{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/9/2013 8:05:56 PM
7
According to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, shouldn't the illegalization and confiscation of any type of firearm be ex post facto and therefore against the Constitution? I mean they're basically saying, "You know those things you used to have? Yeah, now it's illegal to own them even though you used to be able to so we're just going to take them away."
English
-
Modifié par OaklandPaintbalr : 2/10/2013 4:20:51 AM[quote]According to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, shouldn't the illegalization and confiscation of any type of firearm be ex post facto and therefore against the Constitution? I mean they're basically saying, "You know those things you used to have? Yeah, now it's illegal to own them even though you used to be able to so we're just going to take them away."[/quote] No. That would not be ex post facto. - If they make AR-15s illegal on January 1 2013, they can only arrest people for owning AR-15s in 2013 onward. So if I owned an AR-15 before 2013, I can choose to turn it over and face no legal consequences. - Ex post facto would be arresting people for owning AR-15s in 2012, or 2011, or 2010, etc. - If I chose to purchase an AR-15 AFTER the ban was instated, thats illegal and I can be arrested. See the difference? It's all about the dates.
-
OP said nothing about the person turning it over. The OP said the 'confiscation' of assault weapons. I can see your scenario if the OP was just talking about making them illegal, but it's talking about confiscation. My original post wasn't even about just the illegalization, but the illegalization and confiscation.
-
Modifié par OaklandPaintbalr : 2/10/2013 4:20:16 AMConfiscation is fine, because that is "punishing" them for owning a weapon after the law has passed. Thats not ex post facto.
-
I'm seeing the scenario as: Day 1: Bill passes, becomes law Twelve minutes after: Police start kicking down doors looking for guns Yeah, thinking about it, that wouldn't happen.
-
since when does the government have to follow it's own laws? they want you to be a subject, not a citizen.
-
The constitution must be amended in order for the government to bypass previous rules in it. If a gun owner refuses to give up his rifle and is arrested for it with this law, the case can go to the Supreme Court and from there the law would be struck down not necessarily under article 1, section 9 as stated above but the second amendment... and whatever else the NRA is willing to whip out of god knows where. And trust me, they will pull something out for something this big.
-
[quote]The constitution must be amended in order for the government to bypass previous rules in it. If a gun owner refuses to give up his rifle and is arrested for it with this law, the case can go to the Supreme Court and from there the law would be struck down not necessarily under article 1, section 9 as stated above but the second amendment... and whatever else the NRA is willing to whip out of god knows where. And trust me, they will pull something out for something this big.[/quote] you aren't honestly saying you believe the politicians follow the same rules and have the same treatment as everyone else, are you? news flash: they don't.
