Originally Posted by njineermike
You haven't proven where you're RIGHT. Until you cite proven case law where an example like this has been upheld by SCOTUS, you have no validity either.
What the heck are you talking about? I don't have to cite SCOTUS to repeat what ex post facto means, nor do I have to cite SCOTUS regarding what actually happened when other lawful property (drugs) was made contraband, namely that owners were not compensated for that. I also don't have to cite SCOTUS to make an analogy regarding drugs and guns, namely that if governments didn't have to compensate owners for making drugs contraband, they don't have to compensate owners for making guns contraband.