Confiscation: The First Attempt

[Jerry]

What do I do, I support groups that are waging the fight to protect our rights. I also am pretty much a single issue voter. How who I vote for depends on their record on the 2A.
But you bend over and hand over your guns. I will not. I will die in a pile of my own brass before handing them over.

"Supporting groups" is exactly the same as doing nothing at all, because while you're "supporting groups" the law will still exist and be enforced. Show a cop in CA a 30rnd mag and don't forget to keep "supporting groups" while you're in prison.

A ton of folks support the NRA but look at all the gun control laws that are still out there. Paying a dues to a group doesn't delete the ATF from the face of the earth, so "supporting groups" is a complete wast of time and money. When a gang-banger pulls a knife on you, are you going to kick back and "support groups" or are you going to pull your gun and kill him? Now suppose the gang is the State. Same thing.

The problem is we let the gang get to big, and We the People to weak, because the gang pays us off with social programs.

 

[CRUE CAB]

"Supporting groups" is exactly the same as doing nothing at all, because while you're "supporting groups" the law will still exist and be enforced.

Show a cop in CA a 30rnd mag and don't forget to keep "supporting groups" while you're in prison.

Why on earth would I go to California?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why on earth would I go to California?

you want to have transgendered reassignment surgery?

good point

 

[Jerry]

Why on earth would I go to California?

This thread is about California and their new gun laws. I don't know why you would go to California, and I don't care. That has nothing to do with anything. When California passes their new laws, every single gun owner will bend over and take it. No one is interested in actually keeping the government in check so long as those ObamaPhones, food stamps and Same-Sex marriage licenses don't run out.

 

[Wiseone]

do you not see the word......criminal nature......meaning no criminality (at all) can be tied to any retro-active law.

according to you logic, any product i but ,which would be legal when i purchased it, when its banned, i can go to jail or pay fines over it if i dont surrender it.....

James Madison--Col: Mason moved to strike out from the clause (art I sect 9.) "No bill of attainder nor any expost facto law shall be passed" the words "nor any ex post facto law". He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature--and no Legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in Civil cases.

Georage Mason--Both the general legislature and the State legislature are expressly prohibited making ex post facto laws; though there never was nor can be a legislature but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them; which will hereafter be a breach of all the constitutions in the Union, and afford precedents for other innovations.

so you are not arguing against me........you are arguing against Madison and George Mason

What was prohibition then?

By the way, citing people talking about how ex post facto laws shouldn't be allowed doesn't back up your claim to what ex post facto means. Why not show me a quote from a judge that says confiscation of once legally purchased items is illegal under ex post facto.

Of course you can't because no Judge has ever made such a ruling, and they've let stand laws like prohibition which was the confiscation and destruction of once legally purchased items from their current owners. Yet somehow you know better than 200 odd years of judicial rulings

 

[Master PO]

What was prohibition then?

By the way, citing people talking about how ex post facto laws shouldn't be allowed doesn't back up your claim to what ex post facto means. Why not show me a quote from a judge that says confiscation of once legally purchased items is illegal under ex post facto.

Of course you can't because no Judge has ever made such a ruling, and they've let stand laws like prohibition which was the confiscation and destruction of once legally purchased items from their current owners. Yet somehow you know better than 200 odd years of judicial rulings

ex post facto is constitutional law.

prohibition was constitutional law......therefore constitutional before being repealed.....it followed the legal process.

state laws do not override constitution law.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

18th Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

 

[Jerry]

So if you have 10 mags for a handgun, many of which are $30 to $40 each and more for extended mags.
You are just supposed to "give away" three to four hundred dollars of your personal property?
And if you dont, what will be the level of proof before issuing a warrant to search your homes.
This is the slippery slope that everone has talked about for years. Welcome to the top of the slope.

A lot of people just think gun control is about guns. Look at what's going on. Forget that guns are the object for a moment. It's one thing if CA wants to restrict accessories, but they're taking away your property without compensation. That's a 5th amendment violation. If they can take a gun magazine that establishes legal precedent to start taking other private property.

And you mother****ers in CA are going to sit back and let it happen.

 

[Master PO]

A lot of people just think gun control is about guns. Look at what's going on. Forget that guns are the object for a moment. It's one thing if CA wants to restrict accessories, but they're taking away your property without compensation. That's a 5th amendment violation. If they can take a gun magazine that establishes legal precedent to start taking other private property.

And you mother****ers in CA are going to sit back and let it happen.

you are correct it the taking of property also without compensation, let alone being an illegal retro-active law.

 

[joko104]

The California legislature moved ahead with a measure Friday night that will require CA gun owners to turn in any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can't be "fixed" to hold only 10 rounds. The legislative act will provide a 90 day window starting Jan. 1, 2014 and concluding near the end of March for gun owners to comply. Failure to comply and end up in possession of a hi cap magazine will result in a misdemeanor "gun" charge. A few misdemeanors with a specific "gun" relation bar the convicted from future ownership of firearms. The legislative action does not call for door to door collection of hi cap magazines but does mandate anyone with a business license (IE shooting ranges) turn over offenders or face termination of their license.

I'm sure the LA street gangs will line up to comply. Glad I was able to relocate all my hi caps to the lake front property in NV before this quagmire kicks in.

This is an EXTREME law that goes beyond outlawing magazines holding more than 10 rounds. If that were the sole goal, the law would simply outlaw them for which people would have to destroy or dispose of them.

THIS LAW wants to know WHO has 10 round magazines, thus requires that you turn them in. Thus, they have your name and info - likely also as a public record. Then the gun haters will have a photo op showing themselves in front of a pile of magazines to prove they are eliminating the magazines from the American terrorists whose names they now have - and you can have too.

For anyone who just gets rid of them or they have anyone who says you had one - now they can send SWAT to burst into your house in the middle of the night since you didn't report yourself as such an owner and turn them in - so forget about the "right to remain silent" and goodbye "right to not incriminate yourself" - instead you are required to do so - and failure to do so incriminates you. Your crime thus is remaining silent.

This is another reason most gun enthusiasts and gun rights supporters spell it "Kalifornia." It's gestapo magazine roundup time.

 

[Gaius46]

ex post facto is constitutional law.

prohibition was constitutional law......therefore constitutional before being repealed.....it followed the legal process.

state laws do not override constitution law.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

18th Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The point though is that it is not an ex post facto law. It would be an ex post facto law if it it applied to possession prior to the enactment of the law. It does not do that. It applies to continued possession after the law is passed. This law is not retroactively criminalizing past behavior. It is criminalizing future behavior. In essence an ex post facto law is back dated. This is not the case here.

Or as my legal dictionary puts it ".....(ex post facto law) has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed"

Clearly speaking in the past tense. Ex post facto law refers to past acts.

All that aside it's a dumb law, passed by equally dumb individuals.

 

[joko104]

you are correct it the taking of property also without compensation, let alone being an illegal retro-active law.

Actually, demanding they be turned in - as opposed to not possessing them - IS taking property without compensation. A good class action lawsuit.

 

[Master PO]

Actually, demanding they be turned in - as opposed to not possessing them - IS taking property without compensation. A good class action lawsuit.

if you are caught with a magazine which this law speaks of, the government will confiscate it, and charge you with a crime...i dont see how a lawsuit will not be filed on this.

 

[Master PO]

The point though is that it is not an ex post facto law. It would be an ex post facto law if it it applied to possession prior to the enactment of the law. It does not do that. It applies to continued possession after the law is passed. This law is not retroactively criminalizing past behavior. It is criminalizing future behavior. In essence an ex post facto law is back dated. This is not the case here.

Or as my legal dictionary puts it ".....(ex post facto law) has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed"

Clearly speaking in the past tense. Ex post facto law refers to past acts.

All that aside it's a dumb law, passed by equally dumb individuals.

you have purchased a product which was legal to own.

now they have created a law which makes it illegal to own, and if caught the product will be taken and you have committed a crime.

nothing criminal, can be tied to any law for something you have which was once legal when you acquired it.

even the 18th amendment to the constitution did not take away your liquor.............it stated it cannot be ......manufactured, sold or transported.

 

[Wiseone]

ex post facto is constitutional law.

prohibition was constitutional law......therefore constitutional before being repealed.....it followed the legal process.

state laws do not override constitution law.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

18th Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Seriously, do you have any argument besides constantly quoting me the text forbidding an ex post facto law? Do you have a court case where a judge ruled confiscation of once legal products is ex post facto?

