Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/14/2003 11:28:15 AM EDT
I'm really having a hard time understanding how the AWB of '94 makes any logical sence. If you took two identical rifles, one made a day before the "ban" took place and one a day after, with all the "evil" features on each I really don't see how one could be "legal" and the other made a day later would be "illegal". This just doesn't make any sence what so ever. If there is such a problem with semi-auto "AW's" then our government should have placed a ban on ALL of them, not just a select few made after a certain date.
If a person had the money he could buy a "pre-ban" rifle and be legal or he could spend about 1/2 of what the pre-ban would cost and build a post ban with pre-ban features, either way he'd end up with a rifle with the "evil" features on it, both would be just as "deadly" but one would be legal and one would not. WHY???
The only legal way that our government can ban AW's is with a Constitutional Amend. like they used to ban Alcohol back in the 20's and we see just how much sucess they had with that ban.
A Constitutional Right can only be overturned with a Constitutional Amend. and until that happens the 2nd. Amend. is still the "Law of the Land" and is the guide line for firearms ownership in this country, not some stupid AWB of '94 that was passed by a bunch of bozos to make all the anti-gun types feel "warm and fuzzy".
Just something for all of us to chew on. Talk to ya' later. TN.Frank
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:41:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TNFrank: I'm really having a hard time understanding how the AWB of '94 makes any logical sence. If you took two identical rifles, one made a day before the "ban" took place and one a day after, with all the "evil" features on each I really don't see how one could be "legal" and the other made a day later would be "illegal". This just doesn't make any sence what so ever. If there is such a problem with semi-auto "AW's" then our government should have placed a ban on ALL of them, not just a select few made after a certain date. [red]If a person had the money he could buy a "pre-ban" rifle and be legal or he could spend about 1/2 of what the pre-ban would cost and build a post ban with pre-ban features, either way he'd end up with a rifle with the "evil" features on it, both would be just as "deadly" but one would be legal and one would not. WHY???[/red] The only legal way that our government can ban AW's is with a Constitutional Amend. like they used to ban Alcohol back in the 20's and we see just how much sucess they had with that ban. A Constitutional Right can only be overturned with a Constitutional Amend. and until that happens the 2nd. Amend. is still the "Law of the Land" and is the guide line for firearms ownership in this country, not some stupid AWB of '94 that was passed by a bunch of bozos to make all the anti-gun types feel "warm and fuzzy". Just something for all of us to chew on. Talk to ya' later. TN.Frank
View Quote
because they couldnt just ban them all, we'd be mad then...
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:43:12 AM EDT
My favorite, is when they banned the term "AR15" on a rifle. I purchased one recently just because I view it as a violation of the [b]first[/b] and [b]second[/b] amendments.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:45:46 AM EDT
The AWB was an attempt to get rid of AR15s in the private citizens' hands. Some idiots had to sit down and try to pick apart the things that make an AR different from less scary looking guns. The attempt to ban the AR failed. Thus you get a law that makes no sense whatsoever. This is why there is virtually no enforcement of the AWB. That said... You = [:K]
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:13:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By markm: This is why there is virtually no enforcement of the AWB.
View Quote
wha?
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:34:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 1:34:48 PM EDT by _DR]
The AWB was an attempt by those who want military style weapons out of the people's hands to end the sales of these weapons to the public. They knew nothing about firearms, and thought that banning some guns by name and then banning features that they knew they all had in common, regardless of effect on lethality, would in effect ban that type of firearm altogether. They did not take into account the ingenuity and resourcefulness of gun manufacturers, and since they didn't understand firearm function and usage at all, they left the most important features intact and legal (such as detachable magazine and semiautomatic action). They will not make the same mistake next time.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:58:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 2:00:58 PM EDT by FL-AR15]
If you think the AWB of 94 is illogical take a look at the NFA of 34. I mean come on, how is a 16" rifle any less deadlier than a 14.5"? How is 1.5" that much of a difference? If you really won't to see just how illogical our Government can be, take a look at U.S. vs. Miller brought before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, look at the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is not willing to hear any more arguments to support the Miller case that could have been made if Mr. Miller hadn't mysteriously vanished into thin air.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 2:01:34 PM EDT
Wasn't the SBR issue one concerning ease of concealment?
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 3:15:05 PM EDT
I'm really having a hard time understanding how the AWB of '94 makes any logical since. If you took two identical rifles, one made a day before the "ban" took place and one a day after, with all the "evil" features on each I really don't see how one could be "legal" and the other made a day later would be "illegal". This just doesn't make any since what so ever.
View Quote
Although it has been done in the past it is illegal to make a law that can punish someone for a law that was broken, or did not exist, before the new law made. For example: the federal government could not pass a law banning ex confederate rebels from holding public office (the 14th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1868, 3 years after the end of the civil war, banned holding of public office by ex confederate rebels) 14TH AMENDMENT Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as a executive or judicial office of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability. Thusly it would be illegal to ban assault weapons before the date the law was ratified.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 3:22:55 PM EDT
When trying to pass the first AWB they had to come up with wording that didn't make a majority of hunting guns illegal. That would have brought more votes against them then they could over come. So they picked out features that military type guns have but are not used for hunting. This way they could claim that they did a great thing to get military guns off of the street (of course it did nothing). The above post was correct, grandfather clauses are unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 4:12:21 PM EDT
I saw this somewhere on this site. "Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws banning guns, which most people will obey because they can be trusted." ...That about sums it up.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 5:11:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Eukatae:
I'm really having a hard time understanding how the AWB of '94 makes any logical since. If you took two identical rifles, one made a day before the "ban" took place and one a day after, with all the "evil" features on each I really don't see how one could be "legal" and the other made a day later would be "illegal". This just doesn't make any since what so ever.
View Quote
Although it has been done in the past it is illegal to make a law that can punish someone for a law that was broken, or did not exist, before the new law made. For example: the federal government could not pass a law banning ex confederate rebels from holding public office (the 14th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1868, 3 years after the end of the civil war, banned holding of public office by ex confederate rebels) 14TH AMENDMENT Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as a executive or judicial office of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability. Thusly it would be illegal to ban assault weapons before the date the law was ratified.
View Quote
With all due respect you are so completely wrong that its not even funny. What the Constitution prohibits is criminal sanction via a newly enacted law for activity that was legal prior to the legislation, but illegal after. Thusly I could not pass a law today that says it is illegal to wear bolo ties with chino shorts and turn around and prosecute you for wearing that last week. The disability to hold office might be considered a sanction for criminal activity, and the way to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against ex-post facto laws is to adopt an amendment which would have parity with other provisions of the Constitution. In other words, a super law if you will. Regarding features on a weapon, they very well could pass a law today saying that evil features were illegal, even on preban weapons. They would then have to give a period to come into compliance with the law by removing the features or surrendering the weapon prior to the effective date. By placing a grace period in the law you eliminate the ex-post facto consideration, because there is a time to avoid the criminal implication. Sorry folks, but that is how it works. Have any doubts? Remember the classification of the Street Sweeper as a destructive device. Legal to own one day, gets classified, you have so much time to register the weapon ala NFA, failure to do so becomes a criminal act, even if you owned it prior to the legislation.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 6:26:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 6:52:46 PM EDT by _DR]
There are many laws that are arguably unconstitutional, take the patriot act for instance, it has several restrictions of our constitutional rights. Our options if we disagree are limited. you can: 1)Choose not to obey and risk incarceration 2)Vote for candidates who say they will effect changes. 3)Lobby current legislators (this includes joining groups such as the NRA or GOA that lobby for you). 4)Litigate against the government to change the law (this has been done more often than you would think with the AWB, all litigators have lost, to date). 5)or of course, simply obey the law, knowing full well that it is unconstitutional. That's about it. I agree it is nonsense, but those are our options.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 7:16:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 7:24:25 PM EDT by 223kid]
i look at it like this.. the post ban rifles are slightly more accurate without the flash hider, and who really wants a bayonet hanging off the end of their AR anyhow? sure, on an sks they make sense (since they break shells off every few hundred rounds [;)]), but c'mon.. as far as telestocks are concerned, those new carbon pistols look pretty, uh, concealable. and there are still plenty of grandfathered 20/30/40/betas floating around too. so, let the anti's *think* they accomplished something, and have fun with your legal "assault weapons". sorry, had a few beers and i feel like ranting. :)
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:16:25 PM EDT
Thank you for clearing that up HiramRanger. You have shed a light on the subject I obviously was unaware of before.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 4:38:02 AM EDT
You're welcome, I just reread what I wrote and might have been able to say it with a little more tact. For that I apologize.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 4:52:49 AM EDT
Of COURSE the ban doesn't make any logical sense! How can banning guns from the law-abiding citizens make any sense at all when the criminals won't turn in their guns? It only makes sense if you WANT the criminals to take the upper hand! Yet they say that it's "to reduce crime". No, the truth is that the anti's just hate your guns and want everybody disarmed, one step at a time if they can't get it all at once. Now, WHY do they want us disarmed, exactly? What's the benefit of a disarmed and defenseless populace? More to the point, WHO benefits if the people are disarmed? I'll give you a clue: the more rabid anti's are usually Democrats, but more importantly, they're usually following the socialist agenda pretty closely. It's nothing less than the a step toward paving the way to a socialist-run America. Many prominent democrats have ties to the American Socialist Party. This can all be verified if you choose to do so. The face of your enemy is revealed to you now. It is the face of socialism. It must be stamped out completely. Where's Senator McCarthy when you really need him? (Granted, McCarthy went overboard, but he DID have a point and he DID help to locate and expose a lot of REAL socialists and communists that were hiding in our society! He did do some good work for us.) Fear the government that fears your guns. Because such a government doesn't have YOUR best interests in mind. CJ
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 6:19:12 AM EDT
HiramRanger, Good post, but one minor quibble: There is no constitutional requirement for any waiting period on enactment. Congress could pass a law banning these weapons that takes effect the day after the President signs it. This would still not be an [i]ex post facto[/i] law, as it would criminalize current actions, not past actions. The Street Sweeper grace period was put in place for political and logistic reasons. They could have declared them immediately subject to registration, with no grace period. The grace period was needed more for BATF convenience, and to make it more politically palatable, than for any constitutional requirement. Just another reason for us all to be active in pressing for our rights.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 8:06:45 AM EDT
You're welcome, I just reread what I wrote and might have been able to say it with a little more tact. For that I apologize.
View Quote
Tact, bah! I greatly prefer someone telling me in no uncertain terms when I have my head up my ass that to go on letting me make a fool out of myself.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 8:49:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PAEBR332: HiramRanger, Good post, but one minor quibble: There is no constitutional requirement for any waiting period on enactment. Congress could pass a law banning these weapons that takes effect the day after the President signs it. This would still not be an [i]ex post facto[/i] law, as it would criminalize current actions, not past actions. The Street Sweeper grace period was put in place for political and logistic reasons. They could have declared them immediately subject to registration, with no grace period. The grace period was needed more for BATF convenience, and to make it more politically palatable, than for any constitutional requirement. Just another reason for us all to be active in pressing for our rights.
View Quote
Yes and no... there is a de facto constitutional requirement in that you can not make an act illegal in the next minute without giving the chance for someone to come into compliance. For example, lets say for arguments sake that we pass a law that says all gun ownership is a felony and make it effective upon being enacted by the signature of the president or the over ride of his veto. Constitutionality aside with reference to the 2nd amendment, you can not have the law become effective in that instant as the past behavior which was legal instantly becomes criminal behavior and the citizen has no opportunity to comply. The law therefore in essence criminalizes past legal behavior because the present activity has no opportunity to break from the past. In other words you are attempting to criminalize the act midstream. This is not the same as for example saying it is illegal to commit rape by chemical inducement and making the effective date immediate and not being able to punish for past instances. This type of crime occurs within a finite period of time, it is not ongoing. I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly other than to say in the first instance you have an action which is continuous (ownership of a to be regulated or contraband item) and in the second instance you have an act with a defineable beginning and end. In the first instance the courts would rule that you must be given an opportunity to cease the legal activity before it becomes illegal - surrender your firearm, render it compliant or register for example. In the second example they can point to the action and say if you did this on Monday it was legal, but on Tuesday it became illegal... so we can't prosecute you for Monday but we can prosecute you for Wednesday. Sorry, on my lunch hour and am kind of rushed, can't elaborate further. I will however check back later and see if I can further refine my post.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 9:10:03 AM EDT
im not sure if this is a can of worms but with the u.n seeking to ban almost all private ownership of small arms and certain justices on the supreme court holding international norms and accepted practices as having legal bearing on our laws, i would think that even wth the expiration of the awb we will likely get another democrat in power at some point soon with an al gore worldview and by decree we will have a ban on ownership of bad weapons. this would be similiar to the import ban. i read an article which seemed to indicate that the worldwide restriction of weapons being sought by the u.n was part of the world trade thing. rebelious people with weapons are likely to have a disruptive effect on world trade and that would be bad for the military industrial complex so the wto ,un, world bank and imf have sought to make sure that only police will have weapons in order to facilitate international globalization. politics huh?
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 9:53:34 AM EDT
I'm starting to think that we won't have another American Revolution, but I can certainly see that we might eventually have to shake the UN out of the US the way a dog shakes water out of his fur...or perhaps even more violently. Not to put too fine a point on it, but... Fuck the rest of the world. Fuck the UN in particular. I will not see America dragged down to the level of much of the rest of the world. There are actually NO other countries that are really comparable to the US when you consider all the factors, but of course, Japan and much of Europe are close, and equal to us in some respects. But NO country is quite equal to the US in all respects. To be like them would be to take a step down, one way or another. CJ
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 1:03:13 PM EDT
The purpose of the Constitution of the United States is to secure freedom for the people. It puts restrictions on the government and even on a tyranical majority. What we call the Bill of Rights is merely an agreement in writing on the existence of some of these rights. These are rights. Not priveledges issued by any government, they exist independent of the constitution. The government cannot take them. The people can only lose their ability to exercise them by lack of support. Amending the Constituion to remove any of the Bill of Rights does not cancel any right but only cancels the validity of the Government Not a lawyer. Not even a real scholar. Just a People. I believe I have final authority.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 1:49:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15: If you think the AWB of 94 is illogical take a look at the NFA of 34. I mean come on, how is a 16" rifle any less deadlier than a 14.5"? How is 1.5" that much of a difference? If you really won't to see just how illogical our Government can be, take a look at U.S. vs. Miller brought before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, look at the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is not willing to hear any more arguments to support the Miller case that could have been made if Mr. Miller hadn't mysteriously vanished into thin air.
View Quote
NFA of 34 banned 16" rifles too. They are limited to 18" under the original NFA laws along with shotguns but were changed later to allow 16" rifles so the M1 carbine could be legal. You see you can regulate the rifles that are not military but you cant ban the M1 carbine because it was a real military rifle. Any rifle used by our military has no right to have the barrel length regulated for civilian use. Also its OK to have a full auto thats unregistered as long as it has a military use should the need arise. This is the opinion and statement of our Supreme Court which has the final say over all our laws such as the NFA. Its a good thing full auto 14.5" barreled M4 carbines have no military purpose and are not use by our military or that would be legal according to the Supreme Court and you could not regulate and ban such weapons. Dont believe it? Go read. A man stated his unregistered short barreled shotgun was legal because of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court found that since his shotgun had no military use it was ok to regulate and he lost his appeal. (But if it had been a full auto in use by our troops that would be OK?) Dont you love the hipocracy in our government?
