PDA

View Full Version : Regestration and Article I of the Constitution


jtyoshi
07-13-2006, 12:55 PM
I remember from one of my political science classes about Bill of Attainder and Ex post facto law talking about the government cannot punish people for an act that was not illegal when commited.

So I'm thinking two things can come from this?

1. IF a regestration period is opened... is it manditory... as long as you keep it SB23 compliant, wouldn't you be protected via ArticleI. My thinking is my brother is enlisted in the army and not in CA to regester his OLL.

2. If we had a SB23 compliant rifle... and then they finally changed the "fixed magazine" definition... wouldn't be once again protected by the ex post facto law since our rifles were legally configured before the change of law.

Just tossing this out there...

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 1:20 PM
So I'm thinking two things can come from this?

1. IF a regestration period is opened... is it manditory... as long as you keep it SB23 compliant, wouldn't you be protected via ArticleI. My thinking is my brother is enlisted in the army and not in CA to regester his OLL.

A friend of mine was a permanent CA resident, stationed over in Japan as a Marine. The DOJ refused to permit him to register his AR's in 2000 because he wasn't in the state at the time.

You may want to make sure that your brother lists, say, your parents' place as his permanent address, and conducts his correspondence through there. I don't think that would be illegal - I understand that they just chose to jerk around that one friend of mine because they noticed he was writing from japan.

glen avon
07-13-2006, 3:39 PM
I remember from one of my political science classes Just tossing this out there...

Uuuuh, no.

not at all. not even a little bit.

please do a search for "ex post facto."

jtyoshi
07-13-2006, 6:18 PM
wiki on ex post facto law

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

You feeling ok there glen?

glen avon
07-13-2006, 6:36 PM
I think so.

how does the wiki entry not address your ex post facto contention?

just because something was legal, does not mean it must remain legal forever.

jtyoshi
07-13-2006, 7:52 PM
So here the simple logic behind this...

My brother legally purchased his AR.
He is now serving with the US Army and our communications with him are spotty at best. Well since his oll was legally purchased and is abiding by the SB23 rules... It should maintain its legality. Else he basiclly entrapped on the basis...

If they decide to change the rules in August or whenever... he isnt here to open his safe and make it CA complaint. It was legal when he bought it. It was legal before he left. But if they change he definition of a "Fixed magazine" you could techincally make him a felon overnight.

Is Ex Post defacto law is made to protect citizens from become criminalized after the fact?

glen avon
07-14-2006, 8:10 AM
I don't know why tis is so difficult for people to grasp. and it is.

ex-post facto laws mean that you can't criminalize behavior that was legal at the time the behavior occurred.

the legislature cannot pass a law saying it was illegal for your bro to have purchased the gun when he did, if it was legal for him to purchase at the time he purchased it.

the legislature can indeed state that from now on, that gun is illegal, and *continued* possession is illegal. that criminalizes prospective behavior, not past behavior.

your bro can simply give somebody else access to the safe to get rid of the gun. he may not want to, but that's a way he can comply with the law.

they aren't making a felon out of him overnight. he will have warning of the change in law, as we all do. his not doing anything about it makes him a felon. and that has nothing to do with ex-post facto. nothing.

now, he might complain that as a serviceman he was unable to dispose of the weapon, and make a due process claim, but that has nothing to do with ex-post facto.

Is Ex Post defacto law is made to protect citizens from become criminalized after the fact?

after what fact?

6172crew
07-14-2006, 10:02 AM
If you dont know about the change in law because you wernt in CA when the notification went out to the public can he be charged? What does the AG "have to do" as far as letting folks know about a change in law(like the aug16th meeting)?

As gun owners are we expected to know that a tool is no longer good to go and you have to use another method of removing the mag to avoid becoming a felon? Alot of these GIs are out of country and I know I helped sell those guys a few lowers a piece.:confused:

glen avon
07-14-2006, 10:25 AM
If you dont know about the change in law because you wernt in CA when the notification went out to the public can he be charged?

yes

What does the AG "have to do" as far as letting folks know about a change in law(like the aug16th meeting)?

notice in the california register

As gun owners are we expected to know that a tool is no longer good to go and you have to use another method of removing the mag to avoid becoming a felon?

yes

Alot of these GIs are out of country and I know I helped sell those guys a few lowers a piece.:confused:

then somebody had better make that comment to the DOJ. that's what N+C is for, to tell them about things like this.

I know it seems unfair that we are expected to know all the new laws, but the alternative, that the prosecution has to prove that each and every defendant really knew about the law, is simply unworkable. so we are left with the marginally more acceptable alternative. notice that these laws don't take effect for a while, and then usually allow a compliance period of a year or so.

a serviceman could always defend on the basis that they complied as soon as they could. that's a due process claim that might fly.

6172crew
07-14-2006, 11:03 AM
Had they just made the system like New Yorks and had a open Reg at all times then we/they could get rid of alot of the problems that the current law seems to have.

grammaton76
07-14-2006, 12:14 PM
Had they just made the system like New Yorks and had a open Reg at all times then we/they could get rid of alot of the problems that the current law seems to have.

They *did*. However, because it was discretionary, the DOJ simply smiled and said "well, because it's discretionary, we don't have to ever allow anyone's importation permit."

It's much like may-issue CCW's.