March 8, 2011, 09:18 AM

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.

**Frank Ettin** · March 8, 2011, 10:37 AM

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.

AH.74 · March 8, 2011, 12:20 PM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 8, 2011, 01:06 PM

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.

**Frank Ettin** · March 8, 2011, 01:45 PM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 8, 2011, 02:12 PM

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.

telcomfaust · April 15, 2011, 11:28 PM

the Bill Did not make it out of committee

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_wat...acity-amm.html

kilimanjaro · April 15, 2011, 11:41 PM

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.

March 8, 2011, 02:33 AM	#30
ncpatriot Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2009 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 371	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.

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

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.

March 7, 2011, 08:14 PM	#27
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	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.

March 7, 2011, 10:04 PM	#28
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	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.

March 8, 2011, 01:06 PM	#34
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	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.

April 15, 2011, 11:41 PM	#38
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	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.