Capacity ban coming?

[tlnzz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Post_Facto

Ex Post Facto Law:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems.
Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

I don't understand why this would not be a good defense against new laws that make what you legally currently own illegal ?

[streaker69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Post_Facto

Ex Post Facto Law:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems.
Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

I don't understand why this would not be a good defense against new laws that make what you legally currently own illegal ?

Because our "lawmakers" don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution, nor do the courts.

[icp4life162005]

Because our "lawmakers" don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution, nor do the courts.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

We are an ogliarchy. They only serve themselves.

[pacomdiver]

another one added to the list of people described in my signature line

[57springer]

I’m not losing any sleep over someone ribbing me, I just never understood the mentality of people that would feel in necessary to take the time to mark a remark over a clear case of a spelling oversight or auto correct incident. If you don’t have anything to add to the actual discussion why bother? And it’s not even like the reply was funny.. I would personally never feel the need to make a stupid remark over such a simple thing. Oh well, I’ve spent more time on it than it’s worth at this point, just silly.

He has a point here

[SSGF109]

When this band comes..it just proves the fact ..we are another step closer to socialistic nation.

[2dogs1949]

I live in NJ, don't ask why, we went thru the high cap BS last year. My issue is the officials dreaming this crap up are protected by multiple armed guards who can carry unlimited capacity mags. Who are they to tell me I should have anything less then they have to protect myself and my family.?

[HRoark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Post_Facto

Ex Post Facto Law:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems.
Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

I don't understand why this would not be a good defense against new laws that make what you legally currently own illegal ?

Ex post facto would be if they passed a law that prohibited BUYING magazines, and then punished you because you BOUGHT the magazines before it was illegal to do so.

If they pass a law banning OWNERSHIP of magazines, and you still OWN them, you are breaking the law.

If I haven't explained this well enough, google a little bit so you learn how this entire legal argument does not apply to any suggested magazine ban. There are a number of arguments against the constitutionality of a magazine ban. This is not one of them.

[john9001]

They are the nobles, we are just commoners.

[jesemd]

Every time a ban on this or that is discussed we all run out and buy two more stripped lowers and half a dozen 30 round mags.

If we all took that $ and sent it to the NRA, 2nd Am foundation, GOA or spent it locally on pro gun candidates, protests, posters, town halls, anything, maybe we could stop talking about how to hide our mags when they come for them and we could just go shooting in peace.