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: 11/21/2005 1:05:40 AM EDT
Suppose a new AWB identical to the last one was put in place after Hitlery becomes president. Although any gun ban is really unconstitutional, is it probable (or even legally possible) for such a ban to force us to turn in our non-compliant ("evil") "assault weapons" that were bought legally between the two bans?

Can ANY laws (gun bans, carseat bans, peanut butter bans, whatever) be retroactive in that it requires people to turn in legally bought/owned personal property?

Thanks.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 11:50:35 AM EDT
Possible, but unlikely.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:05:11 PM EDT
Ask CA SKS owners.
Link Posted: 11/21/2005 12:16:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 12:18:01 PM EDT by pyro6988]
Oh course it can. They are making the fucking rules.

Just look at San Francisco link

Hopefully it would be unlikely.

ETA link
Link Posted: 11/22/2005 10:19:46 AM EDT
All I know is that there would suddenly be an enormous rash of evidence-free firearm thefts.

"Gee, officer, all he took was my AR15!"
"And... and not the desert eagle?"
"Nope!"
"Not the gold civil war pistol sitting on the coffee table?"
"Yeah, I reckon he was a little messed up in the head."

[-sam
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 9:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
Ask CA SKS owners.


Ask the Australians.

Take the phrase "contrary to public policy" and then add in a dose of "reliance on foreign sources" (laws/opinions).
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 11:35:17 PM EDT
Ex Post Facto-------but time and time again, some courts just ignore that!!!
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 11:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MisterSuzuki:
Ex Post Facto-------but time and time again, some courts just ignore that!!!





Bingo, the courts already ignore the Constitution, "ex post facto" won't matter to them any more than "shall not be infringed".
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:38:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sigurd:

Originally Posted By MisterSuzuki:
Ex Post Facto-------but time and time again, some courts just ignore that!!!





Bingo, the courts already ignore the Constitution, "ex post facto" won't matter to them any more than "shall not be infringed".



Exactly what I was going to post. "Ex post facto" laws are supposedly illegal in the US, but they've shown up once or twice and been upheld (emancipation proclamation could count).

The Constitution has been decided (wisely) by our Government to be a guide, and not binding at all. When they swear oathes to defend the Constitution, I'm glad they added the "Not Really" clause at the end.

California retroactively banned the Walther P-22, after it OK'd it, too, and said they had to be sent in for retrofit. SF retroactively banned all guns too, recently, didnt they?

It doesnt even matter anymore. I refuse to adhere to it all or enforce them.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:30:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Current-Resident:
<snip>
California retroactively banned the Walther P-22, after it OK'd it, too, and said they had to be sent in for retrofit. SF retroactively banned all guns too, recently, didnt they?

It doesnt even matter anymore. I refuse to adhere to it all or enforce them.


I believe it was "just" () all handguns.

Not that I agree with the Constitutionality of them doing so (the above) whatsoever, but thought I'd mention this pragmatically: I'm *also* a firm believer in the "one in, one out" school of rights.

For example, I'm categorically against any type of gun ban. HOWEVER, if one were ever instituted, I would expect the .gov to swap me, tit for tat: take away my right* to bear arms, give me in return an affirmative right to state protection**. Or, as in the case of San Fran, take away my right* to carry and defend myself with a handgun, do it like Texas and allow open carry of long guns. Not that I'll gladly give up anything, but being able to sling a rifle over my shoulder for a trip to the supermarket, the bank, or the county courthouse would go a long way toward pacifying me.......

Obviously the above is more than a little tongue-in-cheek, as I would be un-pacifiable. There is a legal term for the above, however, it's just a little early in the a.m. for my mind to process it correctly right now. It essentially says, in beautiful legal terms: "Hey, if you're gonna fuck me in the ass, at least have the common courtesy to give a man/brother a reach-around."

Jake.


* For those who hold the Constitution sacrosanct, and even more for those who rightfully believe in inalienable rights, I'm talking about ppl/govts "taking away" my rights ON PAPER ONLY.

** I've got another thread going in Legal about this very subject. Reference.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 5:51:20 PM EDT
Ex post facto really isnt the issue, because that would be like making a law today to make it punishable if you had owned a gun (or whatever the criminal act) in the past and not necessarily the present and still be punished under said law today.


What the bans do is make it illegal to have said object in the present, regardless of when it was acquired, that is not really ex post facto, is it?

From law.dictionary.com:
ex post facto
adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 8:51:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2005 8:52:58 PM EDT by wise_jake]
That's [at least generally] true, I guess. Were it not, there would be no need for grandfather clauses.


ETA: I just looked at that entry last week in Encyclopedia of the U.S. Constitution, but can't remember exactly what it said.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 3:12:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
That's [at least generally] true, I guess. Were it not, there would be no need for grandfather clauses.


ETA: I just looked at that entry last week in Encyclopedia of the U.S. Constitution, but can't remember exactly what it said.



So, do you agree that it these bans, while obviously violating the Constitution on 2nd amendment grounds, do not violate the ex post facto clause? It seems to me that there is no requirement in the Constitution for grandfather clauses, except possibly by the 5th amendment (property being taken [for public use] without just compensation).
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 8:28:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
That's [at least generally] true, I guess. Were it not, there would be no need for grandfather clauses.


ETA: I just looked at that entry last week in Encyclopedia of the U.S. Constitution, but can't remember exactly what it said.


So, do you agree that it these bans, while obviously violating the Constitution on 2nd amendment grounds, do not violate the ex post facto clause? It seems to me that there is no requirement in the Constitution for grandfather clauses, except possibly by the 5th amendment (property being taken [for public use] without just compensation).


I would probably tend to agree with each of your statements, and their attendent clauses.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 8:36:50 PM EDT
wait wait wait, they banned the p-22??? wtf why would you waste your time with that??????
i had one and it aint that special :)
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:11:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By samarium:
All I know is that there would suddenly be an enormous rash of evidence-free firearm thefts.

"Gee, officer, all he took was my AR15!"
"And... and not the desert eagle?"
"Nope!"
"Not the gold civil war pistol sitting on the coffee table?"
"Yeah, I reckon he was a little messed up in the head."

[

-sam



You betch ya!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:17:40 AM EDT
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:35:07 AM EDT
All bans are retroactive, technically speaking, it's just that some bans have clauses that permit exceptions for previously-owned items. Ex post facto wouldn't apply since they aren't making your possession before the ban illegal, only thereafter. IMO the best argument against federal bans is abuse of the interstate commerce clause but with recent decisions it doesn't seem that's on our side anymore. Maybe things will change with the new Supreme Court. It's easy to see from a citizen's POV that things are out of hand, but this country is run by lawyers and politicians, and everything is built on bad precedents leading to bad decisions.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:00:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!




If I were you I wouldn't flaunt the fact that you completely ignored the 94' AWB.

As a C&R FFL holder I receive ATF newsletters about new BATFE policies.

One of their rulings was that although posession of LE marked guns and mags were legal AFTER 09/13/2004 anything posessed in the ten years before was still a violation of law and they would prosecute anyone they could find evidence of illegal posession on.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:20:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigHunt:

Originally Posted By markm:
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!




If I were you I wouldn't flaunt the fact that you completely ignored the 94' AWB.

As a C&R FFL holder I receive ATF newsletters about new BATFE policies.

One of their rulings was that although posession of LE marked guns and mags were legal AFTER 09/13/2004 anything posessed in the ten years before was still a violation of law and they would prosecute anyone they could find evidence of illegal posession on.



Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:29:06 PM EDT
Klinton did a retroactive tax hike as I recall
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:48:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigHunt:

Originally Posted By markm:
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!


If I were you I wouldn't flaunt the fact that you completely ignored the 94' AWB.

As a C&R FFL holder I receive ATF newsletters about new BATFE policies.

One of their rulings was that although posession of LE marked guns and mags were legal AFTER 09/13/2004 anything posessed in the ten years before was still a violation of law and they would prosecute anyone they could find evidence of illegal posession on.


Not that it affects me, but what's the statute of limitations on something like that?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:53:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigHunt:

Originally Posted By markm:
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!




If I were you I wouldn't flaunt the fact that you completely ignored the 94' AWB.

As a C&R FFL holder I receive ATF newsletters about new BATFE policies.

One of their rulings was that although posession of LE marked guns and mags were legal AFTER 09/13/2004 anything posessed in the ten years before was still a violation of law and they would prosecute anyone they could find evidence of illegal posession on.



Yeah, good luck finding evidence of that now...
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:33:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BigHunt:

Originally Posted By markm:
Who CARES? I completely Ignored the last one!

w00t!




If I were you I wouldn't flaunt the fact that you completely ignored the 94' AWB.

As a C&R FFL holder I receive ATF newsletters about new BATFE policies.

One of their rulings was that although posession of LE marked guns and mags were legal AFTER 09/13/2004 anything posessed in the ten years before was still a violation of law and they would prosecute anyone they could find evidence of illegal posession on.



Oh Snap!

