#Bang Bang
71 messages in this thread
Karl,
You've just given a good reason for registration. You say that no
legally owned fully automatic weapon was ever used in a crime. Thus, if we
register other weapons…and have the same experience, only folks who have
unregistered weapons will be likely to use them in the commission of a crime.
Thus, the mere fact of possession of an unregistered weapon should be
sufficient cause for arrest…since the holder would be vastly more likely to
commit some other crime that the holder of a registered weapon.
Now back to reality. The high cost and necessary paperwork, including
approval by the local chief of police, is the reason that only those with an
honest desire to own a fully automatic weapon will register them.
It's kind of like people who get driver's licenses and those who don't.
Not getting a driver's license doesn't stop most folks from driving, but is
that a good reason to stop licensing drivers?
Don
Except, Don, except… registering… especially paying the $200 tax…
infringes upon my right to keep and bear. The reasons *I* don't own a full
auto weapon is A) they're too darned expensive… B) the tax is too darned
much to pay to fund my enemies, and C) I have judged them to be overall
inadequate to do the jobs I need done.
Now, there's this Mach 11 that I think is pretty cool… it's in .380, and
a review I read said that it's easier to control than a 9 or .45. It also
looked pretty portable. But… I don't think a .380 would penetrate most
any body armour (possibly not even a leather jacket, at a distance).
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
First of all, what militia are you a member of? Second of all, having
a right to keep and bear does not mean they can't be taxed nor does it mean
they can't be registered.
Don
The militia of the State of Oklahoma; I'm still only 32, still male, still
a citizen of the State.
A tax I can't afford (punitive) infringes upon my right to keep, cause if
I can't afford one, I can't keep one. It doesn't mean they *can't* be
registered, but it does mean that registration can't be mandatory before
acquisition. And what's the point of registering? So, you know joe
citizen has a gun, even what type. Whoopee… gov't can't do diddly about
it (according to the Constitution).
Of course, if the gov't can have detailed records of all my firearms,
surely I can have detailed records of all of theirs (especially since I'm
helping to buy 'em).
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
If you'll read the Constitution, it is clear (to me) that the term
'Milita' as used in several places (besides the 2nd amendment) refers to a
state run (Article 1, section 8 where the states get to appoint the officers)
organization…not a loose confederation of individuals.
Also in amendment 3 (I believe…I'll have to check when I get
home)…it states that for capital cases, an inditment is needed EXCEPT for
members of the army, navy or Militia. If being in the Militia is inherent in
being a citizen of state…then there's no real need for that amendment as
everyone would be in the Militia.
No..the Militia is the National Guard, not just anyone.
Don
Don,
PMFJI, but what about 10 USC 311, which states that all able-bodied males
age 18-35, who aren't part of the National Guard or other military
service, are part of the Unorganized Militia?
10 USC 311 covers exactly what the 'Militia' is – the National Guard is
considered the Organized Militia. Incidentally, the states are responsible
for periodically training the Unorganized Militia.
Strange stuff can be found in old law books…
Garry Nelson
Garry,
That's the same law (or type of law…I'm not familiar with it
specifically) that thus makes them eligible for the draft.
In any event, if something is unorganized, it can't be 'well regulated'
as defined in the 2nd amendment.
Don
Don –
RE: Well-regulated vs. Unorganized
Unorganized is a word with several meanings – for instance, an
'unorganized township' doesn't mean that the town is not well-regulated.
I detect that you are playing games with words here.
Given the legal and historical definitions of 'militia', it IS necessary
that the militia be secured the right to keep and bear arms. In the
unlikely but entirely possible scenario that this country is attacked by
enemies, foreign or domestic, it makes no sense for the militia to be
disarmed.
I for one am a proponent of firearm registration at the state level. This
ensures that the Unorganized Militia can quickly become part of the
Organized Militia if and when needed – the state can immediately determine
which militia members need to be furnished weapons.
Garry Nelson
Garry,
I'm not playing word games…you're the one who brought up the issue of
organized vs unorganized.
Back to the constitution…since others are claiming that there is a
constitutional basis for the Militia being other than an organized and
regulated group under the direction of the various states…better known as the
National Guard.
Article 1, Section 8 (powers of congress):
… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasison;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress.
Under the Amendments:
Article II (as we all know reads):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouse
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in teh land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person….
That's it…that's the total mention of the Militia in the
Constitution. and in *MY* opinion…clearly points to an organized and
regulated group run by the state and having officers appointed by the state.
Sounds like the National Guard to me.
Don
Don –
RE: Sounds like the National Guard to me.
Perhaps you ought to reread 10 USC 311 again… I recognize that you are
entitled to your own opine, but the law is the law.
Garry Nelson
Garry,
A few things:
One, 10 USC 311 didn't exist when the constitution was written, what
I've been discussing is what was the intent of the 2nd amendment and is that
intent being followed today. Thus, we (I) only need to look at what was in
existance *then* rather than what occurred after the constitution was ratified.
Two, correct, there was no "National Guard" back then. That specific
organization didn't come into existance until the early 1900's. My point being
that what the framers of the constitution called the Militia (again… in my
opinion) we now call the National Guard.
Don
Don,
The National Guard is NOT the state militia to which then Constitution
refers.
Until 1903 the states controlled their own militia — if the President
wanted to use them he had to ask the Governors of the states. The
National Defense Acts of 1920 and 1933 further extended federal control
over these state "militias" — they became a federalized force, no longer
the militia to which the Constitution refers.
The National Guard is directly under the control of the federal
government. The National Guard Bureau of the Department of the Army
directs the Army National Guard units and the National Guard Bureau of the
Air Force directs the Air National Guard. There are other reserve units,
such as the Army, Air Force and Naval reserves, but they are not connected
with the National Guard but are also federally directed.
In other words, short of the state police, there is no such thing as a
state militia and hasn't been in almost 100 years.
-sja
Steve –
Actually, there still are state run militias, separate from the National
Guard, not many, but they do exist. One that comes to mind is the New
York State Naval Militia (also of interest is that the National Guard does
not have a naval or marine component). We had a thread similar to this in
either CASEForum or SDForum, and several examples of present-day
non-National Guard state militias were identified.
Jeff Schweiger
That's right… the feds only get control in time of war. Though congress can
set up rules concerning *training methods*. Otherwise, the militias belong to
the States. Which has little to do with the 2nd Amendment.
>That's it…that's the total mention of the Militia in the Constitution.
>and in *MY* opinion…clearly points to an organized and regulated group
>run by the state and having officers appointed by the state. Sounds like
>the National Guard to me.
Well, I think we've all addressed that National Guard issue elsewhere, but
there is an additional problem with interpreting the 2nd as though it
read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the States to maintain armed Militias shall not
be infringed." That problem is that it says something entirely different.
<G> Intentionally. The debates are preserved, you know, and the problem
is that the drafters were trying to identify and protect TWO separate
rights, the right to maintain militias and the individual right to keep
and bear arms.
Those persons who keep trying to say that the right applies ONLY to
militias have two pretty high hurdles to get over- the formulation "right
of the people" is used in both the 1st and 4th Amendments as clearly
referring to individual rights; and the fact that the Supreme Court has
consistently listed the right to keep and bear arms as one of the
"individual" rights protected in the Constitution.
-Karl
Karl,
That is correct, it is an individual right, but not an unlimited right.
My discussion relative to Militia started when Jim Williams claimed to be a
member of the Militia due to his maleness and age…thus he had teh right to
carry any weapon he so desired based on the 2nd Amendment.
The fact is that back when the constitution was written, folks were so
scattered about that it was impractical for folks to muster at a central armory
to arm themselves in time of emergency. Thus, they needed to keep arms with
them so they could go directly to the point of emergency rather than wait the
(days…weeks…depends on where they lived) it would take them to go to an
armory and then to the point of emergency.
Don
When dealing with legal documents like the constitution and various laws,
playing games with words is necessary, in fact, if you get a Law degree,
you can make big $$$ doint it!!
Scratch that – here's the actual specifications:
#1: The Supreme Court in Perpich vs. US said that the National Guard was
acomponent of the ARMY.
And here is what the LAW defines as "militia"
#2 Militia Act of 1792
That the Militia of the United States shall consist of each
and every free, able bodied male citizen of the respective
States, resident therein, who are or shall be of the age of
eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years
(except as hereinafter excepted) who shall severally and
respectively be enrolled by the captain or commanding officer
of the company within whose bounds such citizen shall reside.
That every citizen so enrolled and notified shall within six
months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or
firelock of a bore not smaller than seventeen balls to the
pound, a sufficient bayonet and belt, a pouch with a box
therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges
suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge
to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, two spare
flints, and a knapsack, and shall appear so armed, accoutered
and provided, when called out to exercise or into service as
is hereinafter directed.
Per: Charles Bickford and Helen
Veit, ed., Documentary History of the First Federal Congress
1789-1791, Vol. 5, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Press: 1986), 1460-1461.
The National guard did not exist until more than a century later; it
was established in 1903. This act redefined the militia.
The National Guard Act (1903): Excerpt
(The National Guard was establish in 1903 when Congress created
the NG under its power to "raise and support armies". (see H.R.
Report No. 141, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. at 2-5, 1933) It was done
in order to create reserve MILITARY units. The NG was
specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional
militia, and this distinction is recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311
(also quoted below). It was not, nor was it intended to be the
Militia as was recognized by the USSC in Presser and reaffirmed
again in US v. Miller.
"[T]he militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen
of the respective States, Territories, and the District of
Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has
declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than
eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be
divided into two classes — the organized militia, to be know
as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of
Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them
by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the
remainder to be know as the Reserve Militia."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
10 U.S.C. 311 Excerpt
"311. Militia: Composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all
able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as
provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of
age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are commissioned
officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the
National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Hope this helps!
Garry Nelson
Garry,
Read the key wording in the original declaration:
…who shall severally and respectively be ENROLLED by the Captain..
(and only after being enrolled are they required to obtain proper arms)
And yes…the National Guard is a "new" organization in the sense that
nothing called the National Guard existed earlier. Just as prior to the end of
WWII, there was no organization called the Air Force…but there were military
folks flying airplanes certainly long before the Air Force came into being.
Don
Don –
Now I know yer just funning me – that's a classic example of a misquote.
They are REQUIRED to have arms after being enrolled – now think about
it… whether 1792 or 1994, it's cheaper for the citizens of this country
to keep their own weapons for such contingencies requiring their assembly
than to delegate this responsibility to public servants.
Seems to me that citizens around this country have delegated too much to
the public servants… those servants have taken to believing that they
are the masters!
Garry Nelson
Do we now conclude that women, cripples and those outside 18-45 yrs don't
have any constitutional right to 'keep and bear' arms?
I would suggest that that the early definition of members of the milita
was the same as people who could vote. Then as the franchise was extended,
so was the right to keep and bear arms. Cripples can act as urban
snippers.
-ash
See, there's the cute part… the actual amendment don't say, "the right
_of_the_militia_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"… it merely
says "no touchee". The first paragraph is just an attempt to explain to the
terminally forgetful why they want the right in the first place.
Nope – merely that they aren't required to keep and bear.
Garry Nelson
Garry,
No, I'm not playing word games. Yes, they are required to have arms
after being enrolled. NOT after they turn 18. They have to enroll. That's
the wording.
Don
Don –
"They have to enroll" + "They are required to have arms after being
enrolled" = ???
Garry Nelson
In a sufficiently advanced society, Civl Servant becomes semantically equal to
Civil Master. — Robert A. Heinlein
Ah, a fellow RAH fan…
Garry Nelson
Irrelevant, Don.
There is no way you can stretch what the National Guard is today into
anything resembling the militia as existed during the period in which the
Constitution was written.
Uh, the 5th Amendment you mean, and it *specifies* at time of war or
public danger, the times which the Constitution gives the feds temporary
authority over the militias.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
Exactly right…during times of war, the National Guard is federalized
and used just like the regular troops are used.
Don
Don,
While I certainly respect your opinion in matters of police wor and what
criminals are using, I must say that your reading of the Constitution with
regard to the militia/Nat'l Guard and the 2nd amendment is.. well, somewhat at
odds with the English language, the Federalist papers, and the interpretation
by the majority of Constitutional experts.
-larry
You probably mean Mac-10 and Mac-11… but I'm sure all your less obvious
facts are more scrupulously researched…
I stand corrected; not Mach 11 but Mac 11 (no hyphen, according to the
article, which I didn't have handy at the time.
Nice attempt to generate the impression that perhaps my facts are in
error; I appreciate the spelling correction, but if you find any of my
facts to be in error, please let me know the details. Until then, my facts
stand as… facts 🙂
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Don,
No, I have not. The POINT is that law-abiding owners do NOT commit
crimes. REGISTRATION did not make the weapons safe, it was having the
kind of owners who WOULD register them that made them safe. Now, a quick
brushup on a little known point about registration- do you know that by
constitutional law, ANY registration law does not apply to felons? And
no, I'm not kidding. Most recent registration laws SPECIFICALLY exclude
prohibited persons (those who may not own firearms) from coverage under
the law. Laws that fail to exclude felons have been modified to do so by
the courts. So that the laws apply ONLY to law-abiding people.
Now why, you ask, would anybody pass a law that doesn't cover criminals?
Because that is not the purpose of registration laws. Their purpose is
the confiscation of firearms. We have seen this now in Chicago and New
York city, where registration laws passed years ago with solemn pledges
that they would NEVER be used for confiscation were used for EXACTLY that
purpose. Now, THERE is some reality for you.
-Karl
Karl,
They do not exclude prohibited persons…they prohibit felons from
registering weapons…because felons aren't allowed to own them in the first
place!
Registration laws are NOT used for confiscation. Period.
Anyone who tells you different is simply wrong.
Don
As with health care, there is ALOT of disinformation being spread around
on this issue.
Yeah, but with health care, the disinformation is irrelevant, since it's A
Bad Thing in any form.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Don, you're a cop.. if a felon serves his full sentence (no parole
nonsense), is his 2nd amendment right then restored to him? Logically, if
he's paid off his debt, he's no longer a felon, but once again a citizen.
Registration laws are not *yet* used for confiscation.
What is the purpose of registration of not for the ability to confiscate?
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
You are still a 'convicted felon', you would no longer be a 'convicted
felon serving his/her time'. So called 'paying his/her debt' doesn't erase the
fact that he/she commited a felony.
The same purpose you register vehicles. So they can be traced if used
in the commission of a crime, or returned to their rightful owner if stolen and
recovered.
Don
Waitaminit… if you serve the punishment completely, then that should be
it, otherwise, why have punishment? Why not just turn you into a slave?
I have to concede that those appear to be good reasons for registration,
except in the case of certain crimes (such as 'weapons possession'
charges, or "discharging a firearm within the city limits")
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
Ah…but we don't punish criminals…we try to rehabilitate them, and
as part of that rehabilitation…we don't allow them to be tempted with nasty
things like weapons.
Don
> but we don't punish criminals…
And therein lies one of the main problems we face today.Just two days ago, yet
another innocent victim, a 16 year old girl, was dragged into some bushed and
murdered by some scum that had served 2 years of a 6 year sentence, and who had
refused psychiaytric treatment. His prior offence? Sexual assault. But no, it
just makes so much more sense to harass folks who own or want to own what they
are rightfully allowed to own by law.
Fighting crime is possible, but first you have to try.
-larry
Vehicle registration is a tax, and used to raise money. The ability to
trace vehicles is a side effect.
-Karl
Karl,
NO, the registration is not a tax. The registration is exactly
that…for the purposes of tracing ownership. The taxing that is done
coincidently… is a convenience for the states since everything is handled in
single transaction.
Don
Don –
Isn't that the same justification they used to use in the South to justify
poll taxes?
Garry Nelson
Poll taxes had the effect, intent aside, of depriving an identifiable
portion of the public their civil (voting) rights. Driving is not a
right.
Since when?
(he said while screaming "10th amendment! 10th Amendment!" in his head)
But the 'right to keep and drive cars' is not mentioned in the
Constitution.
