An ex post facto crime would involve punishing you for possessing a firearm that was legal at the time.
If we make firearm X illegal, owners of firearm X are NOT in legal trouble for anything they did befire firearm X became illegal. If they choose to keep the gun, thus violating the law, they are in legal trouble from the day becomes illegal, for the act of possessing an illegal firearm while it is illegal to do so.
That’s not the amusing part, it’s the part where you think the government bans something, like heroin, and is responsible for buying up everyone’s heroin at a fair market price, because taking away someone’s heroin is taking it for “public use”.
The Cops never paid me for my firecrackers.
Like I said, really hard to tell what your point was.
And what if it becomes permanent, and it is found that the person is not mentally sound enough to be around guns, should they be compensated for their collection? If someone commits a crime, and becomes a felon and no longer eligible to own a gun, do they need to be compensated for their guns(the ones not involved in the crime)?
Except, of course, possession of an illegal firearm.
I didn’t realize that’s where you were going with that.
Maybe, but you were the only one who was talking about banning. If that’s something that you want to talk about, maybe you should start a thread about it.
Personally, I was just trying to figure out in what context you partially quoted the fifth amendment, and what point you thought you made when you did so. And further, I found your “public use” = “good of the public” to be nonsensical, both legally and logically.
Confiscated firecrackers are the bestest way for a kid to celebrate the 4th!
Crow ~ Kid of a police officer
Suspicions confirmed!
Yeah, if they only confiscate, say a $300 pocket knife that’s 1/16" over the legal length, and they don’t arrest you and book the contraband as evidence then you can safely assume the confiscated item is going home with the cop.
Yes. As I have pointed out, Red Flag laws are only a good idea if there is Due Process, which the ACLU insists upon. I do not think that that is a unreasonable thing to require.
I am a gun owner. I have a pistol with 4 magazines; 2 are the standard 10 round magazines that came with the gun and 2 are 15 round high capacity magazines I bought on their own. I only use the high capacity magazines for target practice at a range. They let me shoot more before I have to reload.
In our state those magazines are illegal to sell starting July 1. If someone charged the store I bought them from 12 years ago with a crime that would be ex post facto.
If they later pass a law making it illegal to even possess them and demand gun owners turn them in or face prosecution, and I insist on keeping them, I would be choosing today to violate a current law. That would not be ex post facto. If I turned them in and then later was charged with possessing them prior to the law being in effect, that is also ex post facto.
The ACLU has raised serious issues regarding some red flag laws, which may be broad or skewed enough to be unconstitutional as written.
But as discussed in the concurrent GD thread on red flag laws, that doesn’t mean that they’re opposed to the whole concept.
(And I take issue with your description of the ACLU as “not friendly to gun owners”. They’re definitely not friendly to the recklessly exaggerated interpretations of gun rights being promoted by many gun owners and the arms-industry shills that purport to stand with them, but that’s not the same thing.)
They aren’t. They are not particularly hostile, true, nor given to gun hagiographies, but in general, they are not friendly. At best- neutral.
The ACLU does not believe in the individual right to bear arms. Even though SCTUS ruled there is such a right and most states have an individual right in their state constitutions.
If that’s not being unfriendly to gun owners I don’t know what is.
Cite?
Cite? Their page disagrees with this, it says they believe in reasonable restrictions so long as they don’t violate civil rights.
The money quote,
{…} Lawmakers across the country are currently considering a range of gun control measures. The American Civil Liberties Union firmly believes that legislatures can, consistent with the Constitution, impose reasonable limits on firearms sale, ownership, and use, without raising civil liberties concerns. We recognize, as the Supreme Court has stated, that the Constitution does not confer a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” But some proposed reforms encroach unnecessarily on civil liberties. {…}
How that is “being unfriendly to gun owners” I don’t know.
It does appear to be in a number of states’ constitutions. I can’t be arsed to count them up:
But this is a really textbook example of a meaningless tautology. It’s like saying that wealthy Americans pay every dollar of taxes that they are required to pay under the law.
The law that they, themselves, craft.
Or when Dick Cheney said something to a NYT reporter during the Iraq War, and then went on the Sunday talk show circuit and ‘cited the NYT’ as evidence that his statement was true.
Gee. Duh.
It’s really way, WAY past time to change tactics from trying to decide the direction this issue takes based on reflexive and immutable ideology, and to instead figure out what kind of public policy makes the most sense based on data, critical analysis, rational thought, and a global view of best and worst practices.
ISTM that “Murica ! Freedom !” just isn’t getting it done at this point, any more than “thoughts and prayers.”
[sorry for the slight threadjack]
I think it’s the part where gun owners don’t get to “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. Rules aren’t friendly.
Forget that. How is it evidence that
???
Unfortunately, we live in the United States of America.