Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
29. Some of these cases are based restrictions of sales.
Wed Mar 21, 2018, 10:44 AM
Mar 2018

None have been outright bans on ownership with immediate seizure. Some of the laws contained a grandfather clause; some contained only temporary bans; and some placed restrictions on the sale of assault weapons but did not ban their sale. Even the DC case allowed sale outside the district, which is the normal means to get around having to compensate. Some of the previous case law was based on interpreting the 2nd Amendment as not guaranteeing private ownership, but McDonald v. Chicago has closed the door on that.

I understand your opinion, and appreciate the civil discussion. While I do own firearms, I no longer take pleasure in it and haven't touched them in over 3 years. I never owned any considered assault weapons, but still I have also come to consider them a plague on our society, but have rationalized that guns locked away in a safe with me means they aren't out there being sold by the police (which is what they would do if you turned any in).

I do think that a seizure without compensation would do more to rally the hateful right than a just buyback. It would fill them with even more rage, make them even more anti-government, and could cause even more violence. Nor as a liberal do I think the government should take property without just compensation. It goes against a core belief of how government should operate with the people they govern.

Anyone with a bump stock is a threat to society and should prohibited from owning any guns. Hoyt Mar 2018 #1
Anyone with a bean can is a threat....no? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #3
Can the beans inside the can morph into lead bullets? boston bean Mar 2018 #39
White Wing Racists Have Right To Own Bump Stocks Too SoCalMusicLover Mar 2018 #6
Rat-a-tat-tat is fun. That's the supposed reason. jmowreader Mar 2018 #7
"Takings Clause" does not apply because the lethal accessory is not being taken Hoyt Mar 2018 #9
Public use, or public purpose since 1954 NickB79 Mar 2018 #17
No they don't. Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #34
Waiting period should be at least one week Angry Dragon Mar 2018 #2
"But I'm mad NOW!" FiveGoodMen Mar 2018 #40
They should just legalize murder and get it over with already. Initech Mar 2018 #4
You're Exactly Right SoCalMusicLover Mar 2018 #5
Only murder with an AR-15 crazycatlady Mar 2018 #38
If the current law has no provision for compensation, they will likely win NickB79 Mar 2018 #8
Compensation applies when property is taken for public use. The public ain't Hoyt Mar 2018 #10
The USSC ruled on this issue in 2015, and ruled personal property is covered NickB79 Mar 2018 #11
For public use. Read the 5th Amendment and case, don't leave out Hoyt Mar 2018 #12
It's certainly a public purpose fescuerescue Mar 2018 #14
In my view and I am sure the defense attorneys, it's like prohibiting loud exhausts or other public Hoyt Mar 2018 #15
They are legal in 49 states, so they inherently have value NickB79 Mar 2018 #19
Not the same thing Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #22
loud exhausts are perfectly legal in all states fescuerescue Mar 2018 #41
Let' hope not. White wingers-- the vast majority of gun promoters -- need to have some of Hoyt Mar 2018 #43
Public use, OR public purpose since 1954 NickB79 Mar 2018 #18
Look, gunners have been spreading this junk, just like they misinterpret 2nd Amendment and Heller Hoyt Mar 2018 #20
The government does not seize a car that cant pass inspection Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #23
They are banned from the streets. Besides read this article about the Taking Clause and PUBLIC USE. Hoyt Mar 2018 #27
Done under the guise of public safety is public use Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #36
Switchblades are still legally owned in most states. NutmegYankee Mar 2018 #25
Fine, we should learn from that and ban the private sale and ownership of so-called assault weapons Hoyt Mar 2018 #28
switches blades were banned to stop gang violence. fescuerescue Mar 2018 #42
Based on Horne v. Department of Agriculture and Berman v. Parker, they have a case. NutmegYankee Mar 2018 #13
Well, based on this, they don't have much case. Anyone can sue and delay laws that save lives, but Hoyt Mar 2018 #21
Your link doesn't work. NutmegYankee Mar 2018 #24
Cut and paste the link or search under the title. It cites laws specific to guns. Nutmeg, I really Hoyt Mar 2018 #26
Some of these cases are based restrictions of sales. NutmegYankee Mar 2018 #29
We'll find out soon enough. I don't think the white wingers who want bump stocks will prevail. Hoyt Mar 2018 #32
It is a non sequitur to state belief in compensation means I want bump stocks in society. NutmegYankee Mar 2018 #33
Wonder what gunners are going to say about Sessions making possession illegal WITHOUT COMPENSATION? Hoyt Mar 2018 #45
Things have been banned before with no compensation. Demsrule86 Mar 2018 #35
...because it can definitely take 20-30 rounds, full auto, to hit Bambi. Still In Wisconsin Mar 2018 #16
They are fighting for our rights! Turbineguy Mar 2018 #30
K & R... Wounded Bear Mar 2018 #31
If a receipt is shown to prove it was a valid purchase and Delmette2.0 Mar 2018 #37
They have a point, I don't like the idea of government seizing any property without compensation Amishman Mar 2018 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun owners sue Florida ov...»Reply #29