Owners may not get guns back (Guns Were Not Illegal, But Will Not Be Returned To Owners)

Herald-Palladium ^ | 15 Sept 2002 | JIM DALGLEISH

[rightofrush]

Thanks to Clinton & Bush(es), the fourth amendment is dead.

[Ken H]

Hmm. I'm afraid the Constitution means whatever 9 old men think it means.

That is true. Still, citizens should have an informed opinion about USSC ruling and whether or not they are being true to the written Constitution.

I often disagree with them but if they decide it's OK to take these guns, then it's OK. That's the breaks.

Does asset forfeiture such as this violate any aspect of the Constitution, according to how you read and understand the Constitution?

[The FRugitive]

ping

[KingKongCobra]

I'm not a fan of asset forfeiture and hope that more conservatives can be placed on the court. Until they are, I'm stuck with it. I also oppose abortion - stuck with that too. School prayer, flag burning, stupid looking "minority" districts and 1000 other things (mostly related to the loss of the tenth amendment). I'd rather work within the system than leave my wife and kids alone because I went "nutty".

[Ken H]

I take that as a "yes" that asset forfeiture such as this does violate the US Constitution, as you interpret it. Correct?

[KingKongCobra]

No, you can take it as an "I'm not paid to interpret the Constitution and I therefore defer to those who are". My "opinion" in irrelevent.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

This is armed robbery. That the criminals wear badges does not change a thing -- except that they will get away with the crime. Decent citizens should have no respect for them...

I do not advocate illegal drug use at all, but I agree and I don't think it is right to take all their firearms away over something like this.

Give them any reason at all and they will take your guns away in a heartbeat.

[Ken H]

In post 36 you mentioned the Constitution and said that you often disagree with the USSC.

It is fair game to ask a poster for their opinion on an issue which they are discussing, be it abortion or the constitutionality of a law.

IMO.

[KingKongCobra]

Yeah, you asked and I answered. Was it not clear? I'll expand on it. I think that the USSC makes many bad decisions. The Constitution gives them this power. Support for the Constitution also requires me to support the constitutional process for its interpretation. To think that I am not bound by these decisions and can do my own thing based on my own interpretation would actually make me an anarchist. I'm afraid that "I'm going to live my life based on my interpretation and everybody else can go to heck" is NOT supported by the constitution. It's the definition of anarchy. When I don't agree with a decision, I vote for people who have a chance to fix it. Note: That leaves out the Quixote warriors.

[Ken H]

I agree that the 7 old men and 2 old women have the final say with regard to constitutional law. I said so in my first post to you.

I don't know why the heck you are bringing up "anarchy" and "Quixotic warriors".

What's that got to do with someone's opinion on whether the USSC is ruling according to the written Constitution?

[Gigantor]

"If convicted, they lose the guns. Period."

Then the guns should be sold by the owners and they keep the money - after all, the guns are their private property.

[KingKongCobra]

I bring up anarchy and Quixote to explain why I hold my positions. Thanks for the discussion, I'm off to bed.

[KingKongCobra]

An excellent suggestion. Perfect solution for this case. If the guns could be proven to be ill-gotten from criminal activity, it might be different, but in this instance the owners should be compensated.

[Robert Drobot]

Do you think it cute the way you intentionally weave "....yall....ain't and "....cause...." into your posts. Cute but ineffective and demeaning toward those you may consider inferior intellectually. Consider this: You are what you write.

[ezo4]

I think Ill get Unintended Consequences out again and read it. Great book!

[ezo4]

How many people here have more than a 12 pack in there pantry or fridge. Or lets say a 5th of any type of alcohol. I dont advocate smoking pot or any other illegal drug.

But.... jeeez to sieze $20-30k of firearms for a substance that wouldn't even come close to intoxicating a person more than what most of us have legally.

[Ken H]

I bring up anarchy and Quixote to explain why I hold my postions.

I appreciate the explanation of why you hold your positions. I was interested in what one of those positions was.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm off to bed.

Good night.

[hoosierskypilot]

"Then the guns should be sold by the owners and they keep the money - after all, the guns are their private property."

No argument here. But, in CA, for example, there was a case where the local policemen took the guns and sold them for personal profit.

I don't think guns should be targeted any more than kitchen knives and baseball bats. After all, these can be used for nefarious purposes, also.

[Smokin' Joe]

Agreed. With all the pap about drugs and guns aimed at law abiding gun owners, they should either have fought the charges, or quit whining. If they are teaching gun safety, they should set a superior example, and have thought about how their actions (in a worst-case-scenario) would reflect on the entire gun owning community,.

I will not tolerate the presence of illegal drugs in my home or vehicle. My friends know this, and the rare few who might partake will not compromise me by having drugs in their posession when they come to visit.

Does go to show that the drug test doesn't seem to be working very well, though--at least in this instance.