PDA

View Full Version : MO: Supreme Court Finds that Removal of a Constitutional Right is not Punishment


vantec08
10-02-2013, 11:15 AM
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/mo-supreme-court-finds-that-removal-of.html

The Missouri Supreme court has held that removal of a persons right to keep and bear arms is not a punishment, and therefore laws that make it illegal for persons to keep and bear arms, that apply to actions that were committed before the law was passed, are not ex post facto. From an AP article about the case:

. . .. wait a freakin minute here . . . . . .

kf6tac
10-02-2013, 11:33 AM
Unfortunate, but not overly shocking. The same analysis has been applied to felon disenfranchisement schemes and (I think) sex offender registration.

Hoooper
10-02-2013, 11:37 AM
Not sure what the surprise is. If a new law is passed and you violate that law NOW, its not an ex post facto violation. If someone gets arrested for having possessed a gun before they became a felon, and charged with felon in possession then we can talk. It seems like 75% of the population doesnt understand what ex post facto means

chiefcrash
10-02-2013, 11:52 AM
Not sure what the surprise is. If a new law is passed and you violate that law NOW, its not an ex post facto violation. If someone gets arrested for having possessed a gun before they became a felon, and charged with felon in possession then we can talk. It seems like 75% of the population doesnt understand what ex post facto means

Here's the problem:

in 2001, a guy pleads guilty to a non-violent felony. At the time, felonies of this sort did not result in a gun possession ban. 7 years later, the state expands the possession ban to all felonies. This ban was applied after the fact to the guy who previously was not banned to posses firearms (and had not committed new felonies that would trigger a ban).

Basically: when this guy was sentenced, his punishment was "X". Now, through no action on his part, his punishment has been changed after the fact to "X + a gun possession ban".

RMP91
10-02-2013, 11:57 AM
What kind of logic is that? :facepalm:

This is a prime candidate for a SCOTUS case.

mif_slim
10-02-2013, 11:58 AM
The Supreme Court may sound awesome and powerful. Just the name alone stands for our rights. But you have to remember, people running it has their own translation of the law. If you have a libtard running it, everything will be right according to his/her interpretation of the constitution.

ChrisC
10-02-2013, 12:07 PM
The Supreme Court may sound awesome and powerful. Just the name alone stands for our rights. But you have to remember, people running it has their own translation of the law. If you have a libtard running it, everything will be right according to his/her interpretation of the constitution.

And conservatives don't do the same thing?:facepalm:

mif_slim
10-02-2013, 12:11 PM
And conservatives don't do the same thing?:facepalm:

I gave an example. Same goes both ways. But what should be looked at is what the Founding Fathers meant by it.

Hiking CA
10-02-2013, 12:34 PM
From Wikipedia:

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively.

Now there are many problems with ex post facto applications of law. I think the biggest by far was with the Lautenberg Amendment in 1997 that made future, and past, persons every convicted domestic violence misdemeanor offense, a prohibitive possessor for life. Many law enforcement officers careers were ended overnight when it went into effect. One could have been charged with a minor or false misdemeanor offense in 1996 and plead guilty to receive a small fine in lieu of contesting it and incurring excessive legal fees. A year later, the Lautenberg Amendment is passes and the poor soul is not a prohibited possessor for life.

Nowadays, one could kick a hole in a wall during an argument with a spouse, be charged/convicted of a misdemeanor "domestic violence" and now be a prohibited possessor. I find this to be cruel and unusual punishment and a clear violation of the Eight Amendment. It happens all across the country as prosecutors and law enforcement agencies charge/convict people for minor infractions in the name of "domestic violence" to further their careers and justify their budgets/staffing.

I am quite surprised it is still in effect.

mrrabbit
10-02-2013, 12:46 PM
What kind of logic is that? :facepalm:

This is a prime candidate for a SCOTUS case.

Yes and No.


On the one hand:

1. Clear violation of ex-post facto.

2. Essentially ammounts to slavery.

You cannot in all good conscience declare a felon who has served their sentence in its entirety that they are free to go - and then turn around and tell them:

- They can't vote
- They can live there but not over there
- They can't freely associate
- They can work there but not over there
- They can walk that way - but not this other way
- They can't arm themselves under the 2A for self defense
- And concurrently require them to arm to repell and suppress invaders

Either you're a citizen, resident alien, guest or illegal allien. But you are not a second class citizen or slave or indentured servant.


But on the other hand it's a political body that is also Federal and will always have an eye to the Federal interests - and the interests of the controlling elites of both parties.

And those elites do want special classes - and excluded classes - where all are equal but some are more equal than others.

=8-(

vantec08
10-02-2013, 12:58 PM
Here's the problem:

in 2001, a guy pleads guilty to a non-violent felony. At the time, felonies of this sort did not result in a gun possession ban. 7 years later, the state expands the possession ban to all felonies. This ban was applied after the fact to the guy who previously was not banned to posses firearms (and had not committed new felonies that would trigger a ban).

Basically: when this guy was sentenced, his punishment was "X". Now, through no action on his part, his punishment has been changed after the fact to "X + a gun possession ban".

thats my take on it

vantec08
10-02-2013, 1:01 PM
And conservatives don't do the same thing?:facepalm:

Agreed, especially since the court has become politized, however, I dont see any consv. playing fast and loose with clear COTUS meanings.

dustoff31
10-02-2013, 1:30 PM
In 2001, a guy pleads guilty to a non-violent felony. At the time, felonies of this sort did not result in a gun possession ban.

Any felony, violent or not, is and was in 2001, a federal prohibition to gun possession.

So whatever the state may have said about it is inconsequential.