Garry Nelson
Garry,
No, not at all. Poll taxes were a whole different thing than vehicle
registration fees.
Don
Don –
Mea culpa! I seem to have wrongfully assumed that the issue of the
discussion was firearm registration. With the threadline change, I have no
explanation for how I made such an assumption… I fully agree with
_vehicle registration_.
My apologies.
Garry Nelson
Quite true, felons are not allowed to register firearms, but "prohibited
persons" is somewhat broader. It is simply any person who, under state or
federal law, is prohibited from owning firearms. It is a term used in
California law, but the principle is national.
Now, as to who is wrong about registration leading to confiscation. . .
I'm afraid it is YOU who is misinformed on this issue. Registration laws
have NEVER had a purpose other than making confiscation easier, from Nazi
Germany to here and now. Since they cannot legally be inforced against
criminals, what other purpose do you think they can serve? And they HAVE
been used for exactly that purpose in both New York and Chicago. During
the last several years, both cities have used registration lists to
require owners of "assault guns" to either remove them from city limits or
to turn them in to police. Or don't you think it is "confiscation" when
the Government requires you to deliver an item rather than coming to get
it themselves?
-Karl
Karl,
Confiscation is forced taking. They had the choice of keeping the
weapons…just not within the city limits. It was the owner's choice as to
whether they gave up the weapons…or merely moved them.
As I said, registrations are used for the purpose of tracing weapons
used in a crime and to return them to their rightful owners if found to be
stolen.
Don
Don –
I take you've never had the pleasure of reading any of Ayn Rand's books on
the philosophy of Objectivism… ALL 'taking' or violation of property
rights is confiscation. Ultimately, this produces a defunct, corrupt
society – which is what we have now.
Garry Nelson
That's her theory. Fortunately objectivism is a theory which has very
little to do with democracy and the way the real world works. But it does
supply a set of simplistic axioms which can be used to generate snap
opinions against Communism or any tendency to collective effort by a
society.
Oh, please.
"You don't like (insert personal political philosophy here) so you must be
reacting emotionally with a minimum of thought". My opinions against Communism
are long thought out over many years, thank you not at all.
I was saying that about Ayn Rand, and I wouldn't say she was acting
emotional, I might say she was being emotional and acting intellectual.
Read Intro. to objectivist epistemology for a clearer glimpse of the kind
of simplistic reasoning behind objectivism. To her credit, most of it was
apparently formulated before the 20th century came up with 3 of its
greatest intellectual accomplishments (IMO) Uncertainty, Incompleteness,
and Chaos.
Communism, such as it has existed, has been a demonstrable failure. It is
still useful in this country to deflect attention away from problems in
our society, or with its brand of market capitalism, by labelling the one
who observes these problems as a communist.
communism doesn't deflect attention away from problems in our society;
communist ideology causes problems in our society.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Where do we have democracy in this world? Since democracy does not exist,
how can you relate objectivism to the real world in this context?
Garry Nelson
In something like Atlas Shrugged, we see a complete contempt for democracy
as portrayed by the caricatures of the legislature, social conscience, and
beaurocracy. While her criticism was amusing and all too accurate, she
used it as a foil for the honest, hard-working entrepreneur who was the
victim of society (the voters and their rep.s) trying to better itself.
Somehow the images of industry tycoons in collusion with their regulators
to keep out competition and innovation was drawn to blame only the
regulators corruption and their very existence, rather than some greed and
will to control on the part of the businessmen. If one looks at toxic
waste in eastern europe, one sees the failure of allowing the waste
creator to be its own regulator (the state in this case), NOT the result
of communism destroying the world.
I did find Atlas Shrugged to be an entertaining book, but found several of
her ideas to be way out in left field. The Objectivist ideas on property
rights, however, ring true for me. Either we are a society which foremost
respects the individual, or we are a society which holds the welfare of
the populace as a higher priority. In our society, this is mixing the
concepts of Republic and Democracy… ultimately, the Republic will lose
out to 'tyranny by the masses'.
Incidentally, I am not an Objectivist. If anything, I'm a (responsible)
hedonistic Individualist. I like to have fun at my own expense – and like
to share if and when I please.
