1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A loaded question if you've ever seen one...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by TechBrute, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. TechBrute

    TechBrute Well-Known Member

  2. ny32182

    ny32182 Well-Known Member

    The difference between this ruling, and the eminent domain standard that existed before (as I understand it), is that now they can seize your private property for further development of other private property, rather than just for development of public facilities like roads, airports, etc.

    Yes indeed, it begs the question about whether it will be government troops or private troops (mercenaries of some sort) that are running residents off their property.

    Talk about government and big business in bed together.... this ruling doesn't even try to hide it.
  3. dev_null

    dev_null Well-Known Member

    IIRC, Waco started with a warrant servicing. Granted, that was for a supposed ATF violation, but a warrant service nonetheless. I presume steps would be similar here: Deputy comes to serve notice, notice is ignored, large group of county mounties comes to remove tenants, stand-off ensues, Ninjas and Paramilitary police arrive in droves. Wounded Knee is another scenario that comes to mind.
  4. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    The Corporation of the United States Of America Internal Security Service will be happy to escort you off the property that used to be yours.
  5. Sindawe

    Sindawe Well-Known Member

    The police being seen as the King's Men coming to unjustly remove a property owner from their land will make police work even more dangerous than it already is. You folks who are LEOs would be well served to consider your stance NOW.
  6. Sam

    Sam Well-Known Member

    Which side are you on?

    Way things are now, A body might as well just pay up the insurance and burn out.
    Why bother to own anything, if it's worth somethin' they'll take it away and use the law to do it.

  7. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    Breaking news -- a developer, Logan Darrow Clements, has asked the town of Weare, New Hampshire, to excercise imminent domain to take Justice Souter's home, so he can build a hotel there -- the hotel will pay more taxes than Souter currently pays.

    You can contact Clements' organization (Free Star Media) at http://www.freestarmedia.com/index.html
    He is apparently structuring the hotel deal so we can buy stock or contribute.
  8. Father Knows Best

    Father Knows Best Well-Known Member

    Wrong. Everybody take a deep breath. This is nothing new. SCOTUS did not change the law in this case. It just said that what has been going on for many years does not violate the Constitution. State and local governments have been taking property for economic development purposes for many decades. It's only recently that someone decided to try and challenge it on Constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court just upheld the existing law.

    By way of example, twenty years ago I was involved with the Chrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant project in Detroit. The City of Detroit took over a thousand acres on the city's east side via eminent domain, spent several million dollars to demolish everything on it and clean up the environmental contamination, and then handed it all over the Chrysler Corporation so it could put a new factory there. The last I heard (several years ago), that factory was producing Jeep Grand Cherokees. Several hundred private property owners were displaced by the project.

    And the Chrysler project was just one example. This sort of thing has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times, across the country. For another example, look at any convention center project, or any sports arena project. I can pretty much guaranty that eminent domain was used to take at least a portion of the property involved, and the property was subsequently turned over to developers. If the local politicians wanted it, they got it.

    If SCOTUS had ruled the other way, it would have changed the law. You can argue that's what they should have done (and I would agree with you), but don't believe for a minute that this decision is some major change that is suddenly being foisted upon us by the courts. That's just what your politicians want you to believe.
  9. TechBrute

    TechBrute Well-Known Member

    The thread discussing the ruling is in the link I posted.

    This thread asks who will do the citizen displacing?

    I notice none of the LEOs have come around...
  10. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    Which is like saying that murder has been going on for a long time, so it should be legal.

    The issue is not the LAW, but the Constitution. The 5th Amendment clearly says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (My emphasis.)

    The property in question is not being taken for public use, but for private use. Title will pass to a private corporation.
  11. Father Knows Best

    Father Knows Best Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying it SHOULD be legal, I'm just pointing out that it HAS been "legal" for a long time. There's a difference between my saying "that's the way it has always been" and my saying "that's the way it should be." For what it's worth, I agree with you that it shouldn't be allowed. The error was made back in 1937, however, and the latest case is just another in a long line of cases that repeat that error.
  12. Working Man

    Working Man Well-Known Member

    You got it Father Knows Best, it has just been oked in a very big way. :cuss: The world will just be one big WallMart. :fire:
  13. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    The issue is not legality but constitutionality. As I have shown, taking private property from one person and transferring it to another private person or corporation is a violation of the 5th Amendment.

    ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    And it doesn't matter if there is a law in some state saying the contrary -- the court is supposed to strike down laws that violate the constitution, not uphold them.

    The court should remember one thing -- they have no police, troops or other means of enforcing their decrees. If the Court will not uphold the Constitution, there is nothing to uphold the Court.
  14. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Well-Known Member

    I believe there was a previous SC ruling that said that cities could sieze property to relieve urban blight. I think that was the one that really opened it up.

    It was probably happening before that. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a court in this country was corrupt.
  15. Greybeard7

    Greybeard7 Well-Known Member

    Yes, it's been going on for a long time. (Way too long IMO.)

    Taking homes by ED for sports stadiums has ALWAYS been something that I felt was wrong. I cannot understand how anyone can sanction subsidizing, building, or giving "special" tax breaks for the construction of a sports stadium for the PROFIT of a PRIVATE business. The ego of the local politicians that think it's justified by bringing "prestige" to the community is galling.

    What the Supreme Court had was an opportunity to put some teeth into the property rights portion of the 5th Amendment, and they failed miserably.

    In the New London case, title to the land will NOT pass to another party. The subterfuge is that the LAND will be owned by the state and LEASED to another private party for 99 years.

    If that lease term might sound familiar, let me give you another example.

    President Carter returned to Panama the Panama Canal back in the 70's. The United States 99 year lease was up.

    I'm confident that Pfizer will move on well before the lease is up, and won't care what happens to the property. They will probably sell the "leasehold improvements" for a substantial profit, despite the fact that they don't own the land.

    Effectively, NO ONE owns their land, they lease it from the government on a year to year basis based on paying their property taxes. If those taxes are not paid, the government will "foreclose" and sell "your" property for back taxes.

    IMO, any citizens adversely affected by the seizure would be better off not fighting the LEOs. Take the money and your property and move on. Your fight is with the local politicians that engineered the seizure.

    Voting them out of office, or possibly gathering evidence of illegal kickbacks and pursueing legal action would be the best course of action. Eventually, someone will probably take a more personal and direct approach.

    Anyone who feels they have nothing left to lose can be very dangerous.

    Reflecting on the guy with the bulldozer in Colorado with the zoning problem. He probably bulldozed the wrong buildings.

    This will certainly be a very sad "Independence Day" weekend for me.

  16. NMshooter

    NMshooter Well-Known Member

    In an attempt to give a partial answer to the original question...

    Depends on where the property is, and which agency has jurisdiction.

    I believe that the county Sheriff ends up with the responsibility, but it will vary depending on the county.

    How is that for an answer?

  17. cracked butt

    cracked butt Well-Known Member

    Yup, just about the time Chrysler shut down an enormous AMC car plant in Kenosha Wisconsin that built jeeps and other cars. One more reason why nothing made by Chrysler corp will ever be seen in my garage :fire:

    Right now in th tiny little village where I live, a few farming families have been fighting the village board for a couple of years over an emminent domain issue. The Village wants to take part of their land and give it to Aurora, the biggest health care corporation in my state, so that a new healthcare clinic can be built. The Village is doing this under the pretense that its 'for the public good,' an argument that completely falls flat when you consider that there already exists a 5 year old health clinic across the street from the proposed site and a new hospital 5 miles away, not to mention that Aurora already has an 'outdated' health clinic in our village of which they plan to turn the bulding over to the village after the deal is done. At least the SC has solved the whole ED problem for everyone. :banghead:
  18. 444

    444 Well-Known Member

    As was mentioned, this is nothing new. This has been going on for a long time.
    So, the question in the first post of this thread is not subject to speculation: it is SOP. Most of it is handled by mail or telephone years before you house is actually torn down. Obviously, some people (very few) decide they arn't going to give up without a fight and SWAT comes and takes them away. I am not a cop, but I think this is SOP: the subject is barracaded (sp ?) so, SWAT is used.
    My only experience with this kind of thing is in Las Vegas and it isn't really much of an issue here. It isn't like anyone has a homestead that has been in the family for generations. An old house here was built in the 1950s. Most people are happy to get paid off for their house and move into a newer neighborhood. I have prayed for this to happen in a couple houses I lived in, but it never did.
  19. Logan5

    Logan5 Well-Known Member

    To answer on point, since Connecticut is not fond of Sherriffs at the moment, the people who will go and tell Mrs. Kelo that she has to move are apparently the New Haven Police Department. I predict that zeal will be lacking.
  20. Joejojoba111

    Joejojoba111 Well-Known Member

    In Laughlin, Nevada, there's a famous story of an old lady who refused to move from her river-side shack. After years of haggling, the casino finally gave up and offered her a bundle of cash as well as the entire pentouse top floor of the casino for her and her children, and their children, in perpetuity.

    Of course today things would be different, but I doubt SWAT will be needed in most instances, probably the police will taser the lady and carry her away.

    But if you are barricaded in your property and exchanging fire with police, or they think you're a threat and they fire, will they feel bad about it? Probably, they are still people, they'll probably feel bad about having to take a life in self-defence.

Share This Page