|
|
|
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 |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
