- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,152
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.