wally
Member
HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely for a multitude of reasons, but as a legal matter, I point you in the direction of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:
And the reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place!
HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely for a multitude of reasons, but as a legal matter, I point you in the direction of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:
charles krauthammer was asked the question last week and his response--armed insurrection.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
charles krauthammer was asked the question last week and his response--armed insurrection.
Well obviously, it's because they've got an anti-gun agenda to push.Ms. Frankenstein can "propose" any buyback she chooses. I could also "propose" that she and Mr. Cuomo hold hands and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, but she might find my proposal as outlandish and ridiculous as I find hers.
I don't own any "assault rifles" or "black guns", but once you start labeling weapons as black or white, they all become gray.
How come nobody in Washington is asking the questions that need to be asked;
1) How did a mental moron obtain weapons, and
2) How do we fix THAT problem?
They are not on streets you witch. They are in the homes of law abiding citizens. Citizens.............. not subjects.There is no "moderate" tone to Feinstein. I just saw this quote
""She sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asking that $200 million in any fiscal cliff deal be set aside to buy back assault weapons: "I want to get the ones that are already out there and get them off the streets.""
HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely for a multitude of reasons, but as a legal matter, I point you in the direction of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If Congress can claim a legitimate "public use" for the guns they are taking and pay us their fair value, it would theoretically be constitutional. This doctrine is known as Eminent Domain.
I like that the article said $500 per gun was "an offer they can't refuse." Well the "can't refuse is the whole point of the MANDATORY part of the buyback she wants. But if they can't accomplish that, I think they might be a little surprised at how many gun owners WILL refuse $500 for their guns, a huge number of which cost at least twice that much.