Defensive Arts
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Landhawk Arms
Gun Deals
Southwest Firearms Forum
J&B Firearm Sales
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Sporting Systems
Low Price Guns
Oregon Rifleworks

Washington Mag ban imminent in Washington state

You misunderstood. The point is that the 5A requires compensation when property is taken for a public reason, not to prevent private property from being taken for a public good. Crime fighting is public good, not a private one (else you'd be called a security guard and only protect Bank of America or whatever).

The CO government took this guy's house -- destruction is a taking under the 5A, if it wasn't, Judge Benitez in the CA mag ban case would not have used the 5A as one basis for his decision. When the CO gov't took the house (or CA takes a mag) by destroying (or requiring you to destroy), and offers no compensation to the owner, they are spitting in the eyes of the Founding Fathers.
The property wasn't taken. You could argue that it was seized for the purpose isolating the bad guy for public safety until the threat was captured, but the property wasn’t kept by the police. The damage is on the bad guy, not the police because the damage was a result of his felonious behavior.
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
The article didn't name one explicitly, I think it may have been a general concept. There are 5 magazine capacity bills that were proposed. One may have conceded to 15 rounds as a compromise a la Colorado.
This one has the 15 rd limit mentioned: Washington State Legislature

It's waiting on the House to vote for passage. There are literally a dozen bills pending regarding magazines: Bills by Topic Results Time will tell if the 15 rd limit survives.
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
The property wasn't taken. You could argue that it was seized for the purpose isolating the bad guy for public safety until the threat was captured, but the property wasn’t kept by the police. The damage is on the bad guy, not the police because the damage was a result of his felonious behavior.
You can't seriously want to argue that if the government destroys property, no taking has occurred (let's set aside whether habitability regulations imposed by the government would even allow a person to live in the destroyed property). If that is your position, you are going to be OK when the state confiscates and burns your gun collection right? They haven't taken it, they merely destroyed it.
 
You can't seriously want to argue that if the government destroys property, no taking has occurred (let's set aside whether habitability regulations imposed by the government would even allow a person to live in the destroyed property). If that is your position, you are going to be OK when the state confiscates and burns your gun collection right? They haven't taken it, they merely destroyed it.
If my car was stolen by a bad guy who got into a gunfight where my car was hit by multiple rounds and was destroyed....I’d have an insurance claim on my 2015 Toyota. I can’t buy a 2020 F350 King Ranch and try to get the department to pay for it. Not even with GAP insurance.

Again, the police didn’t destroy the house. The bad guy’s actions did.
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
If my car was stolen by a bad guy who got into a gunfight where my car was hit by multiple rounds and was destroyed....I’d have an insurance claim on my 2015 Toyota. I can’t buy a 2020 F350 King Ranch and try to get the department to pay for it. Not even with GAP insurance.

Again, the police didn’t destroy the house. The bad guy’s actions did.
Nobody said the government should pay more than the house was worth, the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation. I really don't understand why you want to support the government destroying private property in furtherance of a public purpose. As a gun owner, your property is very much on the line here.
 
Nobody said the government should pay more than the house was worth, the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation. I really don't understand why you want to support the government destroying private property in furtherance of a public purpose. As a gun owner, your property is very much on the line here.
The bad guy destroyed that property when he failed to follow directives.
 
Lets all step back and take a deep breath here, differing opinions are welcomed, as long as we all play nice!
I don't think No_Regerts is saying the state/gov shouldn't be responsible, just that there are limits to liability at play here, and I think we can all agree that that is the right course to follow! Reasonable Liability, just compensation should be administered fairly and equally to all parties involved! Each case is going to have it's own particulars, and we can't know all the details involved!
 

GWS

Messages
1,952
Reactions
5,312
  • Howdy Y'all
  • Woke Up Like This
If a federal judge has ruled CA's magazine ban unconstitutional how wouldn't others suffer the same fate.
Until the big court gets the fortitude to make a ruling, it’s still up in the air.
If Benitez throws out CA's mag ban it'll probably go to the whole 9th to decide and since Washington is in the 9th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, AND if they uphold Judge Benitez' decision then all mag bans in this circuit/region should become null and void. Odds of that are better because of the President's appointments.
Let's hope for the best!
 
