gc70
Member
Frank Ettin said:No, you missed some critical language in the First Circuit's decision.
But first we need to be clear that in the case we're looking at (Cases v. United States, (1st Cir. 1942)) did not find the law at issue, the Federal Firearms Act, to be expost facto.
I missed neither the verdict or rationale for the ruling in Cases, which reflect the substantial barriers to challenging a law on ex post facto grounds. But the court did articulate a basis -the lack of legislative power to regulate- for finding a law to be ex post facto.
An ex post facto challenge to Lautenberg, as popular as the idea would be with many gun owners, would be the least likely or productive avenue of attack. A due process challenge would probably be successful long before (if ever) the legislative power to regulate within the realm of the Second Amendment is pushed back by the courts to the extent of achieving a favorable ex post facto ruling.
Nevertheless, the OP was about the Lautenberg Amendment as an ex post facto law, not the best approach to overturning Lautenberg.