Due Process | Right Michigan

The US Supreme Court clarifies that a constitutional violation is complete at the time property is taken.

As a property rights advocate/activist, I am beyond thrilled.

Local governments be forewarned, the path to pursue when property owner’s constitutional rights have been violated has just been shortened. Zoning ordinances which have grown to be nearly as large as the worlds largest fungus might now face appropriate challenges in venues that serve as constitutional protectors.

The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has smashed a ‘takings’ precedent, and in doing so has made it easier for property owners beset with zealous planning and land use prohibition to clarify more immediately where a constitutional line is drawn. From the SCOTUS blog:

In its long-awaited opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that plaintiffs alleging that local governments have violated the takings clause may proceed directly in federal court, rather than first litigating in state court. The opinion overrules a 34-year-old precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, triggering a sharp dissent and another debate among the justices about the meaning of stare decisis. The majority opinion also rests on a reading of the takings clause—that a constitutional violation occurs at the moment property is “taken,” even if compensation is paid later—that may have consequences beyond this case.

The takings clause of the federal Constitution provides: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This takings case arose from a dispute between petitioner Rose Mary Knick and the township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Knick has a small graveyard on her property, and the township attempted to enforce against her an ordinance requiring such properties to be open to the public during daytime hours. Knick alleged an unconstitutional taking, but a federal court dismissed her suit because she had not first sought compensation in state court.

The 34-year-old precedent was not all that it upended.

READ MORE ►

You Betcha!

(15)Nuh Uh.

(0)

Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Very Expensive Virtue Signaling

Above the fold headlines in both Gongwer and MIRS today suggest that RINO Rick is launching an intense effort to secure passage of Representative Robert Wittenberg’s HB 4706 and HB 4707. These bills create a new category of judicial proclamation – ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ – which direct police to confiscate the firearms of anyone who is denounced to a Michigan court “without written or oral notice” to the victim. These ERPO bills have been rebranded as ‘red flag laws’ after the Parkland, Florida high school shooting. Both of Wittenberg’s bills received their first reading (of three) last year and were languishing in the House Judiciary Committee. No longer.

Here are the headlines:

Gongwer

Snyder Preparing Gun Control Proposal

MIRS

Snyder Considers Waving The Red Flag; Sheriffs Want Cops Back In Schools

These stories are behind a paywall, but RINO Rick’s spokesperson Tanya Baker floated a trial balloon on AP three days ago. The Democrats have been all in for a while, so whether ERPOs come to Michigan will be determined by the Republicans in the Legislature soon.

Here is the problem: Some clown you hardly know can petition a judge to issue an ERPO which orders the police to seize your firearms, CPL, knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, etc. You only find out that an ERPO has been issued when the police break down your door to effect the seizure. You have no opportunity to contest the initial issuance of an ERPO in front of the judge. It is a bolt out of the blue. The police get to throw your valuable collector firearms into a dump trailer willy-nilly without any responsibility for the condition or safekeeping of your property. You, the restrained individual, then have 14 days to file a counter action. Good luck with that.