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 2:10:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2003 2:52:11 PM EDT by pigmy]
NO GUN LAW past or present is reasonable or lawful. It is imperative that we say no to any new gun law! Our elected officals and our appointed judges are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from passing laws or other limitations on the individual right to keep firearms. Our focus now should be on repealing all gun laws that the Federal or State has passed and to hold accountable those persons who have acted unconstitutionally. This is not about the NFA, GCA, AW Ban, full auto/semi-auto or concealed carry, but it is about the rule of law which has been violated by those we have placed our trust in. If you do not agree with my statements it may be well to exam our country's history. If you simply do not like these statements then the laws/freedoms can be changed by a constitutional amendment only. If you support firearms/basic freedoms educate and train yourself to feel as I do. Do not be timid it is a long battle.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 2:31:28 PM EDT
I would like to see an analogy of banning the other amendments the SAME way the 2nd has... Oh, the possibilities.... Anyone care to elaborate?
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 3:13:14 PM EDT
Back in the early eighties a military asault weapon was described as being a light weight rifle which fired an intermediate cartridge AND it was capable of firing FULL AUTO. So the ANTI GUNNERS modified the phrase Assault Weapon to cover Legal Semi Autos. No military in their mind would equip their troops with Semi autos only rifles. The next thing they did was to show semi auto military styles weapons at hearings with bayonets attached-then harped that people did need high capacity magazines nor flash hiders. Of course a lot of hunters, and collectors of old firearms did not care if they banned military style weapons. After the hearings, they came up with AWB proposal which tried to ban AR style, and AK style weapons without hurting the hunting crowd. Of course they figured they would have one foot in the door and the ten years later, they would go after the hunting guns. All of the AR clones manufactures immediately started making bbls without Flash Hiders and bayonet lugs-which pissed off the anti gunners. This time around the anti gunners will just want to stop the manufacture of AR style weapons and AK style weapons. I know of more people now who own ARs and AKs than before the ban. The person who is using the weapon is the one they should ban to prison. Most of the people using firearms in commission of a felony already have a crimminal record, and have been through the revolving door. I talked to the ATF agent who I have known for 20 plus years about the AWB. He stated that in 50 years the hi cap ban will have an effect on crime-I wanted to say what bull sh##. People will kill each other with bats, western sizzlin steak knifes, cars, and other home made devices. Some people in society just don't abide by the rules. If you take firearms away from law abiding citizens, these pumping iron parolees will know it is Ok to do a home evasion on an elderly couple as it will be a piece of cake. Of course on the other hand here in the Good Ole Boy area I live in, most think twice about doing home evasion because you never know what is behind the curtain. RANT OFF The next thing you will see is the ban of the commercial Browning Automatic Rifle and the 1100 remington shotgun. They don't what to get rid just of ARs, they want all guns to be illegal.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 3:42:36 PM EDT
So the way I'm reading it, most all of us agree that the AWB is Unconstitutional and short of a Constitutional Amend. there is really nothing the government can do to take away our militia firearms. Even then, if they did pass an Amend. to ban semi-auto firearms they end up with one heck of a fight on their hands. Also, the way I see it we might as well build pre-band guns on post ban lowers because they'll either all be legal in less then a year or they'll all(pre and post alike) be illegal so we might as well go for it and enjoy it while we can. I really do hope this thing sunsets and we can get back to normal, or at least somewhat normal given the climate against guns in this country. Talk to ya'll later. TN.Frank
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 7:37:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2003 7:58:19 PM EDT by _DR]
Originally Posted By DevL: Also its OK to have a full auto thats unregistered as long as it has a military use should the need arise. This is the opinion and statement of our Supreme Court which has the final say over all our laws such as the NFA.
