Replies

TERMINATTOR posted:

"Several of the people charged were felons or were covered by domestic violence restraining orders and were prohibited from possessing firearms, Bogden said."

______________________________________

If those charged as felons are still considered dangerous, you have to wonder why they didn't keep them locked up.
25 FITZ

______________________________________

Supposedly by your 'logic' if someone gets their driver's license revoked then they must be incarcerated, too.
29 cj

______________________________________

Daft logic on your part cj, as losing a driving license still permits you to own and ride in, thus 'use' a vehicle.

In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can flat out prohibit ownership/possession of certain types of property, based on what 'might' happen if it is misused.

That claim clearly violates the rule of constitutional law. -- We have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.. See the 14th.

In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can flat out prohibit ownership/possession of certain types of property, based on what 'might' happen if it is misused.

We as a society make such determinations and judgments all the time. Drunk drivers are arrested even without plowing into pedestrians first, and it's hardly a constitutional issue. A counterfeiter can get his artwork and machines confiscated even if it never leaves his own private basement. A hacker can be barred from owning or using a computer. Any crime which is talked about and planned with others in advance is itself a crime, even if they don't act upon it. Seems the law is perfectly fine with such 'might happen' judgments.

In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can flat out prohibit ownership/possession of certain types of property, based on what 'might' happen if it is misused.

I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.