Chicago suburb bans assault weapons

[Dove Tail]

One bite at a time.


Some excerpts from the article:


"Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance,
which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of
firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Residents of the
19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from
village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines."

"Several powerful federal appeals courts have ruled that prohibitions
on assault weapons were permissible under the Second Amendment, and no
federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons were
protected, as The Post’s Meagan Flynn and Fred Barbash have reported.
Those courts have also found that states and municipalities have sound
reasons to ban military-style weapons without curtailing people’s right
to self-defense"

"Police in Deerfield will have the power to confiscate banned weapons
and destroy them after determining they were not needed as evidence.
People who hang on to their weapons could face daily fines between $250
and $1,000."


Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting -

The Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/ybybtxkr


Here is a link to the actual ordinance:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-deerfield-assault-weapon-ordinance-document-20180403-htmlstory.html





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

[gfre...@aol.com]

What is the over/under on the date that this law is found to be
unconstitutional? It sounds like a "taking" or "ex post facto"
legislation to me.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/5/2018 6:23 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
> One bite at a time.
>
>
> Some excerpts from the article:
>
>
> "Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance,
> which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of
> firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Residents of the
> 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from
> village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines."
>

>

> Here is a link to the actual ordinance:
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-deerfield-assault-weapon-ordinance-document-20180403-htmlstory.html

Good thought, but probably little will happen. I see two problems.

Legal challenge will tie it up in courts for years.

No matter the law, lawbreakers are not going to conform . The potential
for confiscation is why some people do not register firearms.

[Dove Tail]

Several federal courts have upheld bans on assault weapons in the past.
On what grounds do you assert this ban will differ? Or is it just your
gut talking again?

[Dove Tail]

Precedent in federal court has been to uphold such bans. It is
unlikely any such challenge will gain much traction. In the meantime,
I doubt a federal court will put a stay on the ordinance, due in great
part to precedent.

As for those who violate the ordinance, the city has established
financial penalties and authorized police confiscation of the weapons.

Removing these absurd weapons from the hands of civilians has to start
somewhere. Deerfield seems like a good place to start.

[trader_4]

Yeah, I'm sure all the gang bangers, the people about to go shoot up
a night club or Youtube will just hand over their guns. The only thing
this will do is force legal gun owners that were not going to commit
crime, to turn over their guns. And wind up screwing some unfortunate,
otherwise law abiding people, that they catch somehow in violation of
the ban. Meanwhile the real criminals will simply do as they please.
And meahwhile the screwly libs who don't give a damn about black lives,
like Rahm Emanuel, will let the devastating crime in the black neighborhoods
in Chicago continue. Of course if the crime were in his neighborhood,
well that would get action.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:15:09 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

They can ban the sale and maybe even the transfer but when you start
making possession of something illegal that used to be legal without
any compensation, you start bumping into constitutional problems.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/5/2018 at 6:20:32 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:15:09 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

> > Several federal courts have upheld bans on assault weapons in the
> > past. On what grounds do you assert this ban will differ? Or is
> > it just your gut talking again?
>
> They can ban the sale and maybe even the transfer but when you start
> making possession of something illegal that used to be legal without
> any compensation, you start bumping into constitutional problems.

What evidence do you have the municipality is not going to compensate
and or provide due process to those who disobey the ordinance?

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 02:00:30 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/5/2018 at 6:20:32 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:15:09 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
>
>> > Several federal courts have upheld bans on assault weapons in the
>> > past. On what grounds do you assert this ban will differ? Or is
>> > it just your gut talking again?
>>
>> They can ban the sale and maybe even the transfer but when you start
>> making possession of something illegal that used to be legal without
>> any compensation, you start bumping into constitutional problems.
>
>
>What evidence do you have the municipality is not going to compensate
>and or provide due process to those who disobey the ordinance?

I suppose it is because of the language of the law you posted. I see
no discussion of grandfather clauses, compensation or any other
concession to the fact that these were legally owned up until now.
I understand you do not think anyone should have guns and
extraordinary means are justified to take them away but that pretty
much makes you the fascist.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:27:17 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 02:00:30 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

> > What evidence do you have the municipality is not going to
> > compensate and or provide due process to those who disobey the
> > ordinance?

>
> I suppose it is because of the language of the law you posted. I see
> no discussion of grandfather clauses, compensation or any other
> concession to the fact that these were legally owned up until now.
> I understand you do not think anyone should have guns and
> extraordinary means are justified to take them away but that pretty
> much makes you the fascist.

ROFL, so, once again, you have no evidence.

As for what you want to believe about me, that is simply another red
herring. The discussion is about the Deerfield ordinance and the
constitutionality of such.

It will be very interesting to watch this as it it progresses. I don't
doubt there will be challenges, but, when those challenges are
dispensed with, the ordinance in it's final form will become a model
for other municipalities throughout the nation.

This is all moving along nicely and more quickly than I had
anticipated. Much of the nation is fed-up with snowflakes who can't
get an erection without stroking their guns and playing wanna-be
soldier.

[gfre...@aol.com]

Again with the ad hominem attacks

You are certainly a one trick pony and we3 have all of the evidence we
need simply by the tone of your posts here.
I thought you might be a teenager, now I am starting to think you are
a teen aged girl or wish you were.

[Tekkie®]

gfre...@aol.com posted for all of us...

>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:15:09 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
> <do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 4/5/2018 at 3:58:34 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 22:23:08 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
> >> <do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One bite at a time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Some excerpts from the article:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance,
> >> > which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of
> >> > firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Residents of the
> >> > 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from
> >> > village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines."
> >> >
> >> > "Several powerful federal appeals courts have ruled that
> >> > prohibitions on assault weapons were permissible under the Second
> >> > Amendment, and no federal appeals court has ever held that assault

> >> > weapons were protected, as The Post?s Meagan Flynn and Fred Barbash

> >> > have reported. Those courts have also found that states and
> >> > municipalities have sound reasons to ban military-style weapons

> >> > without curtailing people?s right to self-defense"

> >> >
> >> > "Police in Deerfield will have the power to confiscate banned
> >> > weapons and destroy them after determining they were not needed as
> >> > evidence. People who hang on to their weapons could face daily
> >> > fines between $250 and $1,000."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland
> >> > shooting -
> >> >
> >> > The Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/ybybtxkr
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here is a link to the actual ordinance:
> >> >
> >> >
> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-deerfield-assault-weapon-ordinance-document-20180403-htmlstory.html
> >>
> >> What is the over/under on the date that this law is found to be
> >> unconstitutional? It sounds like a "taking" or "ex post facto"
> >> legislation to me.
> >
> >
> >Several federal courts have upheld bans on assault weapons in the past.
> >On what grounds do you assert this ban will differ? Or is it just your
> >gut talking again?
>
> They can ban the sale and maybe even the transfer but when you start
> making possession of something illegal that used to be legal without
> any compensation, you start bumping into constitutional problems.

+ a gazillion

--
Tekkie

[trader_4]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:26:26 AM UTC-4, Dove Tail wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 at 7:27:17 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 02:00:30 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
>
> > > What evidence do you have the municipality is not going to
> > > compensate and or provide due process to those who disobey the
> > > ordinance?
>
> >
> > I suppose it is because of the language of the law you posted. I see
> > no discussion of grandfather clauses, compensation or any other
> > concession to the fact that these were legally owned up until now.
> > I understand you do not think anyone should have guns and
> > extraordinary means are justified to take them away but that pretty
> > much makes you the fascist.
>
> ROFL, so, once again, you have no evidence.

Now that's a classic SwallowBeak. You said there is no evidence
that the municipality that is banning certain weapons is not going
to compensate people who have to get rid of them. Gfre points out
that the law says NOTHING about any compensation or any process
and you claim that's not evidence that it doesn't exist?
Where would you suppose any compensation would logically be,
if not in that law? It's a classic. You postulate BS, then it's
up to others to prove a negative? WTF?

>
> As for what you want to believe about me, that is simply another red
> herring. The discussion is about the Deerfield ordinance and the
> constitutionality of such.
>
> It will be very interesting to watch this as it it progresses. I don't
> doubt there will be challenges, but, when those challenges are
> dispensed with, the ordinance in it's final form will become a model
> for other municipalities throughout the nation.
>
> This is all moving along nicely and more quickly than I had
> anticipated. Much of the nation is fed-up with snowflakes who can't
> get an erection without stroking their guns and playing wanna-be
> soldier.

It sure doesn't take much to give you an erection though does it?
One insignificant piss ant town and you're acting like it's a big
deal. And that town could toss out the libs who just passed it
and undo it next year too.

[Dove Tail]

Good one, accuse me of that which you are guilty. Let me guess, you
asserting that I am a fascist was not an ad hominem attack because you,
let's see, feel it is factual.


Come on Fretwell, don't be such a whinny cry-baby. Man-up, grow a pair.

[BurfordTJustice]

If i shove my pen in your ear and you die

you can claim you were killed by an assault pen...

You fucking coward girlie man.




"Dove Tail" <do...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pa67kc$970$1...@dont-email.me...
: One bite at a time.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 20:09:58 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

You are a fascist because you advocate the storm troopers taking
previously legal guns from people without compensation./

... and you can stop all of the testosterone bullshit until you get
the balls to post your drivel over your real name.
I wouldn't be shocked to find out you were "No Man" from Rec.Boats.
hiding behind a proxy server in russia..

[Dove Tail]

Calm down Fretwell, your mangina is hemorrhaging.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 23:32:02 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/6/2018 at 3:55:56 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 20:09:58 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
>> <do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > Good one, accuse me of that which you are guilty. Let me guess, you
>> > asserting that I am a fascist was not an ad hominem attack because
>> > you, let's see, feel it is factual.
>>
>> You are a fascist because you advocate the storm troopers taking
>> previously legal guns from people without compensation./
>>
>> ... and you can stop all of the testosterone bullshit until you get
>> the balls to post your drivel over your real name.
>> I wouldn't be shocked to find out you were "No Man" from Rec.Boats.
>> hiding behind a proxy server in russia..
>
>
>Calm down Fretwell, your mangina is hemorrhaging.

No balls Dove brain farts again

[Bob F]

Don't worry. At $1000/day, they will easily afford to buy them back.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/6/2018 at 7:35:03 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 23:32:02 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

> > Calm down Fretwell, your mangina is hemorrhaging.


> No balls Dove brain farts again

Your abject fear of me and my desire to see semi-automatic weapons
eliminated from civilian possession is flattering, Fretwell.


Don't worry, you donated to the NRA! :-)


ROFLMAO!

[gfre...@aol.com]

When I see people like you, it wants me to send them more.

[mike]

I banned assault weapons in my home.
If anybody breaks down my door holding one,
they will be reprimanded most sternly and a fine
will be assessed!
That should make my home safe...

[Dove Tail]

On 4/6/2018 at 8:46:17 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:



> When I see people like you, it wants me to send them more.

By all means, please do so. They are going to need the money for their
legal defense fund related to the Russian probe.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 12:30:39 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/6/2018 at 8:46:17 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> When I see people like you, it wants me to send them more.
>
>
>By all means, please do so. They are going to need the money for their
>legal defense fund related to the Russian probe.

I have not heard of any charges pending, have you?
Just because you wish, does not make it so.

[Dove Tail]

The NRA is under federal investigation. It would be a very foolish
individual or organization who did not seek legal representation when
being investigated by federal law enforcement.

You can wait to secure representation until you are indicted but, that
would be irresponsible.

Write them another check Fretwell.

LOL!

[BurfordTJustice]

To quote trader,"you are a fucking moron"

"Dove Tail" <do...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:paaq8n$2cv$1...@dont-email.me...

[k...@notreal.com]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:26:49 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/5/2018 at 4:10:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>> On 4/5/2018 6:23 PM, Dove Tail wrote:
>> > One bite at a time.
>> >
>> >
>> > Some excerpts from the article:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance,
>> > which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of
>> > firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Residents of the
>> > 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from
>> > village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines."
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Here is a link to the actual ordinance:
>> >
>> >
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-deerfield-assault-weapon-ordinance-document-20180403-htmlstory.html
>>
>> Good thought, but probably little will happen. I see two problems.
>>
>> Legal challenge will tie it up in courts for years.
>>
>> No matter the law, lawbreakers are not going to conform . The
>> potential for confiscation is why some people do not register
>> firearms.
>
>
>Precedent in federal court has been to uphold such bans. It is
>unlikely any such challenge will gain much traction. In the meantime,
>I doubt a federal court will put a stay on the ordinance, due in great
>part to precedent.

Cite one.

>
>As for those who violate the ordinance, the city has established
>financial penalties and authorized police confiscation of the weapons.
>
>Removing these absurd weapons from the hands of civilians has to start
>somewhere. Deerfield seems like a good place to start.

It is you who is absurd birdbrain.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/12/2018 at 11:14:04 AM, k...@notreal.com wrote:


> > Precedent in federal court has been to uphold such bans. It is
> > unlikely any such challenge will gain much traction. In the
> > meantime, I doubt a federal court will put a stay on the ordinance,
> > due in great part to precedent.
>
> Cite one.

Here is one from six days ago.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/381957-federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban

Let me guess, that isn't good enough for you.

In that case, see:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-guns/u-s-appeals-court-upholds-marylands-ban-on-assault-rifles-idUSKBN1610JY

Still not good enough, here you go:

http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-assault-weapon-gun-ban-723464


Yes, there are differences between all the laws, but it is apparent the
courts, including SCOTUS, are not inclined to overturn bans on specific
types of weapons.

Now, it is time for you to either start calling names or just ignore
this reply.

[gfre...@aol.com]

None of them involve 5th and 6th amendment violations. If you have an
assault rifle in Md, you can keep it, You can even drive over to
Virginia and buy all the high cap magazines you want and bring them
home to maryland., They also exempts a whole class of AR15s (HBAR)
that you can still buy today.
These are much different laws.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:40:20 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/12/2018 at 11:14:04 AM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>
>> > Precedent in federal court has been to uphold such bans. It is
>> > unlikely any such challenge will gain much traction. In the
>> > meantime, I doubt a federal court will put a stay on the ordinance,
>> > due in great part to precedent.
>>
>> Cite one.
>
>
>Here is one from six days ago.
>
>http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/381957-federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban
>
>Let me guess, that isn't good enough for you.

Nope, stupid, it's not. Nowhere in there does it say they're going to
confiscate property without compensation.

>
>In that case, see:
>
>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-guns/u-s-appeals-court-upholds-marylands-ban-on-assault-rifles-idUSKBN1610JY
>
>Still not good enough, here you go:

Nope, stupid, it's not. Nowhere in there does it say they're going to
confiscate property without compensation.

>
>http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-assault-weapon-gun-ban-723464
>
>
>Yes, there are differences between all the laws, but it is apparent the
>courts, including SCOTUS, are not inclined to overturn bans on specific
>types of weapons.
>
>Now, it is time for you to either start calling names or just ignore
>this reply.

Nope, stupid, it's not. It's a fact. You're stupid.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/12/2018 at 2:59:23 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> None of them involve 5th and 6th amendment violations

Please explain, precisely, which 5th and 6th amendment violations you
assert are embodied in the Deerfield ordinance.

Citations from both amendments and from the ordinance would be helpful.

[gfre...@aol.com]

Section 15-91 of the ordinance says the chief of police has the power
to confiscate and destroy any weapon or magazine that was banned and
they do not specify that the owner will be compensated
(a 5th amendment "taking") and there is no hearing or other due
process specified (6th amendment)
The interesting thing is they already had an assault weapon ordinance
that probably would pass constitutional muster, being similar to the
ones that you cited but they struck out the language that made it
legal and substituted it with the language about confiscation and
destruction of previously legally owned property without defining the
compensation or even acknowledging there was any compensation.
Considering how broke these cities are, they do not have that kind of
money anyway.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/13/2018 at 7:38:35 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


>
> Section 15-91 of the ordinance says the chief of police has the power
> to confiscate and destroy any weapon or magazine that was banned and
> they do not specify that the owner will be compensated
> (a 5th amendment "taking") and there is no hearing or other due
> process specified (6th amendment)
> The interesting thing is they already had an assault weapon ordinance
> that probably would pass constitutional muster, being similar to the
> ones that you cited but they struck out the language that made it
> legal and substituted it with the language about confiscation and
> destruction of previously legally owned property without defining the
> compensation or even acknowledging there was any compensation.
> Considering how broke these cities are, they do not have that kind of
> money anyway.

Unfortunately your interpretation of the taking clause is woefully
ignorant of prior interpretation and precedent.

The taking clause of the constitution only applies to property which is
confiscated for "Public Use" and not to property which is confiscated
for the health and welfare of the public.

As for the sixth amendment, you are speculating and exaggerating, no
one has been denied due process.

Below is a link to an analysis of the legal ramifications of
confiscating firearms. This was published by Duke University School of
Law in "Law and Contemporary Problems" (1986).

The summary of the 28 page analysis is:

"Thus, under the three-part public use test, no compensation would be
required by the fifth amendment if there were a federal or state ban on
the possession of firearms. Such a result may seem viscerally unfair;
however, one must remember that if every regulation of property
required compensation, a government would be unable to operate. More
importantly, this result is dictated by the words of the Constitution.
Under the analysis proposed in this note, that constitutional language
is capable of a single, clear interpretation, which can guide courts to
a rational treatment of the taking issue."

If you are actually inclined to read the very well referenced analysis,
here is the link:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3833&context=lcp

[gfre...@aol.com]

I guess that is why we have a supreme court. Typically when we have
these "takings" the government loses, no matter what some law
professors believe.
If it wasn't that way, the result would be chilling. Some group of
legislators could pretty much decide to take anything they wanted "for
the public good". We had a case here where the county and the EPA
decided to tell a guy who had owned property since WWII that suddenly
it was a wetland and he couldn't develop it (without compensation) The
SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand that this was a taking and the
county had to give him $22 million for rezoning his 40 acres and his
court costs. He still owned the property when it was over.
(Richard Reahard v Lee County)
We don't really hear much about that case because it sends a chill
down the spine of others who want to take things that do not belong to
them.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <u652dd51oreomg6p2...@4ax.com>,
gfre...@aol.com says...

>
> I guess that is why we have a supreme court. Typically when we have
> these "takings" the government loses, no matter what some law
> professors believe.
> If it wasn't that way, the result would be chilling. Some group of
> legislators could pretty much decide to take anything they wanted "for
> the public good". We had a case here where the county and the EPA
> decided to tell a guy who had owned property since WWII that suddenly
> it was a wetland and he couldn't develop it (without compensation) The
> SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand that this was a taking and the
> county had to give him $22 million for rezoning his 40 acres and his
> court costs. He still owned the property when it was over.
> (Richard Reahard v Lee County)
> We don't really hear much about that case because it sends a chill
> down the spine of others who want to take things that do not belong to
> them.
>
>

Probably would not stand up now as the immenent domain law was passed.
If say Walmart or a Baseball team wants your land, they may be able to
buy it at a low price from you because "it is good for the economy".

I can see it in some cases such as roads and flooding the land for a big
lake on the river, but not for a company that can build most anywhere.

One thing I do not like about the SCOTUS is it only takes a simple a
mjority. Looks like to me as this is a point of law all or maybe all
but one or two should have to agree.
Being apointed for basically life and a simple majority means that
whoever is president gets to stack the court in their parties favor.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:57:56 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <u652dd51oreomg6p2...@4ax.com>,
>gfre...@aol.com says...
>>
>> I guess that is why we have a supreme court. Typically when we have
>> these "takings" the government loses, no matter what some law
>> professors believe.
>> If it wasn't that way, the result would be chilling. Some group of
>> legislators could pretty much decide to take anything they wanted "for
>> the public good". We had a case here where the county and the EPA
>> decided to tell a guy who had owned property since WWII that suddenly
>> it was a wetland and he couldn't develop it (without compensation) The
>> SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand that this was a taking and the
>> county had to give him $22 million for rezoning his 40 acres and his
>> court costs. He still owned the property when it was over.
>> (Richard Reahard v Lee County)
>> We don't really hear much about that case because it sends a chill
>> down the spine of others who want to take things that do not belong to
>> them.
>>
>>
>
>Probably would not stand up now as the immenent domain law was passed.
>If say Walmart or a Baseball team wants your land, they may be able to
>buy it at a low price from you because "it is good for the economy".

This had nothing to do with eminent domain. They thought they could
just stop his development by changing the classification of the land.
They can always do that but they have to pay for it.

[trader_4]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 4:58:05 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <u652dd51oreomg6p2...@4ax.com>,
> gfre...@aol.com says...
> >
> > I guess that is why we have a supreme court. Typically when we have
> > these "takings" the government loses, no matter what some law
> > professors believe.
> > If it wasn't that way, the result would be chilling. Some group of
> > legislators could pretty much decide to take anything they wanted "for
> > the public good". We had a case here where the county and the EPA
> > decided to tell a guy who had owned property since WWII that suddenly
> > it was a wetland and he couldn't develop it (without compensation) The
> > SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand that this was a taking and the
> > county had to give him $22 million for rezoning his 40 acres and his
> > court costs. He still owned the property when it was over.
> > (Richard Reahard v Lee County)
> > We don't really hear much about that case because it sends a chill
> > down the spine of others who want to take things that do not belong to
> > them.
> >
> >
>
> Probably would not stand up now as the immenent domain law was passed.
> If say Walmart or a Baseball team wants your land, they may be able to
> buy it at a low price from you because "it is good for the economy".
>
> I can see it in some cases such as roads and flooding the land for a big
> lake on the river, but not for a company that can build most anywhere.
>
>

