The subject of gun confiscation occasionaly crops up here. One of the arguments presented concerning why it won't happen is how much it would cost the government to buy firearms back from owners if a confiscation law were passed based upon the 5th amendment requirement for "just compensation".
Here's what the 5th says about that:
Why? The key prhase in the 5th is "taken for public use".
In the event of confiscation the confiscated firearms would not be taken for public use. They'd be destroyed. Only if some were turned over to LE agencies for their use could one make the argument that they were for public use. IMO that would be a stretch since it would be easy for the government to claim that LE agencies weren't public.
I don't believe the 5th can be used as an argument against confiscation based on the cost of confiscation?
Thoughts...
Comments...
Here's what the 5th says about that:
I don't believe that if confiscation were made law that the government would have to pay owners 1 red cent.Amendment V
...; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Why? The key prhase in the 5th is "taken for public use".
In the event of confiscation the confiscated firearms would not be taken for public use. They'd be destroyed. Only if some were turned over to LE agencies for their use could one make the argument that they were for public use. IMO that would be a stretch since it would be easy for the government to claim that LE agencies weren't public.
I don't believe the 5th can be used as an argument against confiscation based on the cost of confiscation?
Thoughts...
Comments...