Gun registration-then-confiscation experiences

[Frank Ettin]

I tried to make the point a few days ago that the law making something previously-legal into contraband without grandfathering current owners was a 5th amendment "taking", and the actual confiscation later is just a formality.

Yes, you wrote that. But you cited absolutely no legal authority (statutes/case law) to support that. In fact, in real life in the real world, that is not true....

I realize that this thread is closed, but I wanted to back up my comment with some case law:

1. Kam–Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012), at 1371:

   ...Our precedent is clear: “Property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a ‘public use’ in the context of the Takings Clause.” AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Acadia, 458 F.3d at 1331–32.....

   
   Note:"Police power" means --
   
   
   • https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power:

     ...the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution....

     
     
   • https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police power:

     ...the inherent power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited....

   
   
2. Amerisource Corp. v. U.S., 525 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2008), at 1153:

   ...Property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a 'public use' in the context of the Takings Clause....

   
   
3. Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States ("No. 19-449, Fed. Cl. 2019), slip op, at 8:

   ....Though the Takings Clause itself does not specify the exact grounds of public use "that trigger the just compensation requirement," the courts have consistently found that property is not taken for a "public use" when seized or retained pursuant to the police power. Amerisource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1153; Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 425, 429 (2005)...