"Ex post facto"

halfmoonclip · Mar 2, 2023

The words crossed my mind the other day...if I recall correctly, the short take on the meaning, "You cannot make something illegal after the fact".
I'm certain Spats, or others here, can refute or support the notion, but it would seem the Constitution forbids making something illegal after it had been legal.
Now, there are things like Prohibition, which did require an amendment to to forbid alcohol. But, sort of that, is there anything, constitutional, that forbids, say, a ban on full capacity magazines, after the fact of their legal purchase?
Running this up the flagpole; what say ye?
Moon

bearcreek · Mar 2, 2023

halfmoonclip said:
but it would seem the Constitution forbids making something illegal after it had been legal.

Seems like it to you and me, but we believe that the gov should abide by the limitations set for them in the Constitution and BOR. Clearly, they don't agree.

dogtown tom · Mar 2, 2023

halfmoonclip said:
The words crossed my mind the other day...if I recall correctly, the short take on the meaning, "You cannot make something illegal after the fact".

Thats not what it means.
An ex post facto law (from Latin: ex post facto, lit. 'After the fact') 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.

In short, you cannot be charged with a crime for something you did or possessed when it was legal, but now the law makes it illegal.

For example the speed limit on your street is 55mph. You regularly drove 50mph.
Your city lowers the speed limit to 20mph.

You cannot be charged for driving 50mph before the change took effect.

AlexanderA · Mar 3, 2023

dogtown tom said:
In short, you cannot be charged with a crime for something you did or possessed when it was legal, but now the law makes it illegal.

That's correct, but continued possession after a ban goes into effect is a new crime, and is not covered by the ex post facto rule. That's why bans typically allow a transitional time period, to give people a chance to get rid of the offending items.

toivo · Mar 3, 2023

AlexanderA said:
That's correct, but continued possession after a ban goes into effect is a new crime, and is not covered by the ex post facto rule.

That's it in a nutshell. You can't be charged for what you possessed when it was legal; you can be charged for what you currently possess now that it is illegal.

toivo · Mar 3, 2023

bearcreek said:
Seems like it to you and me, but we believe that the gov should abide by the limitations set for them in the Constitution and BOR.

The Constitution can be amended. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a thing.

F-111 John · Mar 3, 2023

dogtown tom said:
An ex post facto law (from Latin: ex post facto, lit. 'After the fact') 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.

Oh, you mean like the Lautenberg Amendment that removed a person's Second Amendment rights years after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor? (Yes, I know it's been litigated and found to not be an ex post facto law.)

dogtown tom · Mar 3, 2023

AlexanderA said:
That's correct, but continued possession after a ban goes into effect is a new crime, and is not covered by the ex post facto rule. That's why bans typically allow a transitional time period, to give people a chance to get rid of the offending items.

No kidding.

dogtown tom · Mar 3, 2023

F-111 John said:
Oh, you mean like the Lautenberg Amendment that removed a person's Second Amendment rights years after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor? (Yes, I know it's been litigated and found to not be an ex post facto law.)

Always great when someone disagrees with their own post in the same paragraph. :rofl:

Frank Ettin · Mar 3, 2023

bearcreek said:
…we believe that the gov should abide by the limitations set for them in the Constitution and BOR. Clearly, ….

Although it would be a good idea to do the research and study to understand what those limitations, as found by the courts, actually are, mean, and apply in real life in the real world — rather than what you imagine them to be.

Frank Ettin · Mar 3, 2023

The OP’s question was answered in post 3.

"Ex post facto"

halfmoonclip

Member

bearcreek

Member

dogtown tom

Member

AlexanderA

Member

toivo

Member

toivo

Member

F-111 John

Member

dogtown tom

Member

dogtown tom

Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Frank Ettin

Moderator

Similar threads