From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The problem with the argument on retrospective legislation
>is that even if we successfully argued it in court, the
>outcome would be meaningless.
>
>The guns have been destroyed, so the court would order
>proper compensation be paid. But we already have compensation
>for the guns (various spare parts not included) so it wouldn't
>help. You might be able to argue some sort of punitive
>damages I suppose but that is a really long shot.
>
>Steve.
Steve,
Okay, so you won't get your arms back, but at least
you'll get your sport back. That alone would be worth it,
would it not?
If the essence of the argument that you applied in a
court of law was that you were seeking vindication, then to hell
with the remuneration, get the right back first, then go for broke.
One thing at a time.
ET
--
But we wouldn't get hardly anything back, because the Act using this
argument is only illegal insofar as it applies retrospectively.
Which means the only people who could get their guns back would
be those people who moved them abroad or had open authorities
to acquire before the ban. Which is perhaps 20,000 guns tops.
And I still need some clarification on what exactly is being
argued. Are there some specific precedents? John quoted the
one about the house being taken during World War 1, but that
sounded more like a compensation issue than a retrospective
Act issue. There were laws past after WW2 that were retrospective
and they were held to be legal.
I've always been of the opinion we should have been compensated
for our licensing fees. I had a variation for three pistols
granted about six months before the ban, but I never got any
money back even though I was barred from using those authorities.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
