Devil505 wrote:Thanks for the compliments Kevin! I guess I overlooked the natural disaster, emergency, (rare events) when a state Governor is allowed to declare "Martial Law," which vastly increases his power & makes many of our Constitutional rights null & void during the short emergency time period. (we could debate the prudence of allowing Governors so much power, but that would be for another topic. Suffice it to say that, short of providing no checks on owning a gun & keeping gun owner's identities secret from the government, there would be no way to stop those rare instances of temporarily losing a few rights, for the greater good.
I'll repeat my request for examples OUTSIDE of Martial Law being declared, when a government authority (within the U.S) has confiscated legal registered guns from their legal owner.
Martial law was not declared, and even if it was the city government was wrong, they were found wrong by the courts, laws were put in place following this to prevent government from doing it again, and a number of other states/cities put in place similiar laws barring government from tossing aside the natural right to self defense and the constitutional right to lawfully possessed and used arms. Also, there was nothing "short term" about the NO gun confiscation. Their intent was to take the guns and never return them, period. They used the event of an emergency situation as cover for perpetrating a long term confiscation of the firearms they took. This is evidenced by their unwillingness to return the firearms to their owners after order had been restored some few weeks later. They were taking guns from people who had fled the area or were fleeing. They neglected to give receipts for a great many of the guns they took. They took many of the guns from people who were not actively using them in any way and they did so at gunpoint.
There was no greater good being played out. It was malicious abuse of authority and the unjust trampling of rights under the guise of an emergency. If it was anything else then they would have let fleeing gun owners retain their arms and would have returned the guns in short order. Instead they tried to hang onto them, they stored them in deplorable conditions damaging many beyond repair.
Another example, while it did not result in actual enforcement, the San Francisco handgun ban that was passed not too long ago would have resulted in legally requiring handgun owners to either move, to sell their handguns, or to turn them into authorities. Thankfully state courts granted injunction and eventually overturned the law. Were guns confiscated? No. But not for a lack of trying. And lest you make the argument that they would have had other options besides turning them in, government mandated sale or relocation is tantamount to confiscation, at least to my sense of common sense. This kinder, gentler form of compulsory handgun divestment is exactly how it started in Britain and Australia, not too long after they stopped being kind or gentle and collected firearms, cut and melted them down to make park benches.
You pass off egregious abuse of power and gross infringement of immediate, life and death constitutional and natural rights as if they were dismissible occurrences that didn't portend things much worse coming shortly down the pike. This is precisely why I say screw your notions of common sense and "greater good". Your judgment of what constitutes it seems way off the mark of what I consider it to be, and so there must be no such thing as either. For if two fine people such as ourselves can be so in conflict over what each is then neither must truly exist.