This is a discussion on Mag capacity limits and "grandfathered" mags, can I still carry "hi-caps"? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Maltz Wouldn't it be easier to have such a document notarized? That's dated as well, if I'm not mistaken, and seems like ...
Magazine <> clip - know the difference
martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
Well I heard that youd be able to keep the high cap mags you already have
but legally only allowed to carry max 10 rounds or whatever the number is their trying to do in em...
Ex Post Facto Laws (no grandfathering as in the latest NY law) are expressly forbidden by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.
An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "It is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves."
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
Last edited by Aceoky; January 22nd, 2013 at 09:16 AM.
Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
However, if the law is against mere possession, that can be a different story. (I think this is how the NY ban works?) The grandfather clause may be what's called an affirmative defense to prosecution. E.g., Possession is illegal - and there is no dispute of your possession - BUT you have an affirmative defense to prosecution if you owned the items before the ban. The burden of proof is on the state to prove possession, but the burden of proof is on you to supply the affirmative defense that you meet the grandfather clause provision.
Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When they were banned,back when Clinton was president,it was only illegal to buy them,not to have them.This time around,it may say something different.
Either way the NY debacle is contrary to recent SCOTUS rulings and will be challenged and at the very least have to be re-written to comply per those rulings
For the record, I'm not all that concerned just yet. There's no way any such legislation would pass the current house, and probably not even the current senate. The surviving senators remember quite well what happened to many of their red-state peers in the 2010 election following the unpopular Obamacare vote. Even Harry Reid has made it pretty clear he doesn't want to touch gun control with a 10ft poll. (sorry, couldn't resist...)
If the republicans lose the house in 2014 and the democrats keep the senate, MAYBE then I'll be a little more concerned. But there are plenty of democrats in congress that aren't all that eager to repeat their historic losses in 1996/2010 over this.
US laws are fully dependent on complying with the US Constitution- I didn't write either. Still that is how it's worked for > 250 years, seems pretty clear???
On another point cocaine possession is not a guaranteed RIGHT expressly covered by the 2nd (or any other ) amendment... Recent SCOTUS rulings no longer leave it up to anyone to "guess" it's been ruled on and covered and the NY laws ignored that, meaning they cannot and will not hold up to the first Fed level Court challenge (which IS coming soon) NY trying to ban some 70% of commonly used firearms was not prudent and will likely be costly in the end.