Bubba! Ten Years! ALL THE HYPERBOLE!!!
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 9:19:11 AM EDT
Congress could pass a law that makes any or all firearms illegal to own and, therefore, contraband. If so, Congress would likely include a provision for just compensation, to cover the value of the property. If not, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment would apply and gun ownders could sue to get compensated for the loss of their property.

The more likely scenario is Congress would outlaw the sale and manufacture of guns to private individuals. Congress could alzo require registration or impose something like the NFA on all exsiting privately-held firearms.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 5:19:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By El_Abogado:
Congress could pass a law that makes any or all firearms illegal to own and, therefore, contraband. If so, Congress would likely include a provision for just compensation, to cover the value of the property. If not, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment would apply and gun ownders could sue to get compensated for the loss of their property.

The more likely scenario is Congress would outlaw the sale and manufacture of guns to private individuals. Congress could alzo require registration or impose something like the NFA on all exsiting privately-held firearms.


+1

But don't forget ammo. Teddy's already tried the ammo route, and been rebuffed, but don't expect him or his ilk to give up so soon. I can see them regulating the fuck out of ammo, including reloading supplies.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 5:59:00 AM EDT
The ammo route is an interesting one. Former Senator Moynihan also was a supporter of the tax/ban ammo approach, IIRC.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:13:01 PM EDT
I don't really see how a flat out ban wouldn't violate the right of people to their property. Meaning that if was legally owned before the ban hit, then if they say it's contraband, wouldn't the government have to pay fair market value for all the items confiscated after the ban, just like with emmenent domain? If they didn't I'd sue the crap out of them, for spite.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:16:29 PM EDT
They can kiss my ass. (Retroactively, of course.)
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:14:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
I don't really see how a flat out ban wouldn't violate the right of people to their property. Meaning that if was legally owned before the ban hit, then if they say it's contraband, wouldn't the government have to pay fair market value for all the items confiscated after the ban, just like with emmenent domain? If they didn't I'd sue the crap out of them, for spite.


Oh yes, you will *almost* certainly get your "fair maket value," but like with ED, the FMV ain't worth shit when NO ONE can own it.

Where demand="d"

lim = not much
d->0 not likely


Edit in advance: With some ED law, FMV is assessed prior to telling everyone the property will soon be worthless. This is considered by many to be better than due process with just compensation nothing.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:22:12 PM EDT by El_Abogado]

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
I don't really see how a flat out ban wouldn't violate the right of people to their property. Meaning that if was legally owned before the ban hit, then if they say it's contraband, wouldn't the government have to pay fair market value for all the items confiscated after the ban, just like with emmenent domain? If they didn't I'd sue the crap out of them, for spite.



Dude, did you read my post on the first page? And understand it? The government may not take your property without paying you just compensation. That is what I said, that is "just like emmenent [sic] domain", and that is what the Constitution provides. . . .
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:24:37 PM EDT
Most definitely. Ask people in California.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:43:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:07:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 1:08:11 PM EDT by Joker18]

Originally Posted By OBird:
Suppose a new AWB identical to the last one was put in place after Hitlery becomes president. Although any gun ban is really unconstitutional, is it probable (or even legally possible) for such a ban to force us to turn in our non-compliant ("evil") "assault weapons" that were bought legally between the two bans?

Can ANY laws (gun bans, carseat bans, peanut butter bans, whatever) be retroactive in that it requires people to turn in legally bought/owned personal property?

Thanks.



Hey hey now let's not act like she's already elected. The best thing to do is to try to keep her out of office.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:34:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Joker18:

Originally Posted By OBird:
Suppose a new AWB identical to the last one was put in place after Hitlery becomes president. Although any gun ban is really unconstitutional, is it probable (or even legally possible) for such a ban to force us to turn in our non-compliant ("evil") "assault weapons" that were bought legally between the two bans?

Can ANY laws (gun bans, carseat bans, peanut butter bans, whatever) be retroactive in that it requires people to turn in legally bought/owned personal property?

Thanks.


Hey hey now let's not act like she's already elected. The best thing to do is to try to keep her out of office.


That's true, however, on the off chance that the Barrett report is released (in full), and it also happens to derail Hitlery's presidential aspirations (at least, the second set of them, anyway), look for a Boxer/Feinstein type to try to slide in.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:19:09 PM EDT
When they banned marijuana, did they hit everyone back for the street value of their dimebags?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:51:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BrandonP:
When they banned marijuana, did they hit everyone back for the street value of their dimebags?


If I understand it correctly, there was no "street market" for it (at least not as we've known/understood it for the past 30 years) back then, hence no dimebags, per se.
Top Top