HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A quick question about la...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:23 AM

A quick question about law

I've heard a few times that you cannot prohibit a thing because then the owners of said thing would have to be compensated at market value and since said thing is so numerous it would be financially impossible to affect the prohibition.

But if it's illegal it loses market value.

If it has no value than there is not financial consideration.

Hypothetical: If you import an animal that has been declared an environmental hazard then the government can seize it and not compensate you because there is no price you could legally sell the animal.

"Grandfathering" would only be a consideration if it were included in the law, which a legislature is not obligated to do -- or are they?

Thank-you in advance.

15 replies, 796 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:25 AM

1. When pot was made illegal and seized, did the owners get any compensation???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:25 AM

2. Cocaine is illegal

Yet worth it's weight in crack!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:35 AM

7. But those are illegal markets.

For example, if the governmant took your home under eminent domain they are obligated to pay you fair market value; homes being legal and all.

However, cocaine is not legal so there is no market value to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:29 AM

3. You are talking specifically about Guns

There has been a precedent of compensating Gun Owners for the loss of their Guns. I don't know why - Bar Owners weren't compensated during prohibition (as far as I know) and of course as Drugs became illegal there was no push to compensate drug owners.

Perhaps because most in the issue see legitimate uses of Guns, while Prohibitionists see now value in Alcohol or Drugs?

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:31 AM

5. The law has also changed since Prohibition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:37 AM

8. True, but congress giveth and congress taketh away

Are they obligated by anything other than their own preferences/pragmatism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:30 AM

4. Its a bit more subtle than that

When the government take property or disallows its use AND it was formerly legal and proper, under today's laws, compensation is due, normally at fair market value prior to government action.

Short version: If the Government changes it mind about something, it will have to pay for any loses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:32 AM

6. Things we have prohibited (like drugs and alcohol) have been through tax stamps

I mean, really Congress doesn't have the power to say "an object is illegal", but they can pass excise taxes that require you to get a tax stamp, and then refuse to issue that tax stamp. This is how marijuana and cocaine are "illegal".

Previously, the big attempts at banning things have mostly been consumables. Guns are durables, so it's kind of uncharted territory there, and I think that goes a long way towards explaining why previous gun bans have grandfathered in existing guns: unlike the heroin that existed in 1924 when it was made illegal, the guns will actually physically keep existing and functioning for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:39 AM

9. If something becomes illegal it loses its "white" market value

 

There are always other markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:42 AM

10. True, but governments don't deal in illegal markets (mostly -- we hope) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:43 AM

11. Alfonse Capone was imprisoned for failing to pay income tax on earnings from illegal activity

 

So the government actually does have an interest in illegal markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:46 AM

12. "... from whatever source derived." nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:23 PM

15. Ollie North might disagree with ya........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:55 AM

13. This talk of

prohibition, or banning, of guns is right out of the NRA anti-gun control handbook. We have proven time and again that prohibition does not work, and comes with the baggage of questions such as yours. The NRA and its corporate sponsors are screaming this false information to the rooftops in order to draw attention away from the REAL gun control measures which WILL work.

The answer is strict regulation and taxation, which HAS worked very well in protecting our society from other common health hazards. It has worked in the regulation of atmospheric contaminants, second-hand smoke issues, drunk driving, food and drug regulation, and the list goes on.

The implementation of sensible regulations such as: registration and tracking of ALL guns (similar to vehicle registration); background checks for ALL gun sales and ownership transfers; a "ban" (moving forward) on the manufacture or importation of certain types of weaponry (already in place for fully-automatic weapons); higher taxation on existing (grandfathered) assault-type weapons; and, the issuance of gun licenses which would be renewable at mandatory intervals, and revocable subject to criminal convictions.

As Joe Biden said, we shouldn't take an "all or nothing" approach to the introduction of sensible gun control, but we SHOULD implement at least some of these measures immediately. We do not need the "endorsement" of the NRA, and in fact any Democratic politician who brags about being endorsed by the NRA should be primaried out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:59 AM

14. No, you can *probably* prohibit items without offering compensation.

Grandfathering clauses are optional, as are buy-back programs for prohibited items. But getting a non-compensated prohibition law passed will be far more difficult, and would boost non-compliance rates. For example, if your $1000 gun has just been rendered illegal, and the government is not offering a buy-back, the logical, if also illegal, move is either to keep the gun for yourself or to sell it on the black market to convert its value back to something you can spend. Otherwise, it's just a straight financial loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread