U.S. Constitution, Section 1, Article 10 and how it relates to our situation

[rumble phish]

In Section 1, Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution, it states that no State shall pass "ex post facto" laws. In a nutshell this means that a state cannot pass a law making something that was otherwise legal, retroactively illegal.

How does this relate to our situation in regards to the new law that effectively makes legally purchased guns with a bullet button illegal?

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[Mr.RoDiN]

In Section 1, Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution, it states that no State shall pass "ex post facto" laws. In a nutshell this means that a state cannot pass a law making something that was otherwise legal, retroactively illegal.

How does this relate to our situation in regards to the new law that effectively makes legally purchased guns with a bullet button illegal?

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

Coke used to be legal as well...

[rumble phish]

Coke used to be legal as well...

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but if you aren't I don't think the comparison is valid.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[unclerandy]

In Section 1, Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution, it states that no State shall pass "ex post facto" laws. In a nutshell this means that a state cannot pass a law making something that was otherwise legal, retroactively illegal.

How does this relate to our situation in regards to the new law that effectively makes legally purchased guns with a bullet button illegal?

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

That's a good question. But if that was the case none of the previous "bans" would have happened.

[Mr.RoDiN]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but if you aren't I don't think the comparison is valid.

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

I'm sorry if that came off as being facetious. That is a great question and has been brought up in the past. I don't know how grandfathering works. My only point was that there were things that were once legal to own, then became illegal. Alcohol even became legal again. But I don't think the government allowed citizens to keep grandfathered whiskey during prohibition. Again wasn't trying to sound sarcastic or facetious.

[naught]

They are not making your original legal ownership retroactively illegal, they are making your future ownership illegal, so it's not ex post facto.

In Section 1, Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution, it states that no State shall pass "ex post facto" laws. In a nutshell this means that a state cannot pass a law making something that was otherwise legal, retroactively illegal.

How does this relate to our situation in regards to the new law that effectively makes legally purchased guns with a bullet button illegal?

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[tzotzo]

it's not retroactively legal.

it's legal today and until sometime in the near future, so that apparently does not meet the ex post facto definition. If they said, instead, all BB gas guns are immediately illegal, and anyone possessing one right now is a felon, that would be much closer to meeting the definition, I would think.

[1st Generation Gun Owner]

If I understand correctly, they're banning possession, not just purchase. If you bought something that was legal at the time, and later it becomes illegal to possess, then you only commit a crime under the new law if you continue to possess it after the law takes effect. You can get rid of it, and so avoid breaking the law. The point of not allowing "ex post facto" is to avoid the situation where it was impossible to avoid breaking the law, because it was too late to change what they already did by the time the law was made.

But I've been about gun laws wrong several times before, so add some salt.

[unclerandy]

Makes sense.

[Cal_shooter]

This seems to be the case with standard capacity mags

[Jimi Jah]

Confiscation without compensation denies due process. I wouldn't count on the constitution to mean anything here.

[rt66paul]

....... But I don't think the government allowed citizens to keep grandfathered whiskey during prohibition. Again wasn't trying to sound sarcastic or facetious.

Yes, they could. It was illegal to sell Alcohol for consumption(unless a doctor prescribed it). Being under the influence was not illegal. People just hid what they had and took a nip now and again.

[SWalt]

CA does not care about the Constitution. How about interstate commerce laws being voided by by these laws?

[foxtrotuniformlima]

Ex post facto doesn't apply because, as of today, none of the recently signed laws are in effect yet. You can buy an BB equipped AR15 today just like you could yesterday. Nothing is being done retroactive. You are not being made a criminal for a past action. You may become one for a future action though if you are not aware of the new law. Lots of things happen like this. It use to be a DUI was a BAC of 0.1 % or higher. They changed that to 0.08% or higher but no one who test 0.08 % in the past was charged with DUI, only those going forward.

Also, nothing is being confiscated. They are not taking anything from you unless you violate the law. Like how they take your car if you use it for street racing.

[9M62]

They are taking.

They are saying that if I don't voluntarily give up property that I, as of today, lawfully own; They will punish me.

That's not really a voluntary "giving", since it's under threat. So since it's not voluntary giving, the only left that it can be is a taking by the government.

The laws about DUI is apples to oranges because you aren't possessing something with the DUI during The law change.

A better analogy would be if they made it illegal to own a car. All cars must be turned in or sold out of state or you are a felon. Even ones you already own.

And in that case it's not even as bad, because your car isn't a constitutional right to own. Your gun is.