Messages
99
Reactions
141
Tyrannical politicians displaying their personal agendas. Most have no idea about guns or "gun violence." If they set their sights on People Violence, they'd be on target. Passing laws that negatively impact the law abiding, yet reducing prison sentences of the violent offenders...Oh, yes, that works! Poor murderer...you had a bad childhood...go free and commit another! You can't expect two people to solve a problem if neither speaks the other's language. Term Limits for all politicians! Public "servants" should not get inflated pensions, free health care, travel perks, etc. The wolves are eating the sheep!
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
The bad guy destroyed that property when he failed to follow directives.
It takes two to tango, so joint liability -- that's a standard concept in criminal and civil matters: for example, charging the getaway driver with murder if the bag man kills a clerk. If the cops and the robbers destroy something, both should be liable, the cops under the 5A and the criminal under normal civil action principles that say you can't go destroy other people's stuff.

I think where you are getting hung up -- maybe I'm wrong -- is with the idea that "destroy" implies fault or comes with some sort of judgy recrimination. I don't have a problem that the police destroyed the house to get a dangerous person off the street -- I have a problem with the government shifting the cost of that public benefit onto the shoulders of one individual and/or his insurance company. That's like an individual tax for a shared burden.

Secondly, the 5A is not about fault in the first place. Property taken is property taken whether it is taken for good reason (getting a criminal off the streets) or bad (corrupt favor to land developer to build a parking garage). The compensation part of the 5A comes without moral judgment on whether the taking is right or wrong -- it focuses merely on whether property was taken.

I think you are also little hung up on the insurance thing because getting doubly paid is unfair. There are two points on this, first, it's not relevant because no party should escape liability merely because someone else can be stuck with the bill. For example, in WA there is an evidence rule on the topic, though not exactly applicable in a 5A context where negligence is not an issue: Washington State Courts - Court Rules

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Secondly, if the CO dude's insurance policy is like any other, it certainly contains a clause requiring that if he wins money from a 3rd party, he repay the insurance company. That's standard and he isn't going to get a windfall.

So in the end, the question I ask myself is this: am I OK with the government deciding to take my property for a public purpose and telling me to go get bent when I ask for it to pay me the fair market value? No I'm not, whether real property, gun magazines, firearms -- I don't care if they take my coffee pot, they gotta pay. The reason doesn't matter, whether the reasons are morally just or morally wrong doesn't matter. It says so right there in the Bill of Rights. And the most important part: if I'm willing to let the 5A be diminished by judicial blah-blah-blah, how can I complain when the same is done to the 2A which stands on equal footing with the other amendments?
 
It takes two to tango, so joint liability -- that's a standard concept in criminal and civil matters: for example, charging the getaway driver with murder if the bag man kills a clerk. If the cops and the robbers destroy something, both should be liable, the cops under the 5A and the criminal under normal civil action principles that say you can't go destroy other people's stuff.

I think where you are getting hung up -- maybe I'm wrong -- is with the idea that "destroy" implies fault or comes with some sort of judgy recrimination. I don't have a problem that the police destroyed the house to get a dangerous person off the street -- I have a problem with the government shifting the cost of that public benefit onto the shoulders of one individual and/or his insurance company. That's like an individual tax for a shared burden.

Secondly, the 5A is not about fault in the first place. Property taken is property taken whether it is taken for good reason (getting a criminal off the streets) or bad (corrupt favor to land developer to build a parking garage). The compensation part of the 5A comes without moral judgment on whether the taking is right or wrong -- it focuses merely on whether property was taken.

I think you are also little hung up on the insurance thing because getting doubly paid is unfair. There are two points on this, first, it's not relevant because no party should escape liability merely because someone else can be stuck with the bill. For example, in WA there is an evidence rule on the topic, though not exactly applicable in a 5A context where negligence is not an issue: Washington State Courts - Court Rules



Secondly, if the CO dude's insurance policy is like any other, it certainly contains a clause requiring that if he wins money from a 3rd party, he repay the insurance company. That's standard and he isn't going to get a windfall.