View Quote
I respectfully disagree. If you really believe that you can own a fully automatic weapon without having it registered, without fearing conviction, you need to start going through the court dockets. there have been plenty of convictions of owners of nonregistered NFA full auto weapons. If you place all your faith in a verdict of the supreme court, you have much more faith in them than I do. There is also no guarantee your case would be heard by the supreme cout; appeals can be denied and often are.
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 7:50:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2003 8:07:02 PM EDT by _DR]
Originally Posted By TNFrank: there is really nothing the government can do to take away our militia firearms.
View Quote
I respectfully disagree. They didn't seem to have qualms about disarming the Branch Davidians at WACO, or the Individuals at Ruby Ridge. They are not alive to tell about it, not even women and children will slow the Feds down if they target you. You can't fight the Army for long with personal weapons. They have the FBI, the NSA, the BATF, Federal Marshalls, and any number of law enforcement agencies with highly trained professionals behind the latest weapons and equipment. All they have to do is label an individual or group as a terrorist or subversive and the media will turn against that person or group - the individual will lose, eventually, no matter how determined. In the end, those with families and things to lose will stick to legal means to fight any disarmament of the public, depite the bravado expressed by many. I don't speak for anyone else, just for myself, but I have no illusions. I would say there is quite a lot they can do to take away people's firearms.
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 10:13:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AMOS: Back in the early eighties a military asault weapon was described as being a light weight rifle which fired an intermediate cartridge AND it was capable of firing FULL AUTO. So the ANTI GUNNERS modified the phrase Assault Weapon to cover Legal Semi Autos.
View Quote
Actually, to be fair what you describe is the definition of "Assault Rifle" the term "Assault Weapon" is a general political label which was pretty much created for use in gun laws. I think it's interesting that "sporting purposes" is such an often used term in control policy. Although I'm hardly a militant, I would say that the right to bear arms wasn't created with sporting in mind at all. That said, I think much of this talk about the "Government" wanting to do this or that in regards to firearms and rights is ridiculous. The "Government" as a body has never been behind gun control in any form. Gun control laws have been, without exception, political tools used by elected officials, or people trying to get elected to further their political agendas and secure election/re-election. Using firearms related issues, often ones which are created out of nothing, but which few in the voting public bother to investigate the legitimacy of, as a political tool is one of the easiest ways to gain favor. One simply brings (creates the illusion of) the problem, then offers a bold plan to solve it. The AWB is a classic example of this, especially since so called "assault weapons" have never accounted for a high percentage of gun related violence. The "problem" was created out of nothing then "solved" with the AWB, scoring big political points with the general public, who don't care to look into it deeper. Anyone else here see it that way?
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 4:41:10 AM EDT
Given AJ a ^5 for clearly stating the reality. Too many people here do not grasp the concept of government versus politics. Having worked in both structures, I can attest that government is the tool, politics is the craftsmen using the tool. Kind of like guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people... Government doesn't infringe upon rights, government institutions misused by politicians infring upon rights.
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 11:07:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2003 11:09:04 AM EDT by PAEBR332]
HiramRanger, As far as I can find, [i]Samuels v. McCurdy[/i] 267 U.S. 188 (1925), has never been overturned. In that case, the Court held that once a law prohibiting possession of an item (in this case alcohol) takes effect, continued possession of that item is immediately illegal. The Court stated:
First. This law is not an ex post facto law. It does not provide a punishment for a past offense. It does not fix a penalty for the owner for having become possessed of the liquor. The penalty it imposes is for continuing to possess the liquor after the enactment of the law.
View Quote
If you have any case citations that support the "[i]de facto ex post facto[/i]" interpretation, I would be interested. This is not a flame, it is curiosity on my part. I can see no LEGAL reason why a law could not be passed which immediately banned the posession of an item.
Top Top