Ex post facto laws?
How are laws outlawing gun ownership not invalid as ex post facto laws?
Seems to me that if you bought a gun legally and then they pass a law making it a criminal offense to own that gun it's an unconstitutional law.
Has SCOTUS ever ruled on such a law?
Seems to me that if you bought a gun legally and then they pass a law making it a criminal offense to own that gun it's an unconstitutional law.
Has SCOTUS ever ruled on such a law?
0
-
They outlaw things that were once legal all the time. You can't be punished for once owning them or doing what is outlawed so it is not ex post facto. Same thing happened in 1865 when they outlawed slavery. They didn't even compensate the owners for the loss of their property. 0 -
Being in California with newsome in I'm waiting for the legally obtained high caps to make me in to a felon. Hell I reckon my AR/AK pistols will make me in to a mega felon. 0 -
Ex Post Facto... That sounds like lawyer talk for mo money...[:0] 0 -
ex post facto means that you cannot be punished for doing something that was legal AT THAT TIME.
Let's say they outlaw maple syrup as of Jul 2019. I had a jug that I finished in Jan 2019. You cannot write a law that reaches back before the law went into effect (except for the EPA Superfund which does just that)
You CAN pass a law that says I cannot own maple syrup after a future date.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
ex post facto means that you cannot be punished for doing something that was legal AT THAT TIME.
Let's say they outlaw maple syrup as of Jul 2019. I had a jug that I finished in Jan 2019. You cannot write a law that reaches back before the law went into effect (except for the EPA Superfund which does just that)
You CAN pass a law that says I cannot own maple syrup after a future date.
Leave my maple syrup alone!
0 -
You are charged with a misdemeanor crime, you plead guilty, knowing what your sentence will be.
You serve your sentence.
20 YEARS later you can no longer own firearms because of a NEW law that was passed.
It is called the Lautenberg Amendment.
Concerning domestic violence.
A perfect example of a BLATANT UN-constitutional Ex Post Facto law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by yoshmyster
Being in California with newsome in I'm waiting for the legally obtained high caps to make me in to a felon. Hell I reckon my AR/AK pistols will make me in to a mega felon.
Almost all pistols that take a detachable magazine AHEAD of the trigger are illegal in the DPRK. The exception concerns Olympic rapid-fire target pistols. Pistols with non-detachable magazines (i.e. C-96 Mausers) are OK. It is possible that such pistols that were registered as assult weapons may be legal.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
You are charged with a misdemeanor crime, you plead guilty, knowing what your sentence will be.
You serve your sentence.
20 YEARS later you can no longer own firearms because of a NEW law that was passed.
It is called the Lautenberg Amendment.
Concerning domestic violence.
A perfect example of a BLATANT UN-constitutional Ex Post Facto law.
100% pickenup.
It was not all that long ago (I am embarrassed to admit) that I agreed with this abomination. 20 odd years ago, the wife worked for a women's shelter and when I would come to help out occasionally, the emotion that seeing what some animals did to their wives or girlfriends caused had me believing that such a law could be justified.
It takes a bit of soul searching, but once one can rise above the emotion, and look at the big picture, one can see how this type of emotion driven response can not only be abused, but goes against the very fabric of the rule of law as proscribed by our Constitution.
We live in an age where democratic mob rule has become acceptable, and we are less of a country because of it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
You are charged with a misdemeanor crime, you plead guilty, knowing what your sentence will be.
You serve your sentence.
20 YEARS later you can no longer own firearms because of a NEW law that was passed.
It is called the Lautenberg Amendment.
Concerning domestic violence.
A perfect example of a BLATANT UN-constitutional Ex Post Facto law.
100% pickenup.
It was not all that long ago (I am embarrassed to admit) that I agreed with this abomination. 20 odd years ago, the wife worked for a women's shelter and when I would come to help out occasionally, the emotion that seeing what some animals did to their wives or girlfriends caused had me believing that such a law could be justified.
It takes a bit of soul searching, but once one can rise above the emotion, and look at the big picture, one can see how this type of emotion driven response can not only be abused, but goes against the very fabric of the rule of law as proscribed by our Constitution.
We live in an age where democratic mob rule has become acceptable, and we are less of a country because of it.
Sounds like an extreme risk protective order that authorizes the forced entry of homes, and seizures of property without due process, or a search warrant, based on an emotional plea.0 -
All it takes is money to make Ex post facto law work for you in us justice.
If you have no dough you will more than likely go to jail. If you have no lawyer. You have no chance.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wild Turkey
How are laws outlawing gun ownership not invalid as ex post facto laws?
Seems to me that if you bought a gun legally and then they pass a law making it a criminal offense to own that gun it's an unconstitutional law.
Has SCOTUS ever ruled on such a law?
That's not an example of an ex post facto law.
If the law states firearm ownership is illegal effective 1 Jan 19 and you on 31 Dec 18 properly turn in your firearm, the state cannot charge you for having possessed that gun on 30 Dec 18. The state can charge yo for possessing that gun 1 Jan 19 and going forward - going forward is not, by its very nature, after the fact.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments