The Supreme Court has not conclusively defined what is a "taking" under the Constitution.
1 posted on
04/26/2019 1:06:43 PM PDT by
marktwain
To: marktwain
we definitely need to close down the ATF (and invite their employees to transfer into good jobs defending our borders against Moslem terrorists and saboteurs .. and Mexican drug gangs, etc.)
2 posted on
04/26/2019 1:08:13 PM PDT by
faithhopecharity
( “Politicians are not born; they are excreted.” Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 to 43 BCE))
To: marktwain
Will they get the retail or wholesale price?
3 posted on
04/26/2019 1:34:12 PM PDT by
fruser1
To: marktwain
4 posted on
04/26/2019 1:35:10 PM PDT by
ontap
To: marktwain
Sure glad I don't have one.
Saves me from not turning it in.
5 posted on
04/26/2019 1:41:09 PM PDT by
ComputerGuy
(BS, MS, PhD, and a BMF besides)
To: marktwain
73,000 in stock? They just weren’t all that popular - I thought.
To: marktwain
The Supreme Court has not conclusively defined what is a "taking" under the Constitution.It's been a few years since I read through some of the relevant opinions, but IIRC, the deprivation of property rights has to be complete and also permanent before it qualifies. Since the value of the plastic butt stocks in question has become zero, the company may have a case...
8 posted on
04/26/2019 3:05:03 PM PDT by
Who is John Galt?
("He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike.")
To: marktwain
SCOTUS isn’t legislative branch. Depriving them of something of material value violates Due Process under the 4th & 14th Amendments.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson