|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/7/2019)
|
This analysis is disturbing, in that it claims that the SCOTUS has upheld a priori confiscation of property and suspension of rights without adversarial hearings.
But one thing jumped out at me, and this is a critical point:
"...they do not involve any criminal charges or punishments."
Technically, RF is a civil, not criminal procedure, HOWEVER, the 'punishment' imposed by an ex parte confiscation order imposes a penalty indistinguishable from that imposed by a criminal conviction, without 6th Amendment due process.
'Temporary' or not, it is the removal of a constitutional right and property, de facto.
And that dog don't hunt.
Not by my lights, anyway. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
