Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,180 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,566 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
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!!!!.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,256 Posts
Actually most responses here are wrong.

Ex post facto means exactly that.

They can not legally pass a law against something that was legally acquired, and then "take" it.

That's not to say that it isn't done, but it is Unconstitutional and therefore illegal.



Look at the many magazine bans that passed and even the so called "assault weapons bans' that became popular under the Clinton Administration. There was originally lots of language that had provisions for turning weapons in, some of them even included infractions and penalties for not doing so. None of that came to pass because it was illegal, even though many of the socialists insisted it was, many of them still in office today.

It cannot happen on a Federal level, all bets are off on the state level though. Although it is Unconstitutional on the Federal Level, the states go about it differently.


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.
Actually you do lose your rights...as a citizen. You are no longer classified as a citizen and become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a whole different set of rules. Its why you can be shot for treason or dereliction of duty. It is why you can be imprisoned for various things without having a lawyer speak on your behalf. Its why a Captain of a vessel or a Commanding Officer of a base can put you in the Brig and feed you nothing but bread and water for 3 days.

When you are subject to various regulations you haven't lost your rights, it just seems that way.
I beg to differ. Regulations supersede rights...especially if in is in the Military.



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.
Another argument here. The ATF routinely publishes "interpretations" of the law and what they think it means and they often do it with a much broader brush that what the law originally intended. It is how they classified a shoestring as a machine gun, or made "constructive intent" words to be feared by anyone that happened to have a short barreled upper that could be assembled to a rifle receiver...even though the two had never been assembled. It is exactly how they could take a worn out sear, disconnector and trigger on a AR, load it with ammo tailored with soft primers and get it to fire more than once, and prosecute the owner for illegally owning a machine gun.

Yeah, we know how things are supposed to work, but fact of the matter is, they haven't been working right for years. There are too many well published examples to prove it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
^^^ And that is the difference between what "should be" and what "really is". HotGuns for the win!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Ex Post Facto - Can the government take away your weapons
At the point of a gun (threatening prosecution, imprisonment), they surely are capable of doing so?

May they, by any claimed authority they do not have to do so? Absolutely not, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I think we are forgetting the Lautenburg amendment which made it illegal to own a firearm if you were ever convicted of domestic abuse. I believe this law was upheld in the supreme court and the litigant was convicted of the domestic before the law took effect.
:aargh4:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
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!!!!.
Executive Privelege?
The privilege, claimed by the president for the executive branch of the US government, of withholding information in the public interest.
Do you mean Executive Orders?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top