Let me use another example, one outside of a Constitutional amendment like prohibition, where will I find an example of the government turning a once legal product into something illegal and charging people under the law for possession?? Where o where? O hey how about drugs?

What we consider illegal drugs today were at one point perfectly legal things to buy own use and posses, roughly 100 years ago states and the Federal Government started restricting their sale and purchase, their use, and eventually outright banned their possession by just about anyone. A once legal product was not illegal and being forcibly confiscated by police, sound familiar to this? And you're telling me that in 100 years of drug laws, no one has thought of "ex post facto" to repeal them? Of course they haven't, because it makes no sense as that's not what ex post facto means, you'll never find a single drug case citing ex post facto from any period in US history as a defense against possession.

Just because something was once legal doesn't mean the government can never make that thing illegal ever, all "ex post facto" means is that they cannot prosecute you for actions that are in the current day illegal but were legal when you did them.

Tell me how drugs and magazines are different from a legal perspective.

 

[Gaius46]

you have purchased a product which was legal to own.

now they have created a law which makes it illegal to own, and if caught the product will be taken and you have committed a crime.

nothing criminal, can be tied to any law for something you have which was once legal when you acquired it.

even the 18th amendment to the constitution did not take away your liquor.............it stated it cannot be ......manufactured, sold or transported.

You're wrong about the definition of ex post facto. That is not what it means. It means you cannot criminalize - or make more criminal - past acts. It says nothing about criminalizing that behavior going forward.


If driving a car without a license was legal on 12/31/1920 you can pass a law on 1/1/1921 making driving a car without a license a misdeamenor. No one would argue that you cannot. Further you can arrest anyone who legally drove a car without a license on 12/31/1920 if they continued to drive without a license on 1/2/1921. What you cannot do on 1/1/1921 is make my driving a car without a license on 12/31/1920 illegal. That is what ex post facto means and it is exactly analogous to the case at hand.

 

[Master PO]

Seriously, do you have any argument besides constantly quoting me the text forbidding an ex post facto law? Do you have a court case where a judge ruled confiscation of once legal products is ex post facto?

Let me use another example, one outside of a Constitutional amendment like prohibition, where will I find an example of the government turning a once legal product into something illegal and charging people under the law for possession?? Where o where? O hey how about drugs?

What we consider illegal drugs today were at one point perfectly legal things to buy own use and posses, roughly 100 years ago states and the Federal Government started restricting their sale and purchase, their use, and eventually outright banned their possession by just about anyone. A once legal product was not illegal and being forcibly confiscated by police, sound familiar to this? And you're telling me that in 100 years of drug laws, no one has thought of "ex post facto" to repeal them? Of course they haven't, because it makes no sense as that's not what ex post facto means, you'll never find a single drug case citing ex post facto from any period in US history as a defense against possession.

Just because something was once legal doesn't mean the government can never make that thing illegal ever, all "ex post facto" means is that they cannot prosecute you for actions that are in the current day illegal but were legal when you did them.

Tell me how drugs and magazines are different from a legal perspective.

so according to your logic, government can make criminals out law abiding people who have preformed no action what so ever.

i but a product 10 years ago, and put it on a shelf, so therefore i am a criminal, even though i have not done anything.

so again according to you logic, it the government say wants to go after a group of people, and say they find out that this group owns 100,000 rounds of ammo.

then government can make a law, which limits ammo to 5,000 rounds, and put this group in jail becuase they have more than the law allows....

government does not have authority to turn people into criminals,....... only a person can do that to himself by committing an illegal action.

 

[Master PO]

You're wrong about the definition of ex post facto. That is not what it means. It means you cannot criminalize - or make more criminal - past acts. It says nothing about criminalizing that behavior going forward.


If driving a car without a license was legal on 12/31/1920 you can pass a law on 1/1/1921 making driving a car without a license a misdeamenor. No one would argue that you cannot. Further you can arrest anyone who legally drove a car without a license on 12/31/1920 if they continued to drive without a license on 1/2/1921. What you cannot do on 1/1/1921 is make my driving a car without a license on 12/31/1920 illegal. That is what ex post facto means and it is exactly analogous to the case at hand.

really?.......

The California legislature moved ahead with a measure Friday night that will require CA gun owners to turn in any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can't be "fixed" to hold only 10 rounds........ Failure to comply and end up in possession of a hi cap magazine will result in a misdemeanor "gun" charge

a misdemeanor is a crime

 

[Gaius46]

really?.......

