SSDD.
Think better, this is likely more about destroying held firearms even before the issue is resolved and if the person wins their weapon back it will already be destroyed.
You know, oops we made a mistake, sorry but nothing you can do.
Just wait till they bust a gun shop owner for some technicality......
Destruction ends the paper trail. Government officials could pocket some really nice / expensive weapons, claim they were destroyed, and there is nothing that could be done about it.
This is an a perfect example of why Michigan lost both the state legislature and the state senate (2022) for the first time in DECADES. State-level GOPe/RINOs at work here did this and frequently you can’t tell the difference. Many conservatives just stopped voting for the barely lesser of evils. And term limits do not work, at least at the state level. The state level deep-state (if you will) has the democrats ready to roll many years out, the republicans appear to do nothing.
And if the USSC finds the law unconstitutional they will owe a whole lot of $$.
that’s what happens when you let people driven by emotion vote ...
Like they won’t be going out the back door...
“Firearms....to be destroyed instead of being sold and the money used for the public good”
I remember going to a police auction in a nearby state. Lots of seized items from house hold goods to firearms were being sold. Lots of people cane to see family furnishings being sold. Rather boring.
THEN Suddenly something like an electric charge went through the crowd and the surged toward the gun table! THEY WERE SELLING THE GUNS! I could not believe my eyes as the buyers were bidding up old junk guns for new prices, and good quality guns went for New prices! It was like a form of madness took over! All guns were legally sold and papers had to be filled out.
Our local county sheriff destroys all guns seized in this county. I saw some great S&W revolvers years ago I wish I could have bought.
bill of attainder
A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime . Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.
In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution . Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.
Courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
The law inflicts punishment.
The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.
In Nixon v. Adm’r of General Services , the court determined that punishment for the purposes of bills of attainder will determined by considering:
Whether the statute would historically be viewed as punitive.
Whether the statute, viewed in terms of burdens and severity, can reasonably be said to further non-punitive purposes.
Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals.