Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/3/2007 5:19:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 5:19:42 AM EDT by M-Dub]
..."retroactive ban"?

By retroactive, I mean one where they would force you to surrender your weapons? (i.e. no Grandfather clause, maybe with an amnesty period to prevent it from being "ex post facto"?)

I'm not looking for, "I'll die in a pile of brass before that happens!!"...I'm interested in the legal implications.

Could a state pass a law requiring you to sell all your weapons out-of-state by a certain date lest they be made criminal? Could they seize your weapons as contraband or potentially jack taxes up to "fairly compensate" you for them?

And we've already seen the Federal AWB, though that had a grandfather clause. Is there any way they could legally and practically pass a similar ban WITHOUT that clause?
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 3:35:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 3:37:39 AM EDT by johnQpublik]
ex post facto is exactly what it would be, regardless of any amnesty period. That's why they couldn't make the last ban effective on already owned and possessed firearms. If you do something today, and tomorrow it is declared unlawful, you cannot be charged with committing a crime under the new law, at least that's how it was intended to work. States however, can do so unless their state constitution has a provision preventing them from doing so. Like here in NJ when they passed NJ's "assault weapon" ban.....no grandfather clause, you either had to register what you already owned, or sell it either out of state, or to a dealer.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 4:55:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By johnQpublik:
ex post facto is exactly what it would be, regardless of any amnesty period. That's why they couldn't make the last ban effective on already owned and possessed firearms. If you do something today, and tomorrow it is declared unlawful, you cannot be charged with committing a crime under the new law, at least that's how it was intended to work. States however, can do so unless their state constitution has a provision preventing them from doing so. Like here in NJ when they passed NJ's "assault weapon" ban.....no grandfather clause, you either had to register what you already owned, or sell it either out of state, or to a dealer.


My state has a provision in its constitution preventing ex post facto laws. But is it still considered to be ex post facto if they provide an "amnesty period", say of 6 months or a year, to sell your weapons before making them illegal?
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 6:47:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M-Dub:
..."retroactive ban"?

By retroactive, I mean one where they would force you to surrender your weapons? (i.e. no Grandfather clause, maybe with an amnesty period to prevent it from being "ex post facto"?)

I'm not looking for, "I'll die in a pile of brass before that happens!!"...I'm interested in the legal implications.

Could a state pass a law requiring you to sell all your weapons out-of-state by a certain date lest they be made criminal? Could they seize your weapons as contraband or potentially jack taxes up to "fairly compensate" you for them?

And we've already seen the Federal AWB, though that had a grandfather clause. Is there any way they could legally and practically pass a similar ban WITHOUT that clause?




DON'T worry MARYLAND I know it's not (MERRY-LAND) WILL BE TRYING TO BAN EVERYTHING AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 3:39:24 PM EDT
I think the proposed Illinois AWB is close to this kind of monster.

link

Basically you have 90 days to register it and it can only be sold/transfered out of state after that. Even if you die.

This way they avoid the expense of paying for the banned items and over the years they will be mostly gone from the state as owners die off.

Either that or there will be a epidemic of boating accidents.
Top Top