Jon wrote: > Joseph E. Olson wrote: > > The plaintiffs challenged this as violating the Fifth Amendment > > guarantee that private property would only be taken for public purposes. > > Not quite. The distinction is between public "use" and public > "purposes", and whether any public purpose, such as the one > in this case, satisfies the standard in the Fifth Amendment, > as incorporated by the 14th, of "use". This is a subtle but > important distinction
This is where I see a disturbing gun rights element. If everyone will allow me to torture the language a bit: 1) "Public purpose" has been stretched in the New London case to something beyond "use" (i.e, government and "the people" at large are not "using" the real estate -- say for roads -- but are taking it for a tangent benefit, that being to fill government coffers, and indirectly to the benefit of the public through more tax revenue). 2) Gun are property. 3) A politician and judge could construe that there is a "public purpose" to be gained through an absence of private firearm ownership. This would set-up a back-door confiscation program, though no telling what the outcome would be if the 2nd Amendment were ever incorporated (what happens when parts of the constitution itself are in conflict and challenged?). ----------------- Guy Smith Author, Gun Facts www.GunFacts.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
