Only if the city is going to use the physcial site of the gun case to put up a museum, bridge, or industiral development.  By the way, we forget, Kelo had the option of moving her house ot another location.  The city took her land, she surely could have moved the house if she wanted to.

Robert Woolley wrote:
On 6/25/05 10:22 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  
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*.
    

Ah, so perhaps in this context Kelo means that if you have a prized $30,000
Krieghoff shotgun sitting in your gun cabinet, I can have the city force you
to sell it to me, because I promise to take it to a public range twice a
year and let anybody take a couple of shots with it for free.

:-)  (Just kidding.)


  

-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[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.

Reply via email to