To: yonif
"The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks," Amendment V
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
This law is unconstitutional as in now stands unless a compensation mechanism to reimburse gun manufacturers for the extra cost that they will incur to implement this law.
I thought each Senator took an oath that they will uphold, protect, and abide by the covenents of the Constitution.
19 posted on
02/26/2004 3:58:16 PM PST by
tahiti
To: tahiti
I don't understand why so many republicans voted for it.
20 posted on
02/26/2004 4:00:11 PM PST by
yonif
("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
To: tahiti
seatbelts
To: tahiti
This law is unconstitutional as in now stands unless a compensation mechanism to reimburse gun manufacturers for the extra cost that they will incur to implement this law. If that is so, then every bit of government regulation of business is unconstitutional.
42 posted on
02/26/2004 5:46:26 PM PST by
JohnnyZ
(People don't just bump into each other and have sex. This isn't Cinemax! -- Jerry)
To: tahiti
This law is unconstitutional as in now stands unless a compensation mechanism to reimburse gun manufacturers for the extra cost that they will incur to implement this law. I must respectfully disagree with you. Even Justices Scalia and Thomas do not such a reading of the 5th amendment's takings clause that would constitute this bill a government taking. I do not believe that takings clause can be stretched so widely as to include this bill.
At no time in American history has the Supreme Court, even dating back to the begining of the republic, ever warped the 5th amendment in such a way.
89 posted on
02/27/2004 9:15:09 PM PST by
RKB-AFG
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson