Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Take the BATFE as an example. They have the 'authority' to arbitrarily declare any firearm to fall under extra special regulations or declare them illegal with zero input from our duly elected representatives. One day, thousands of people could be owners of a particular piece of equipment and the next, they could all be felons on the whim of a regulatory agency decision. How is that 'due process'?
|
What you're describing sounds like a bizarre caricature of what actually occurs in situations that would even remotely resemble how the BATFE regulates weapons. Regardless, if that agency actually did what you described, any persons adversely affected by their decisions would realize their due process in a criminal court of law--assuming what you wrote occurred: that the agency actually made possession of the particular weapon a felony and that the new regulation actually applied to current owners.
If you find that, after exhausting one's court remedies in that scenario, that the regulation was legal, and you were forced to relinquish the weapon or face felony charges, then your problem isn't (or shouldn't, rather) be with whether regulatory agencies violate due process but that *certain* agencies bother you in what they do. this thread, as many others of yours along these lines, appears to have an undercurrent that broader implications for gun ownership exist.
so that's fine, but due process doesn't mean you will get your wishes to do what you want; oftentimes due process means like it's always meant, that as long as the government follows a set of written procedures the people representing the government can act in ways they've been authorized to do so.
but I'd rather see your argument for why something is or is not violating due process, not just posting an example of what you think such a case might look like. I'd like to see your premises laid out and your conclusions so I can weigh them for myself.