Garry Nelson
That's still confiscation, and coercion, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Eet,
YOU believe it's in violation of the 2nd amendment. I don't. And
neither does the Supreme Court…who is the final authority under our current
consitution.
Don
>>current constitution.
CURRENT?? There's only the one, written in 1787.
IT is the final authority, worded plainly so anyone capable of reading
"Common Sense" can understand it.
BTW, the SC is not the final authority, after all. I recently remembered
that they can be impeached.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
The constitution that was written in 1787 has been amended quite a few
times….in particular, 1797 (I believe) is when your favorite amendment was
added. That's why I used the term "current", meaning "Constitution and all
amendments to date"
As to impeachment…true, that's the balance of power, any member of
any branch can be impeached. But you know what, even if someone gets
impeached…what that person(s) did stands until the new guys (gals) change
it….or the judicial branch overrules it.
By definition, the judicial power shall reside in ONE supreme court and
so forth. It is the highest appelate *court* in the land. Of course, if they
rule in a way that displeases enough folks, then congress simply changes the
law, or the states amend the constitution to overrule the Supreme court…with
or without impeachment.
But you knew that.
Don
>YOU believe it's in violation of the 2nd amendment. I don't. And neither
>does the Supreme Court…who is the final authority under our current
>consitution.
BUZZZZZZ! You can't say that unless you can cite a case. And you can't.
There is no such Supreme Court case.
-Karl
Karl,
Well…that's true, I can't cite a specific case, I don't have a legal
library here.
But are you trying to tell me that NONE of thee gun control laws of
either the states or the federal government has ever been tested in the supreme
court and won?
And if that's true, why are there any gun control laws left on the
books. I'd think the NRA, ACLU and lots of others would would challenge them
as soon as they were passed to get them declared unconstitutional.
I recall several cases going before the Supreme Court…and being
upheld…I just can't cite the specifics.
Don
I didn't say NEVER, just not often (the three cases I mentioned). See,
most cases would have originated based on *state* or local regulations,
and until the passage of the 14th amendment after the Civil war, the Bill
of Rights in the Constitution was not thought to apply to the states.
Until quite recently no one would have *dreamed* that actual *bans* by the
*federal* government were constitutional, and they weren't tried. The
bans that have been passed since then haven't reached the Supreme Court
yet.
Now, the problem the gun controllers have is that during the debate over
the 14th, what had clearly most enraged the senators was the forcible
stripping of arms from blacks in the South. It made it much easier to
"control" them, and it was much safer to lynch unarmed people than armed
ones. Actually, the evidence that the 14th was meant to apply 2nd
Amendment rights to the states is better than that for any other of the
amendments.
Now, given that, why aren't there more cases? Well, one is that an
expansive reading of the 14th is fairly recent, so nobody is *certain* how
the Court will rule. The Court only needs to accept the cases it wishes
to, so you can't predict when it will chose to take on the issue. But the
historical evidence is there, so if the Court DOES take it, and if they do
their job properly, the gun controllers shouldn't be very happy.
-Karl
Um, I think that is a distinction without a difference. If I tell you
that you either have to turn your car in to the city or remove it from the
city limits, either way YOU don't have it any more and YOU don't have the
use of it any more. But no, I wouldn't be *confiscating* your car,
heavens no. Why, you are free to send it to your uncle Fred in Boise, and
you can even visit it every couple of years. Sorry, but no.
Fortunately, "taking" has been defined in the law as "depriving of the
reasonable use of" as in real property cases. So you may have a little
problem with your definition.
-Karl
Karl,
Actually…taking (or theft) has been defined as, '..depriving the
lawful owner of the use and enjoyment of a thing of value.' It doesn't
include the term 'reasonable' (at least here in Colorado).
And a person can still use and enjoy their assault rifles outside the
city of New York or Chicago (or Denver for that matter).
Don
You can't "use and enjoy" something if it's THERE and you're HERE. BTW,
my definition of "taking" was from real property cases (concerning
"taking" under the 5th amendment) so it is a little different from that
used in theft.
-Karl