Democrats in Georgia Introduce Bill to Confiscate Assault Weapons

[Distinguished Rick]

Hmmmmm........bad idea. Sounds like Georgia needs to step up and replace these traitors next election. Their stupidity knows no bounds.

[JALLEN]

Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731

Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered. Wonder if the author(s) read the 5th amendment at all...

Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?

I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?

I suppose I think of imminent domain in terms of real property only, since that is what I dealt with, and have never heard of the government taking personal property in that fashion.

Your truck example is better but I was thinking of real property when I wrote my response. I was specifically thinking of the case in New London CT where the city seized property to give it to a developer based on an expectation of greater tax revenue. It's more of a reach than your truck example but as you say, concepts can be twisted into just about anything.

I wasn't surprised by that decision. It seemed consistent with existing law, public use and just compensation. People seem to react emotionally as though the government just seized the property and left the owners homeless. They were paid the market value of the property as it then was.

People move their homes all the time, but when the government or some developer wants it, it becomes "my home" as though there was never and could never be another. My few experiences with imminent domain were consistent with a rather negative view of humanity when it comes to exacting money from the government.

[Pawpaw]

Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731

Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered. Wonder if the author(s) read the 5th amendment at all...

Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?

Actually, they do. They'll pay your room and board for the next few years.

[ScottDLS]

Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731

Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered. Wonder if the author(s) read the 5th amendment at all...

Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?

I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?

I suppose I think of imminent domain in terms of real property only, since that is what I dealt with, and have never heard of the government taking personal property in that fashion.

Your truck example is better but I was thinking of real property when I wrote my response. I was specifically thinking of the case in New London CT where the city seized property to give it to a developer based on an expectation of greater tax revenue. It's more of a reach than your truck example but as you say, concepts can be twisted into just about anything.

I wasn't surprised by that decision. It seemed consistent with existing law, public use and just compensation. People seem to react emotionally as though the government just seized the property and left the owners homeless. They were paid the market value of the property as it then was.

People move their homes all the time, but when the government or some developer wants it, it becomes "my home" as though there was never and could never be another. My few experiences with imminent domain were consistent with a rather negative view of humanity when it comes to exacting money from the government.

The reason Kelo was such a horrible decision was that the property was the concept of "public use". It's not like the homeowner was blocking a new water line or even interstate...it was a COMMERCIAL development.

Amendment V

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 offence 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.

[JALLEN]

Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731

Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered. Wonder if the author(s) read the 5th amendment at all...

Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?

I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?

I suppose I think of imminent domain in terms of real property only, since that is what I dealt with, and have never heard of the government taking personal property in that fashion.

Your truck example is better but I was thinking of real property when I wrote my response. I was specifically thinking of the case in New London CT where the city seized property to give it to a developer based on an expectation of greater tax revenue. It's more of a reach than your truck example but as you say, concepts can be twisted into just about anything.

I wasn't surprised by that decision. It seemed consistent with existing law, public use and just compensation. People seem to react emotionally as though the government just seized the property and left the owners homeless. They were paid the market value of the property as it then was.

People move their homes all the time, but when the government or some developer wants it, it becomes "my home" as though there was never and could never be another. My few experiences with imminent domain were consistent with a rather negative view of humanity when it comes to exacting money from the government.

The reason Kelo was such a horrible decision was that the property was the concept of "public use". It's not like the homeowner was blocking a new water line or even interstate...it was a COMMERCIAL development.

So what? That development, urban renewal, was held to be a "public purpose."

Amendment V

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 offence 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.

Do you really think that after 40 years as a lawyer, a real estate lawyer, actually, that I would be unfamiliar with the terms of the 5th Amendment?

We faced this in San Diego County. The People's Republic of Poway condemned a stretch along Poway Road for a large shopping area. It was mixed use, some residential, many small businesses, restaurants, auto repair, beauty parlors etc. The City would never have approved that development if it had been proposed by a coalition of property owners. The City wanted to wet its beak in the deal with the favored developer, as well as enjoy the vast increased tax revenue it anticipated. I was enthusiastically opposed to this, but the remedy is to vote out the bozos who approve such nonsense, not claim doing so is unconstitutional.

[ScottDLS]

So what? That development, urban renewal, was held to be a "public purpose."

Amendment V

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 offence 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.

Do you really think that after 40 years as a lawyer, a real estate lawyer, actually, that I would be unfamiliar with the terms of the 5th Amendment?

We faced this in San Diego County. The People's Republic of Poway condemned a stretch along Poway Road for a large shopping area. It was mixed use, some residential, many small businesses, restaurants, auto repair, beauty parlors etc. The City would never have approved that development if it had been proposed by a coalition of property owners. The City wanted to wet its beak in the deal with the favored developer, as well as enjoy the vast increased tax revenue it anticipated. I was enthusiastically opposed to this, but the remedy is to vote out the bozos who approve such nonsense, not claim doing so is unconstitutional.

So what? Plessy v. Ferguson, held that 'separate but equal' was not discrimination, Roe v. Wade invented a Constitutional right to abortion, and Obergefell a 'right' to Sodomite marriage...

Apparently even some lawyers, lack reading comprehension when it comes to the Constitution, especially as it relates to eminent domain and the fifth amendment or the second amendment, or the 14th, ....