-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 108015)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1144 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 154354566840.png - (711.44KB , 1460x166 , LoopyHuey.png )
108015 No. 108015 ID: 8d1998
I've had a recent talk with someone and it has effected me that I've done a complete 180 on the need for State level regulation of automatic weapons from being fully against to in full support of specific regulations. Think of our children.

Picture most definitely related. Seriously, I highlighted it and everything so I'd look at it.
Expand all images
>> No. 108047 ID: 5c87e8
you see the other loophole on that one is that where the constitution of the government united states, it's very being and soul, opens with "we the people" so when the law claims a right to do such and such to place the government above the law as in this case an claims that right for "the united states" they're claiming that for you. you're part of the united states, you're one of us "we the peoples".
it is also nice to note that the people who composed that legislation way back when were educate and skilled enough to obey the no ipso facto claws (rawr) and allow current owners to keep their legal full auto guns. the people trying to ban hi capacity mags don't seem to be as educated, they have a "turn them in" mentality.
>> No. 108048 ID: e56201
>no ipso facto claws
Do you mean Ex Post Facto? It's one of my pet peeves when people bring that up in discussions of gun bans. It just means they can't punish you for the act of having bought a gun (or whatever) that was legal at the time you bought it. It doesn't mean they can't criminalize possession of it going forward. It's a pretty simple distinction and people get it wrong ALL THE DAMN TIME.
>> No. 108049 ID: 7ba92e
  Yes, ex post facto (retroactive) criminal laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Ex post facto laws are allowed in civil matters, administrative laws, or in criminal matters that do not strictly create a punishment, such as in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because "these laws do not impose any kind of punishment".

BUT... ex post facto laws may apply to gun possession rights. In the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense. United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

In criminal law, ex post facto laws 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. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://youtu.be/-RZrFWOVugY
>> No. 108050 ID: 7b08d9
>sentenced to up to ten years
>not punitive
>> No. 108051 ID: 7ba92e
File 154523050781.jpg - (117.03KB , 1200x887 , Law, prison cell 6.jpg )
Yeah, I provided the case and citation because people just might not believe that one! A person that has legally purchased firearms but later was charged with (not necessarily convicted) misdemeanor domestic abuse or had a restraining order placed on him better get rid of all of his guns immediately because if he is caught in possession of even a previously legally-obtained firearm, it means ten years in prison. This may be a tactic for using a restraining order to get a spouse or other person arrested for gun possession.

If I remember right, keeping your illegal weapons at a relative's or friend's house (or a storage locker) until your case is adjudicated may not be good enough as the courts may see you are still in constructive possession of the weapons because of your easy access to them.

Here's the whole appellate decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post