- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,153
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-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf
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.
I see where you are going with this, and I agree with your premise, but I don't believe the house case is analogous to your examples. Your example presents no exigent circumstance, which was present in the situation with that house.
Its more like a guy stealing a glock and getting in a shootout, but the glock is destroyed by a SWAT bomb. The original owner of the gun cashes in his valuable personal property policy, but wants a Wilson Combat 1911 instead and then comes after the police for the difference after already being compensated for the Glock.