ex post facto law
This morning I was reading a topic in the GD forum and it got me thinking (I have too much spare time)
about " ex post facto law".
I can't think of an item (other than drug) that suddenly became illegal to possess, and constitutionally protected in particular. I am of course referring to firearms and accessories.
Does anyone know of any other item(s) that are treated this way?
Should the State be required to provide "Just compensation" for the NOW illegal items?
about " ex post facto law".
I can't think of an item (other than drug) that suddenly became illegal to possess, and constitutionally protected in particular. I am of course referring to firearms and accessories.
Does anyone know of any other item(s) that are treated this way?
Should the State be required to provide "Just compensation" for the NOW illegal items?
0
-
Well it's been over a week, 180+ reads, 0 replies.
I will take that as a NO.0 -
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
Should the State be required to provide "Just compensation" for the NOW illegal items?
Well, first there should be no illegal items, BUT if they do make something illegal then yes, they need to buy said items at top dollar.0 -
All of the EPA Superfund laws are ex post facto. Something that was perfectly legal to do 20 years ago is declared unlawful today- and YOU are going to pay to undo what you legally did 20 years ago. 0 -
EPA, ah the first agency I would eliminate.
The clean up at owners expense could certainly qualify, especially if the existing condition does not present a hazard to others (and there is the gray area).
The following is my EPA rant:
Yesterday my son was required to go to the water department on the premise of a problem with the check for payment. There was no problem. What the issue was is that the meter reader reported my fountain in the front yard might be in excess of 100 gal. It turns out the Arlington Water Dept is working with the EPA on its ground water control. After he displayed the HomeDepot plastic 30 40 gal liner that was used the "lady" was quite insistent that he sign a statement on the capacity of the pond and if they later found out the statement was incorrect he could be prosecuted. He told her to pound sand. At that point an adult with the water dept stepped in and effectively told the "lady" to back off.
I am currently considering enlarging the fountain.0 -
"Ex Post Facto" covers actions. EPA regs get around it by making the companies pay for the cleanup (IF such companies still exist)
Gun turn-ins/buy-backs are not covered since the crime of not turning in your guns would be a NEW crime based on the law calling for them to be surrendered.
"Buy-backs" are just a way of making it more attractive to the anti-gun crowd since they are not "confiscating" the guns.
Like "Eminent Domain" laws "Fair market value" is a very hard to define matter.[:(!]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments