Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons

Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons

This is a discussion on Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am by no means an expert on law or the Constitution. The following is based off my interpretation ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons

  1. #1
    Member Array woodrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    90

    Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons

    Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am by no means an expert on law or the Constitution. The following is based off my interpretation of the ex post facto (retroactive) law. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    I remember from my criminal law class that the Constitution clearly states it is unconstitutional to penalize someone for a crime if it was committed prior to the legislation being put into effect. This is the ex post facto law. So for example, let's say there are no laws prohibiting you from stealing and you steal several items. The next day a law is passed making it illegal to steal. According to the ex post facto rule, you can't be charged for stealing in the past, even if you admit to it.

    Today I got to thinking. If you apply this to gun control, let's say a law is passed making it illegal to own an AR, handgun, etc. If your weapons were purchased legally, before the new law was created, you should be in the clear correct? If you can't be charged for doing something that was once perfectly legal, the government can't ask you to turn them in.

    I realize my way of looking at this could be a little distorted, and perhaps I'm missing something. I was just wondering if the government can (while respecting the Constitution) try to remove weapons from law abiding citizens. Just something to consider.
    Romans 12:21


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    My understanding is you will not be prosecuted for having purchased what is now illegal weapons to purchase. The government can consficate them if that is the new law or part of a new law. You will be prosecuted for nor turning in your weapons, not for having bought them in the firt place. I guess the only thing I could think of is if you owned slave then the government said you can no longer purchase slaves...you of course would have to let the ones you own free.....

    This of coure is if they do not grandfather the purchase of the firearms.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member
    Array Old_Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,371
    They can require that you sell it or buy it from you. They can do whatever they want and then fight it out in court for a few years which by then it would not matter as they would have all the guns destroyed. We are from the government and are here to help you. :-)
    The worst thing about growing old is that other men no longer see you as dangerous.

  4. #4
    Member Array Ducmonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    206
    In your stealing example you would only break the law if you stole after it went into effect. A ban on gun ownership could be written to include all currently owed guns. I certainly don't think this would be constitutional but that doesn't mean some pinhead politician wouldn't try to get it passed. The government already does many things that I think violate the constitution so in the proper climate they may try it. Which actually they did try to an extent after New town.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,485
    You cannot be prosecuted for owning them before the law was passed (It wasn't illegal then). You can be prosecuted for owning them after the law was passed (Legal when you bought it but not legal now), short of a grandfather clause. A lot depends on what the "law" says. Possession or purchase? Makes a difference.
    phreddy and MattInFla like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    California has already taken guns from law abiding citizens by applying new laws to existing firearms, and not allowing "grandfathering" for things like AR-15s, and magazines over 10 rounds. Look for articles on it on sites like The Gun Wire, and The Blaze.
    The Old Anglo likes this.
    I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

  7. #7
    Member Array the6shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    462
    I hope there isn't a law passed for keeping a secret, and time capsules. but I have a lorcin380L they can have.

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    You cannot be prosecuted for owning them before the law was passed (It wasn't illegal then). You can be prosecuted for owning them after the law was passed (Legal when you bought it but not legal now), short of a grandfather clause. A lot depends on what the "law" says. Possession or purchase? Makes a difference.
    Agree, with one additional point to add. I've wondered why some of the newer NY /CT/ CO laws are not
    considered unconstitutional taking. It they want you to get rid of your high cap or your AR, it is nice to allow
    you some time to sell, but if you can't, forcing you to dispose of it seems to me to be the rough equivalent of simply
    taking your property without compensation. For all I know my idea is worthless or meaningless, but I wonder
    what case law might exist. E.g., When prohibition went into effect what enabled authorities to demand you throw out
    your vintage vino, instead of it being purchased from you? What happened when it was no longer lawful to own gold? Did Uncle purchase it? Surely no one expected folks to throw it in the garbage can. How was that handled. And if there
    was a set purchase price for your gold, why not for your high cap or unexpectedly unlawful to own AR?

    There likely is a good reason why my idea is off, because I've heard nothing about this concept with regard to NY, CT, and CO.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Warrior1256's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    672
    Quote Originally Posted by Old_Dog View Post
    They can require that you sell it or buy it from you. They can do whatever they want and then fight it out in court for a few years which by then it would not matter as they would have all the guns destroyed. We are from the government and are here to help you. :-)
    Exactly. The government, especially the present administration, will make any law it chooses whether legal or not. They then dare you to go to the trouble and expense to take them to court over the matter.
    HotGuns and Ghost1958 like this.

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior1256 View Post
    Exactly. The government, especially the present administration, will make any law it chooses whether legal or not. They then dare you to go to the trouble and expense to take them to court over the matter.
    The Chief Executive does not make laws. At best, he proposes and Congress disposes.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The Chief Executive does not make laws. At best, he proposes and Congress disposes.
    Tell that to the policy makers at places like the BATFE and the EPA. A change in policy at a Government agency is a law ipso facto.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Tell that to the policy makers at places like the BATFE and the EPA. A change in policy at a Government agency is a law ipso facto.
    ONLY if it is legal under the enabling legislation and constitutional.

    Pecking Order-- Constitution, Laws Passed by Congress, Agency Rule Making. And separately, rulings of Appeals Courts.

    If an Agency publishes a regulation, something they usually can only do after soliciting public comment, and stating the law that authorizes the regulation, the regulation must be in conformity to the enabling legislation and the constitution.

    As I've stated here often, once a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register armies of special interest lawyers
    quietly sharpen their talons.

    Maybe this will focus it. Its been said that when you join the military you don't lose your rights, it just seems that way.
    When you are subject to various regulations you haven't lost your rights, it just seems that way.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,551
    More likely than banning their possession, they would try to ban the sale or transfer.

    In effect, the current owner would be grandfathered, but as soon as they die or are no longer able to own firearms for one reason or another, any applicable firearms must be destroyed.

    This is how a mag ban was worded that was introduced in Oregon this year, and has been (so far) defeated.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ONLY if it is legal under the enabling legislation and constitutional.

    Pecking Order-- Constitution, Laws Passed by Congress, Agency Rule Making. And separately, rulings of Appeals Courts.

    If an Agency publishes a regulation, something they usually can only do after soliciting public comment, and stating the law that authorizes the regulation, the regulation must be in conformity to the enabling legislation and the constitution.

    As I've stated here often, once a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register armies of special interest lawyers
    quietly sharpen their talons.

    Maybe this will focus it. Its been said that when you join the military you don't lose your rights, it just seems that way.
    When you are subject to various regulations you haven't lost your rights, it just seems that way.
    Please remember Obonko and his minions {libertards all} will strive to upset the Constitution AND the Bill Of Rights. They are capable of Anything and are NOT to be Trusted at All. He will use Anything including "Executive Privilege" or some such nonsense to get his way in regard with disarming America. Be Prepared!!!!.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  15. #15
    Member Array the6shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    462
    I am just wondering what this country will be like in 10 yrs. given it's present course. gun control, open borders, IRS and the list will grow.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment and ex post facto

,

2nd amendment constitution..how can government take away guns

,

can government take guns with ex post facto

,

can government take your guns

,

ex post facto ct gun law

,

ex- post facto law and the 2nd amendment

,

example proposal ex post facto

,

how can govt take guns if i committed crime because of 2 amendment

,

proposal ex post facto

,

who can legally take away your weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors