At the Supreme Court
David Hardy notes that, in a 9-0 decision, SCOTUS didn’t buy the .gov’s silly argument about possession. Felons can, they ruled, transfer their guns to someone who is not a prohibited person to sell them.
Good.
7 Responses to “At the Supreme Court”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 19th, 2015 at 7:55 am
Newly convicted felons – it is good to be clear on who is being allowed to dispose of their property here, and who is still enjoined from possession at all.
May 19th, 2015 at 8:06 am
Doesn’t this undermine the Libertarian notion that there is no right to income in your property?
No right to income is the Libertarian argument against city property ordinances–trash in yard, lawns not mowed, lack of upkeep. Doesn’t this end that line of attack for the Libertarians?
May 19th, 2015 at 9:47 am
@Shootin’ Buddy: I’ve never heard that notion before. Could you elaborate, or point to an explanation?
May 19th, 2015 at 12:35 pm
“@Shootin’ Buddy: I’ve never heard that notion before. Could you elaborate, or point to an explanation?”
It comes up in the context of Libertarians reacting to city codes regarding the upkeep of property (usually residential)–painting or keeping lawns mowed.
When it is pointed out that these city codes are to protect the value/income of the property, Libertarians rise up and say that there is no right to income from your property. The decision cripples this Libertarian notion.
My view is that government is there to protect rights, e.g. my right to property. Libertarians seem (I emphasize seem) to hate the notion of the government so much that they throw the baby out with the bath water. But perhaps they are anarchists using Libertarianism as a stalking horse?
May 19th, 2015 at 12:48 pm
I don’t doubt someone has argued this, but I’ve never seen it before, and my Google-fu seems to be failing me. I’m having a hard time understanding how it could even be consistent with libertarian principles. I’m really curious how someone could argue that you have no right to income from your property, since it flies in the face of the idea that you are entitled to the fruits of your own labor.
The libertarian argument I usually see against these laws is that it’s my property to do with as I please, and if what I do negatively affects your property values then the proper remedy is a civil suit / arbitration, not the hammer of absolute laws.
Possible. It sounds closer to the communist idea that “property is theft” than to any libertarian idea that I’m aware of. Or maybe it’s Libertarian, not libertarian.
May 19th, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Or even to NOT sell them, just to keep them, IIRC.
As long as the transferee does not let the felon possess the guns, in terms of physically having them, they’re fine.
(And I share Jake’s confusion as to what Shootin’ buddy is talking about.
The term “no right to income from your property” is misleading and I’ve never seen it used before; the clarification above is a real libertarian position – “that your neighbor has – absent some agreement from you – no right to increased property values from the upkeep of your property”.
But nobody would call that “no right to income from your property” in general, because that sounds like you having no right to derive income from your property via use or contract, which is completely contrary to libertarian principles.)
May 19th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
“I’m really curious how someone could argue that you have no right to income from your property, since it flies in the face of the idea that you are entitled to the fruits of your own labor.”
It is used to counterattack the rationale for city codes. City code is implemented to protect the value of a property.
Libertarians have argued to me that one does not have a right to a value in the property and there is no right to income from property thus city codes are a statist attack on freedom.
Methinks Libertarianism is just being used to justify White Trash behavior (smoking dope and watching porn instead of painting, cutting lawns, picking up trash in the front yard, etc.) under the guise of freedom.