So in the end, the question I ask myself is this: am I OK with the government deciding to take my property for a public purpose and telling me to go get bent when I ask for it to pay me the fair market value? No I'm not, whether real property, gun magazines, firearms -- I don't care if they take my coffee pot, they gotta pay. The reason doesn't matter, whether the reasons are morally just or morally wrong doesn't matter. It says so right there in the Bill of Rights. And the most important part: if I'm willing to let the 5A be diminished by judicial blah-blah-blah, how can I complain when the same is done to the 2A which stands on equal footing with the other amendments?
Again, the property wasn’t taken. The ownership of it never changed.
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
Again, the property wasn’t taken. The ownership of it never changed.
Serious question: If WA passed a law requiring all firearms owners to burn their own firearms in their backyards, and refused to pay fair market value for that property, would that pass 5A muster? The ownership never changed afterall.

Let me quote Judge Benitez from the CA mag ban case, page 83, lines 24-27: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

The dispossession requirement of § 32310(c) & (d) imposes a rare hybrid taking. Subsection (d)(3) is a type of physical appropriation of property in that it forces owners of large capacity magazines to “surrender” them to a law enforcement agency “for destruction.” Thus, (d)(3) forces a per se taking requiring just compensation.
Magazine owners must surrender their magazines for destruction. The authorities will not have them so ownership doesn't change. A "taking" under the 5A is more than "take and keep" -- think of it instead as "take away from". When CA decided to take away magazines but not pay for the privilege, it violated the 5A and was thus one reason Benitez ruled the law unconstitutional.

The house owner, had he been home, would have been ordered out of the way. If he said "no, get off my lawn", he'd surely have been arrested or worse. He surrendered his property to the authorities for destruction but was refused compensation, just like CA magazine owners. And just as CA (and soon WA) magazine owners have a constitutional interest in property, the government should pay when it takes [away] that property.
 
Messages
2,748
Reactions
5,924
Can we please move the tangent to a new thread and stick to the gravely serious MATTER AT HAND?! Thank you...
This IS the matter at hand. In every gun ban there are two issues: 2A and 5A. The whole reason we have seen grandfather clauses in the past is due to the expense of confiscation under the 5A. If we allow property -- real or personal -- to be taken without compensation, we are shooting the 2A in the foot and we should expect to see an increase in legislation confiscating property without the dampening effect on such legislation, having to pay for it would cause. By ignoring property rights, we make it cheap to end gun rights, and thus more likely.
 
Topic is about Magazine bans, if you have another please start another thread please. Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: wp4

UPCOMING EVENTS

Cerberus Training Group - Run the Gun - Pistol April 4th
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Cerberus Training Group - Run the Gun - Rifle April 5th
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA
Cerberus Training Group - Skill Builder - April 25-26th
Cerberus Training Group
47 Cattle Dr, Goldendale, WA 98620, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • Adaptive Firing Solutions
    5.00 star(s)
    Steve is great. Easy to deal with, super low prices on his transfers.
    • DizzyJ
  • Adaptive Firing Solutions
    5.00 star(s)
    Had my first transaction with Steve and will be recommending him to anyone in my circle. Good guy with a really helpful attitude and goes the...
    • SonnyJim
  • Supporting Vendor Oregon Arms & Ammunition
    5.00 star(s)
    This is the closest gun close to my house and they have always been super nice. I have bought two guns off them and sold one of mine to them.
    • storminnorm44
  • Supporting Vendor Oregon Arms & Ammunition
    5.00 star(s)
    Went in to pick up some parts for an AR style 10/22 and to start my journey into building an AR by picking up a lower. Staff was super helpful and...
    • Hueco
  • Tri-County Gun Club
    5.00 star(s)
    I've been a member for 6 years, been shooting there (as a guest) for three years before that. I found the Ladies League and was hooked. It's the...
    • PacwestDefense

SUPPORT NORTHWEST FIREARMS

Staff online