A reminder why we need the 2nd amendment:

[gigag04]

From the front page of cnn http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... index.html

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Paladin]

I was afraid that the supreme court would rule that way. Scary

[txinvestigator]

I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?

[Paladin]

Apparently communism isn't dead.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manifesto of the Communist Party

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/class ... festo.html

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1848.

"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

[stevie_d_64]

I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?

We'all...Its like this...

I'm going to take your home away from you without just compensation, develop it the way I want to, as a private entity...

The government thinks it can make more money (taxes), on your loss, by allowing a commercial, or other higher tax revenue generating entity, and allow them to take over...

And there is not a [expletive deleted] thing you can do about it...If they want it the government is allowing

What do you think of them apples???

At least thats what I understand all the hub-bub to be...

But you're right...What does that actually have to do with the 2nd Amendment...I have an idea, but I'd be short lived if I ever did something about it...

[onerifle]

I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?

ERROR 1776: file corrupt: config.america – reboot constitution (Y/N)

"High court OKs personal property seizures"



:(

[stevie_d_64]

Apparently communism isn't dead.

Yeah, but can the United States of America really turn to the dark side???

Where we lose the means to fight against that "darkness"???

My boss actually thinks this is a good thing...Imagine my quandry now...

[gigag04]

I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?

I guarantee you or any other enitity that comes to take my house so a resort can get built be on the wrong side of every gun I've got.

Stuff like this gets governments overturned - thats what the framers envisioned. Heck...thats what they did...

[stevie_d_64]

Your reading assignment tonight folks...

O'Conner was not the only published dissenting opinion from SCOTUS today...

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct ... 8.ZD1.html

What does this really mean in regards to the 2nd Amendment???

Let your libertarian/conservative/patriotic minds imagine how this all ties into the "master plan"...

[Paladin]

Apparently communism isn't dead.

Yeah, but can the United States of America really turn to the dark side???

Until we get a better Supreme Court, I think we're going to need state and/or federal laws against the taking of private property for public 'purposes' (as opposed to the historical public 'use').

[tomneal]

Here is the answer to your question.

We cannot depend on the courts to protect our rights. Either property rights, self defense, or any other rights.

We have to take our fights to city hall, the school board, the state legislature, the mayor, the governor, and regular folks.

If the folks of that town didn't like the "Taking" of property they could change the city council.

Battles are won by changing public opinion.

If they home owners had campaigned against the sitting city council members and kicked them out of office. The new city council could have stopped paying for the appeal.

[txinvestigator]

I am sorry, how does the 2nd ammendment effect this?

I guarantee you or any other enitity that comes to take my house so a resort can get built be on the wrong side of every gun I've got.

Stuff like this gets governments overturned - thats what the framers envisioned. Heck...thats what they did...

First of all, they PAY you fair market value for yout home. But the bottom line is if they go through the legal motions you WILL move out.

Comments like yours are what fuels the fires of the antis, grabbers and liberal press claiming gun owners are nut job wackos.

You can talk all of the internet bravado you want, but you would either

a) move without confronting anyone with a gun
b) die after confronting the govt with a gun.

Sounds like a stupid battle to me. I don't believe for 1 second you would pull a gun, but I DO understand your aversion to this.

As responsible gun owners we should refrain from lunatical comments about "the wrong side of our guns".

[onerifle]

While I agree to a point with txinvestigator that intenet bravado can sometimes be self-defeating, at risk of stirring the pot too much (and getting this thread locked) ;)....

-If government usurpation of private property rights ("fair market value be damned, I don't want to move!") isn't enough, at what point does the 2nd Amendment become, um..."relevant"?

I am beginning to fear for the first time, that in my lifetime we may actually get to what some people refer to as "Claire Wolfe time":
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Obligatory Internet Disclaimer: "Not an endorsement of treason, sedition, or hostile action toward anyone or anything."

[rickb308]

First of all, they PAY you fair market value for yout home. But the bottom line is if they go through the legal motions you WILL move out.

You think so? Ask the people losing their homes to the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. They are not even paying appraised values.
Been in the news.

Appraised = what I am taxed at = fair market value.

Me asking 10 15,000 more? May be fair, may not be. But appraised, taxable value IS fair market value.

Now, in light of the US Stupid court, they DON'T have to even offer "fair" market value. The can get the city council to claim emminent domain.

Investment tip: Buy hemp rope.

Because when it comes time to start hanging the SOB's, it'll be in short
supply.

[gigag04]

a) move without confronting anyone with a gun
b) die after confronting the govt with a gun.

Sounds like a stupid battle to me. I don't believe for 1 second you would pull a gun, but I DO understand your aversion to this.

As responsible gun owners we should refrain from lunatical comments about "the wrong side of our guns".

Surely 200 something yrs ago there too was a voice:

would you rather?

a.)go ahead and pay a tax without proper representation

OR

b.)die after confronting the (british) governement.



I'm glad they choose to ingore that voice.

You can say you wouldn't "bet for one second", but I bet you won't be first in line to come and be a test case to call my bluff either.