- Vladimir Putin orders military to boost presence in Arctic
- Brooklyn, N.Y.: ‘Lesbian capital’ of the Northeast
- Elian Gonzalez: It’s America’s fault that my mother died
- India top court rules homosexuality is illegal
- Aaron Hernandez, ex-Patriot, on prison life: ‘I’m way less stressed in jail’
- Man pulled from water believed to be disgraced D.C. cop
- Kabul airport hit by suicide bomber who targeted NATO gate
- Space probe on course to land on mile-wide comet
- New budget accord saves $23 billion — after $65 billion spending spree
- Congress seeks ban on in-flight calls
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Feinstein bill violates Fifth Amendment
Emily Miller’s article on high-capacity magazine bans (“The high-capacity magazine myth,” Comment & Analysis, Monday) does not address a critical concern about these anti-gun bills: the violence they would do to Fifth Amendment protections by depriving Americans of their property without due process.
While the ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, would allow current owners to continue to possess magazines owned before the law went into effect, it would not permit these magazine to be resold or transferred. They would literally “die with their current owners.” This constitutes a novel, uncompensated federal taking, since current owners would be unable to either recover the value of a legal investment they made or will it to their heirs. Whether people favor or oppose gun control, they should be very concerned about the sweeping precedent this would set.
For example, what would stop some future Environmental Protection Agency from declaring older cars — including valuable antiques — to be “gas guzzlers” and banning their resale for anything other than scrap? It’s the same principle of mandated destruction of something for a public purpose without compensation to the owners.
Mrs. Feinstein should know her bill violates Fifth Amendment tenets, since her 1994 ban specifically allowed resale of grandfathered firearms and magazines in part to avoid this very concern. The likely reason she is avoiding discussion of this issue is that the cost of implementing her ban legally could top $1 billion, given the courts have held that compensation is determined by market value when the taking occurs. If most Americans were given that price tag upfront, they would probably question what they are getting for their money. Legislators should ask the same question.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Donald Lambro
Growth spikes are little more than trend-free anomalies
Get Breaking Alerts
- Teen thugs in DC run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
- New budget accord saves $23 billion -- after $65 billion spending spree
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- VEGAS RULES: Harry Reid pushed feds to change ruling for casino's big-money foreigners
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- Gov't Motors: Obama fudges math on auto bailout, $15 billion loss for taxpayers
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
- FITTON: A closer look at the Benghazi lie
- American bourbon now better than Scottish whiskey: U.K.-born expert
- LAMBRO: The dark lining to the silver cloud of Obamanomics