|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/7/2019)
|
This analysis is disturbing, in that it claims that the SCOTUS has upheld a priori confiscation of property and suspension of rights without adversarial hearings.
But one thing jumped out at me, and this is a critical point:
"...they do not involve any criminal charges or punishments."
Technically, RF is a civil, not criminal procedure, HOWEVER, the 'punishment' imposed by an ex parte confiscation order imposes a penalty indistinguishable from that imposed by a criminal conviction, without 6th Amendment due process.
'Temporary' or not, it is the removal of a constitutional right and property, de facto.
And that dog don't hunt.
Not by my lights, anyway. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
