If real property can be taken away from its owner by a community based on the plunderer's definition of "public good," why can't tangibile property be similarly confiscated?
My understanding is that eminent domain can be applied to any kind of property (I think the California Supreme Court said as much when Oakland tried to use eminent domain to acquire the Raiders). The reason the government doesn't use eminent domain on guns more isn't because they can't, but because they don't have to. Their powers of forfeiture (criminal and civil) are amazing.
gun grabs could be one. Prescription meds (for an outbreak) could be another, vegetable gardens (to feed the hungry), cars, trees, cell phones, pets, etc, etc. Its only a matter of time before some agency somewhere tests the waters on this.
My understanding is that eminent domain can be applied to any kind of property (I think the California Supreme Court said as much when Oakland tried to use eminent domain to acquire the Raiders). The reason the government doesn't use eminent domain on guns more isn't because they can't, but because they don't have to. Their powers of forfeiture (criminal and civil) are amazing.
ReplyDeletegun grabs could be one. Prescription meds (for an outbreak) could be another, vegetable gardens (to feed the hungry), cars, trees, cell phones, pets, etc, etc. Its only a matter of time before some agency somewhere tests the waters on this.
ReplyDeleteNew Supreme Court theme song:
ReplyDelete"We pillage, we plunder, we rifle and loot, drink up me hearties, yo ho!"