The California legislature moved ahead with a measure Friday night that will require CA gun owners to turn in any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can't be "fixed" to hold only 10 rounds........ Failure to comply and end up in possession of a hi cap magazine will result in a misdemeanor "gun" charge

a misdemeanor is a crime

Yes really.....

What the California legislature has done is criminalize the CONTINUED POSSESSION of those magazine. CONTINUED POSSESSION, not past possession. That is not ex post facto. The PAST ACTS of buying and owning those magazines is not a crime. The FUTURE POSSESSION is. I cannot make it any clearer.

By your logic my example would be an ex post facto law and it certainly is not.
And by your logic we'd never need grandfather clauses, but their use is routine.

 

[Jerry]

Yes really.....

What the California legislature has done is criminalize the CONTINUED POSSESSION of those magazine. CONTINUED POSSESSION, not past possession. That is not ex post facto. The PAST ACTS of buying and owning those magazines is not a crime. The FUTURE POSSESSION is. I cannot make it any clearer.

By your logic my example would be an ex post facto law and it certainly is not.
And by your logic we'd never need grandfather clauses, but their use is routine.

CA won't let anyone grandfather their mags.

 

[Master PO]

Yes really.....

What the California legislature has done is criminalize the CONTINUED POSSESSION of those magazine. CONTINUED POSSESSION, not past possession. That is not ex post facto. The PAST ACTS of buying and owning those magazines is not a crime. The FUTURE POSSESSION is. I cannot make it any clearer.

By your logic my example would be an ex post facto law and it certainly is not.
And by your logic we'd never need grandfather clauses, but their use is routine.

what is POSSESSION........it means owning.?

what i own today is legal product , and tomorrow its an illegal product, and i am a criminal for having it........not even the ridiculous argument by the other guy, for the 18th amendment even took away liquor from people who purchased it legally.

so we are going to disagree.

 

[CRUE CAB]

This is what they love. Make them all sit around arguing what "is" is. While we continue to erode their rights.

 

[Gaius46]

what is POSSESSION........it means owning.?

what i own today is legal product , and tomorrow its an illegal product, and i am a criminal for having it........not even the ridiculous argument by the other guy, for the 18th amendment even took away liquor from people who purchased it legally.

so we are going to disagree.

I guess so.

Yes future owning is illegal. But outlawing future owning does not make it an ex post facto law. Only outlawing past owning.

Look I agree with you it's a bad law. It's just not an ex post facto law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"Law abiding" by definition means going along with any rule the government dreams up, including gun bans. In order to keep the government in check with a gun, one has to at some point be disobeying a law, such as possessing a 30rnd mag in CA, because it is that law which is the problem. Then you have to stop the cop from enforcing that law, which is a felony, and then you have to remove the lawmakers who wrote the rule in the first place, which is a list of more felonies. That makes keeping the government in check a criminal act.

No one on this forum is going to do that.

The Constitutions is the highest law of this nation. Any lesser “law” which contradicts it is invalid, and nobody is obligated to obey such a law in order to be “law-abiding”.

A police officer who willfully attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law is a criminal, and should expect to be treated as such. Any authority that his position entails ends where he crosses that line.

 

[Master PO]

I guess so.

Yes future owning is illegal. But outlawing future owning does not make it an ex post facto law. Only outlawing past owning.

Look I agree with you it's a bad law. It's just not an ex post facto law.

that might be, but i see it that way, since they are making you criminal, becuase of something you have in your possession today , which was legal the day before...that is defining you as a criminal, and government does not have that authority to do that.

as before even the 18th did not make it illegal to own liquor.......it made further manufacture, sale and transportation of it illegal.

ex post facto laws, give government the ability use their power against ,[those who they see as troublesome] for many different reasons...... which is why they are dangerous.

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, 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;

possession is an action...

 

[Jerry]

The Constitutions is the highest law of this nation. Any lesser “law” which contradicts it is invalid, and nobody is obligated to obey such a law in order to be “law-abiding”.

A police officer who willfully attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law is a criminal, and should expect to be treated as such. Any authority that his position entails ends where he crosses that line.

I agree, but as a people we tend to let the authorities ignore the rules.

We are not a nation of laws, and we do not respect the rule of law.