Originally Posted by randian
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.
So you don't have a case law to back up your assertion that they can make something illegal that was legal, and not compensate for it.....