- House and Senate negotiators reach two-year budget deal
- Congress seeks ban on in-flight calls
- Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy site sold to owners of Townhall, HotAir: report
- GM’s Barra to be first woman to run top American carmaker
- China: Poisonous smog is a military asset, if you think about it
- Texas woman admits to sending ricin to Obama
- Ron Paul on son Rand: ‘I think he probably will’ run for president
- Cold War heats up again in the Arctic: Russian airfield reactivated after 20 years
- 6-year-old boy suspended for sexual harassment over kiss
- Voters deciding Mass. congressional contest
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
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- Harry Reid's visa pressure cooker
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
- American bourbon now better than Scottish whiskey: U.K.-born expert
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- Galaxy S4 owner claims Samsung tried to silence him after phone caught fire
- FITTON: A closer look at the Benghazi lie
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report