So the government takes your gun as an exercise of the eminent
domain. It then has to pay you just compensation, in the form of fair
market value. You take the compensation and buy a new gun. You may be
annoyed, but it isn't really much of an interference with your right to
have a gun. Remember that the issue in Kelo was whether the government
could take property *in exchange for compensation*.
Of course, if the government takes your guns and bans you from
buying new ones, then that's different -- but it's the ban, not the
exercise of the eminent domain power, that's the problem.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Smith
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:53 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Don't depend on the Supreme Court to save the
> Second Amendment
>
>
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.