The cases I'm aware of, the CT case that went to the SC, it wasn't as simple as the govt using eminent domain so a private company could build something they could build anywhere. They were cases where a specific area was really crappy and depressed, and the town had a re-development fan that would turn it into something good, but to do it, to attract investors it would never happen without a master plan to re-develop the whole area.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/13/2018 at 1:45:16 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:25:00 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
> >
> >

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3833&context=lcp
>
> I guess that is why we have a supreme court. Typically when we have
> these "takings" the government loses, no matter what some law
> professors believe.
> If it wasn't that way, the result would be chilling. Some group of
> legislators could pretty much decide to take anything they wanted "for
> the public good". We had a case here where the county and the EPA
> decided to tell a guy who had owned property since WWII that suddenly
> it was a wetland and he couldn't develop it (without compensation) The
> SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand that this was a taking and the
> county had to give him $22 million for rezoning his 40 acres and his
> court costs. He still owned the property when it was over.
> (Richard Reahard v Lee County)
> We don't really hear much about that case because it sends a chill
> down the spine of others who want to take things that do not belong to
> them.

Interesting but your digression pertains to real property and has no
bearing on firearms or other items the government might choose to
regulate.

Assault weapons can be banned, even if previously legally owned and the
government can confiscate the weapons without compensation AND fine or
prosecute those who do not comply with the law.

[gfre...@aol.com]

Tell me some place not in a fascist country where that happened.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:06:10 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> Tell me some place not in a fascist country where that happened.

Red herring. You lose.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:14:55 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/13/2018 at 5:06:10 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> Tell me some place not in a fascist country where that happened.
>
>
>Red herring. You lose.

Not at all, you are the one who has said it is legal and imply it is
happening all over. Tell me where or just admit this is a fantasy of
yours.

[Dove Tail]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:43:49 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:


> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:14:55 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"

> >

> > Red herring. You lose.

>
> Not at all, you are the one who has said it is legal and imply it is
> happening all over. Tell me where or just admit this is a fantasy of
> yours.

ROFLMAO, what are you going to do next? Pound your shoe on the table?

;-)

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/13/2018 at 5:43:49 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:14:55 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
>
>> >
>> > Red herring. You lose.
>
>>
>> Not at all, you are the one who has said it is legal and imply it is
>> happening all over. Tell me where or just admit this is a fantasy of
>> yours.
>
>ROFLMAO, what are you going to do next? Pound your shoe on the table?
>
>;-)

No, you've been doing that for some time.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
<do...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/13/2018 at 5:43:49 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:14:55 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
>
>> >
>> > Red herring. You lose.
>
>>
>> Not at all, you are the one who has said it is legal and imply it is
>> happening all over. Tell me where or just admit this is a fantasy of
>> yours.
>
>ROFLMAO, what are you going to do next? Pound your shoe on the table?
>
>;-)

I just pointed out you are full of shit talking about something that
has never happened like it is fact and you are the one changing the
subject now.

One more time, where has a confiscation law been upheld on appeal?

You can take your shoe off and pound if you like but the question
still stands.

[trader_4]

Not exactly the same thing, but NJ banned possession of semi-auto magazines larger
than 15 rounds. If you had any of those, you had to get rid of them
one way or another. Seems the same could be done with any ban on
semi-auto rifles, pistols, etc. The govt isn't taking them, just
telling you that you have to get rid of it. If you want to be justly
compensated, then you can get rid of it by selling it out of state.
Of course if the feds instituted such a ban, then you'd have to find
buyers out of the country, IDK how that would work, no experience there,
but obviously it's a lot more complicated. I guess in the free market
if they instituted a ban effective in a year or two, many dealers
would emerge that would buy the guns and export them somewhere.

[gfre...@aol.com]

Your law may be facing challenges too. I still wonder how they are
getting around the "ex post facto" language in the constitution.
I do understand legislatures can pass any law they want and if the
people just roll over and take it, OK but since Marbury V Madison
unconstitutional laws can be overturned.

[trader_4]

The ban on mags I was referring to was put in place decades ago.
IDK about any challenges or how high they went. In addition to
the mag ban, they banned assault rifles, similar to the fed ban,
but those you were grandfathered.

[Uncle Monster]

Wow! You're actually trying to reason with Dove Anus? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Curious Monster