The debate "National gun buybacks are a violation of due process. Taking property without going to trial" was started by
June 9, 2018, 5:59 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, Andrewchaney69420, mlowe, Andji and 14 visitors agree.
AB, historybuff, Nemiroff and 8 visitors disagree.
1. I never said there wasnt a warrant. I would assume there is a warrant, and believing that the only alternative is a total police state is silly.
unless your claiming that the australian police literally went door to door ripping up walls. I think we would have heard something if they did and I'll kinda need proof for that
2. "Just because a constitutional violation only happened to a few people"
as I pointed out, your misleading use of the word national on this forum suggests america, but the only 2 mandatory examples in history so far are in Australia.
are you familiar enough with the Australian constitution to make that claim?
3. even if those violations did happened to a few people doesnt mean those 2 isolated misuses get to define the vast majority that dont. just like how the times police officers misbehave isnt a reason to damn all police officers. do you not agree? they dont redefine all buybacks just because one government perversed their use.
"would you prefer they be able to keep their drug lab? are you arguing you should send the lab owner to jail rather than let him voluntarily surrender it?"
Did the officers seizing property have a probable cause of seizing the property based on probable cause like strange and horrid smell coming from the house and reports of people calling the police? Did the officer breach into the property without a warrant and without probable cause, and did it because he felt like it? Did the suspect have a criminal record of cooking drugs?
If the officers seizing the property had sized the lab without a search warrant, no probable cause, was not on the way of hot pursuit, or no evidence leading to the perpetrator, then it would be uncomfortable to say that his charges are dismissed. That's the power of the 5th Amendment.
"if only 2 out of the 1000s of buy back programs are the only ones that were mandatory, how will you claim that all buybacks violate due process?"
Because their right to due process hasn't been deemed void with either probable cause or imminent danger to justify having their property being taken away from them, how did the authorities know that they have illegal firearms exactly? Just because a constitutional violation only happened to a few people and didn't apply to everyone, doesn't mean it isn't a constitutional violation.
"what would due process look like for confiscation of illegal products?"
What it looks like is still a constitutional violation, this isn't any different from gathering evidence without law enforcement having a search warrant to seize property, and the evidence being deemed void unless probable cause is taken into account.
"I would conclude there is some people in the group of 1000 people that are sick, which makes your argument illogical"
actually that makes your argument illogical, because if only 2 out of the 1000s of buy back programs are the only ones that were mandatory, how will you claim that all buybacks violate due process?
due process is meant to establish guilt and protect the innocent, so if your in known procession of illegal goods, your guilty.
what would due process look like for confiscation of illegal products?
are you sure the property deprivation wasnt for legal goods like your house or your gold?
owning the weapon is illegal. if they own it, that is illegal. all the government would need is to prove they have it. If they want due process they can not turn in the weapon and get their day in court, of course then they would go to jail.
if someone owned a drug lab for a drug that hadn't been outlawed yet, then it becomes illegal. would you prefer they be able to keep their drug lab? are you arguing you should send the lab owner to jail rather than let him voluntarily surrender it? I honestly can't tell what you are arguing for.
"if the gun becomes illegal, then why would it be unconstitutional to force people to give up something that is illegal?"
Because they have to appear in court being assumed guilty, and have to prove their innocence once they appear on why they should have their firearm back and why they should not be charged. Where is the real justice of a suspect being innocent until proven guilty?
However, that right to due process is only deemed void if that person with an illegal gun is proven to be an imminent threat by waving it round in public with verbal calls to action saying he will shoot people, or broken into a person's house or property with it.
Possession of illegal firearm or weapon != imminent threat or danger
police seize drugs regularly. they don't always press charges. that is seizure without due process.
if the gun becomes illegal, then why would it be unconstitutional to force people to give up something that is illegal?
Confiscation of narcotics without due process is unconstitutional.
Have you read the 5th Amendment? "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law." From that question you asked me, that seems like a "no."
I would conclude there is some people in the group of 1000 people that are sick, which makes your argument illogical
so if you have 1000 people who are healthy, but you point at the 2 people who are sick, will you conclude that all people are sick?
how do you feel about the confiscation of illegal narcotics?
"it was the recently illegal semiautomatic weapons that were mandatory."
Just because not all guns are subjected to the confiscation program doesn't mean it isn't a mandatory confiscation, and neither did I say all guns were subjected to the program; you are sugar coating it.
"Australia's gun buyback program was a violation of due process" wouldnt be as sensational as your claim, even tho it would be far more accurate
btw, Australia's program was 2 part. the guns that were still legal were 100% voluntary. it was the recently illegal semiautomatic weapons that were mandatory.
Australia doesnt have a second amendment just like the US doesnt have an amendment protecting drug property. when ecstasy was first made illegal, would it be wrong for the gov to seize it? how about cocaine and heroin?
if that's the case your title should have been "Australia's gun buy backs were a violation of due process and property rights"
every other gun buyback program, including every single one in this country has been 100% voluntary. thus, how are you damning the whole idea because of I example that is clearly different then all the other ones?
my biggest problem is that your argument is a ship of thebes. you made a bold general claim but then justified it by changing all the definitions into things less bold. like:
"national" really means this one specific nation, not ours, that doesnt have a second ammendment .
"buybacks" doesnt imply all or most as the "s" usually implies, but just 2 specific programs carried out by 1 specific government. and at one point, buyback meant any seizing action of any kind even without any buying, like your California example.
all other examples that dont fit into your argument are ignored. like all the successful, 100% voluntary programs carried out in this nation.
"do people not know what a buyback program is?
do they not realize that a voluntary transaction CANNOT be a violation of due process?"
Yes, we have full understanding what a firearm buyback is. What you fail to understand is that the Australian 1996 to 2003 gun buyback program was NOT voluntary, it was a mandatory gun buyback program that required the citizens to give up your gun with compensation. The former gun owners of the buyback in fact protested in front of the government offices because it was forced!
the voting on this thread makes me both laugh and cry.
do people not know what a buyback program is?
do they not realize that a voluntary transaction CANNOT be a violation of due process?
it feels that the only thinking people do is:
1. identify topic (gun control)
2. identify the stance they should generally take.
and the actual question, definitions, or anything of relevance is actively ignored.
I'm sorry but that's just sheepish
California is not national, and a confiscation is not a buy back program. It may have been a violation, but they have nothing to do with buybacks.
how do you feel about the confiscation of narcotics?
Australia is a foreign country with different laws, due process, and as far as I know, nothing like the 2nd ammendment.
If the thing the government is buying back has become illegal, then what is the problem? keeping it would be a crime. are you suggesting the government doesn't have the power to make things illegal?
Not in Australia back in late 1990 which was mandatory, nor the clearly mandatory gun magazines (or commonly mistaken for "clips") confiscation that held more than 10 rounds in early 2018 California for those who are not law enforcement. Such system is a violation of the 5th Amendment right: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
they are all voluntary. that violates nothing