Mag confiscation talking points

joeg26er said:

so how is it that the new NY mag "laws" are not in violation of ExPost Facto? Simply because they have a time limit to get "rid" of their 10 rd mags which they previously purchased legally?

Click to expand...

same way you cant smoke in public in some places were you could the day before

Because it hasn't been challanged. It will be applicable through the 14th to the State of New York. You have to remember, just because something is passed by a bunch of idiotic politicians, doesn't mean it's Constitutional. By the time the Court hears it, 3 years (minimum) will have passed, and you will already be labeled a felon if caught. And that reality is an entirely different case.

That is the most dangerous part. I live in Illinois. These morons will do whatever they can, knowing it is unconstitutional, just so they can get another year out of compliance from the people. And when it's challanged, they craft a different law, that has no real difference from the one before, and the process starts all over. The Supreme Court needs to excercize original jurisdiction more often, so it doesn't take so much time.

Exactly, joe. A mag ban may avoid being ex post facto if the law gives reasonable notice and an opportunity to get rid of them. The ban might still be unconstitutional or otherwise defective for a host of other reasons. As always with legal stuff, it gets very complicated.

Indeed. However each time you light a cigarette, it's a new instance of smoking. Therefore they are not making that "action" illegal. When you possess a mag or assault rifle, that possession started long before the new law trying to criminalize it was implemented.

30 cal slob said:

Folks,

It's been a long week and I'm brain-dead and could use your collective IQ re: mag bans.

Click to expand...

The value of my IQ or my comments is always questionable, but here goes...


You have as many chances to live as you have bullets in your gun.

When politicians arbitrarily impose limits upon magazine capacities, they impose an arbitrary value on the lives of their constituents, a value that is measured in bullets. They say, “You get this many bullets to protect your life. No more. This is all that we allow.”

Once-upon-a-time our lives were worth as many bullets as it took to preserve them, and with whatever arms we desired. Now we are told our lives are worth only ten bullets. And in New York, our lives are worth three less. We have moved politically from a time of being allowed whatever we thought it might take (in 1925 you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the Sears catalogue for $175.00, with a choice of 20- and 30-round box, or 50- and 100-round drum, magazines) to a time of using only what our elected officials allow us, eroding our freedom of choice.

The dangers of such erosion are plenty, but in plain, on-the-topic language, the central one is this: the dynamics of personal survival during lethal-force encounters has no fixed solution. Imposing fixed ammunition limits upon peaceful people will not save them from the violent. It materially inhibits their ability to counter violence with not merely the number of bullet they may rather have, but a number they may in fact need. This need cannot be known. What we do know is this:

Shooting a bad guy multiple times may not stop him.

But shooting a bad guy multiple times stops him faster than shooting him less.

Anything that inhibits our ability to survive a fight for our lives is a deliberate harm to us and a material assistance to those who would do us harm.

To read a little bit more about what two men experienced with stopping bad guys with guns had to say about the topic, you may find my summary of their experience of interest here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7298826#post7298826

Best of luck with your congresscritter conversation.

.30 cal, no that is actually another different incident but another good example. Here is the one I was thinking of...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495800

I'll update the original post as well.

miamivicedade, Derry 1946 correctly explained what ex post facto in the law means. If they ban possession of something that was previously legal and you continue to possess it, you are breaking a current law. Your current possession, not your past possession, is what is illegal. Ex post facto is when they retroactively make something you did in the past illegal. For example, if they decided to throw me in jail today for riding around Texas with an open container of beer in 1985 (which was legal then) that would be an ex post facto law.

To my understanding, any confiscation would be in direct violation of Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The government can not make you a criminal for something you obtained legally or during a time when it wasn't against the law, and later, pass a law forbidding it and take it from you (or threaten criminal proceedings or action). This is what is known as Ex Post Facto.

Click to expand...

No, unfortunately this is an incorrect understanding of "Ex post facto."

If the legislature says, "walking dogs on Thursday is now illegal, and we will prosecute anyone who walked their dog LAST Thursday..." then THAT would be an ex post facto" law.

Saying that something you owned legally one year is illegal next year and so therefore you can be prosecuted if you own it NEXT year is certainly within the rights of a legislature to make law.

At one point, there was no law against possession of cocaine. Now there is. You could own it and use it before the law was passed -- and having done so THEN does not constitute a violation of the law NOW. But possessing it NOW would.

If a prosecutor found a picture of you with a big pile of cocaine and a copy of the newspaper from the week before the law went into effect, and they tried to prosecute you for that possession PRIOR to the law, that would be an ex post facto prosecution and would be thrown out. If you STILL have that cocaine the week AFTER the law goes into effect, SURE they can nail you for it.

How many people have possessed the same bag of cocaine for the past 70 years?

How many people have possessed the same bag of cocaine for the past 70 years?

Click to expand...

I have no idea. Not my scene.

Not relevant to the issue however, as it STILL isn't an ex post facto law to outlaw that bag of cocaine that's a family heirloom.


...

But if you snorted it all up on May 13th, 1959 and it didn't become illegal until 1960 (for example) prosecuting you for HAVING possessed it before would be an ex post facto situation.