TFred
Regular Member
imported post
I just had a chance to read some articles on this SCOTUS opinion which was released a couple days ago. This is mainly a property rights issue, concerned with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
While reading this commentary published by the Pacific Legal Foundation, they quoted from Section II of the opinion:
If you substitute the protections of the Second Amendment in place of the protections of the Fifth Amendment in that paragraph, it's a pretty good thing to read.
This wording reminded me of a quote from Alan Gura during a Glenn Beck interview: "If congress can't take a gun away and President Obama can't take a gun away but the mayor takes your gun away, you still don't have a gun."
It sounds an awful lot to me like this recent case, at least this one section of the opinion, is using some very similar reasoning. Perhaps a clue about the upcoming opinion on McDonald?
TFred
I just had a chance to read some articles on this SCOTUS opinion which was released a couple days ago. This is mainly a property rights issue, concerned with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
While reading this commentary published by the Pacific Legal Foundation, they quoted from Section II of the opinion:
States effect a taking if they recharacterize as public property what was previously private property.... The Takings Clause…is not addressed to the action of a specific branch or branches. It is concerned simply with the act, and not with the governmental actor…. There is no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation. Nor does common sense recommend such a principle. It would be absurd to allow a State to do by judicial decree what the Takings Clause forbids it to do by legislative fiat…. If a legislature or a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, it has taken that property, no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation.
If you substitute the protections of the Second Amendment in place of the protections of the Fifth Amendment in that paragraph, it's a pretty good thing to read.
This wording reminded me of a quote from Alan Gura during a Glenn Beck interview: "If congress can't take a gun away and President Obama can't take a gun away but the mayor takes your gun away, you still don't have a gun."
It sounds an awful lot to me like this recent case, at least this one section of the opinion, is using some very similar reasoning. Perhaps a clue about the upcoming opinion on McDonald?
TFred