Confiscation: The First Attempt

[CalGun]

Oh so correct,

We are a nation of the laws that leftists want to enforce and laws that leftist say we can ignored (immigration).
Its ok to break the law by coming here without following the rules of immigration, its all right to lie about your
income and claim EBT (I have seen a business owner brag about doing it - I wanted to get him on tape but he
was smart enough not to let me). We have super / elitist wealthy that can ignore anti trust laws, insider trading
rules don't apply to congress (last congress tried to install them this congress took them back out - shocking),
but if you or I shaft the IRS look out, skip obamacare and see what happens, violate a hi cap magazine ban
and they will take away every gun you own and add you to a list forbidding you to own one again.

Our nations one of laws - the ones the leftist and elitist have selected to enforce - period.

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.

 

[Wiseone]

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.

You're trying to change the topic because you can't justify your statement that the government cannot make a once legal product illegal and prosecute you for owning it once it becomes illegal. Until you can explain why the ex post facto defense has never been used against any current drug law, or during prohibition, if they both violate ex post facto then you have no argument whatsoever.

 

[PirateMk1]

That's not what ex post facto means.

Ex post facto. Literally after the fact. These owners have the mags prior to the passage of the law, which out laws them. Hence unconstitutional.

 

[PirateMk1]

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.

Theory and reality are two very different things unfortunately.

 

[PirateMk1]

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.

I wish we could say we are fighting. But that would be dishonest. Quite frankly the libs have FULL control and there is very little legally we can do about it. We are pretty much screwed blued and tattooed.

 

[Wiseone]

Ex post facto. Literally after the fact. These owners have the mags prior to the passage of the law, which out laws them. Hence unconstitutional.

Like alcohol? Like drugs? What's unconstitutional would be making a law that retroactively made it a crime to purchase/own a magazine, as it is that's not the case because NO ONE will be prosecuted for owning/purchasing these mags prior to when the law goes into affect.

Let me break it down another way, the law goes into affect on 1JAN14, meaning that it would be impossible for the state to prosecute you for owning or having purchased a magazine prior to that date doing so would violate ex post facto. It would also violate ex post facto if the law in question went into affect at a date in the past, but again that's not the case here since 1JAN14 is in the future. However, anyone who owns or purchases one of these magazines after or on 1JAN14 will be in violation of the law, and even if you bought the magazine before 1JAN14 the state will be unable to prosecute you for owning it during any time period prior to 1JAN14 because the law wasn't in affect yet.

Look, I agree this ban and law is stupid, I disagree with it. But to call it ex post facto is simply untrue, if you for some reason owned some cocaine prior to when it was made illegal to posses the government can still prosecute you for possession of a controlled substance even thought it was legal when it was purchased. THIS IS NO DAMN DIFFERENT.

 

[Wiseone]

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.

Theory and reality are two very different things unfortunately.

Except don't forget that you have no direct ability to determine that in most cases, individual citizens cannot determine how the law is applied on an individual basis.

 

[PirateMk1]

Like alcohol? Like drugs? What's unconstitutional would be making a law that retroactively made it a crime to purchase/own a magazine, as it is that's not the case because NO ONE will be prosecuted for owning/purchasing these mags prior to when the law goes into affect.

Let me break it down another way, the law goes into affect on 1JAN14, meaning that it would be impossible for the state to prosecute you for owning or having purchased a magazine prior to that date doing so would violate ex post facto. It would also violate ex post facto if the law in question went into affect at a date in the past, but again that's not the case here since 1JAN14 is in the future. However, anyone who owns or purchases one of these magazines after or on 1JAN14 will be in violation of the law, and even if you bought the magazine before 1JAN14 the state will be unable to prosecute you for owning it during any time period prior to 1JAN14 because the law wasn't in affect yet.

Look, I agree this ban and law is stupid, I disagree with it. But to call it ex post facto is simply untrue, if you for some reason owned some cocaine prior to when it was made illegal to posses the government can still prosecute you for possession of a controlled substance even thought it was legal when it was purchased. THIS IS NO DAMN DIFFERENT.

Your right they are both no different and they are both ex post facto and violations of the 5th amendment as well.

 

[CalGun]

I agree the ex post facto won't help the people of CA defend it, but that doesn't mean the judges will automatically allow it to stand either. The state passed a similar rule several years ago and in the process it was determined to grand father existing "units" in place rather than try and "confiscate" them. I'm curious why the anti's feel like they can confiscate property again. I did not read anything in the law that says they are gong to pay for the magazines turned in?

BTW the previous law did not outlaw people buying parts of magazines and repairing their magazines - it set off a "parts kit" revolution to which gun owners in CA still enjoyed many hi cap magazines by buying all of the parts and assembling them - legally.

Is it not an illegal taking of property to require one to turn in an item or destroy it? I would think that would be an eminent domain issue which typically only applies to real estate, but this still seems like an unlawful taking of one's property.

Like alcohol? Like drugs? What's unconstitutional would be making a law that retroactively made it a crime to purchase/own a magazine, as it is that's not the case because NO ONE will be prosecuted for owning/purchasing these mags prior to when the law goes into affect.

Let me break it down another way, the law goes into affect on 1JAN14, meaning that it would be impossible for the state to prosecute you for owning or having purchased a magazine prior to that date doing so would violate ex post facto. It would also violate ex post facto if the law in question went into affect at a date in the past, but again that's not the case here since 1JAN14 is in the future. However, anyone who owns or purchases one of these magazines after or on 1JAN14 will be in violation of the law, and even if you bought the magazine before 1JAN14 the state will be unable to prosecute you for owning it during any time period prior to 1JAN14 because the law wasn't in affect yet.

Look, I agree this ban and law is stupid, I disagree with it. But to call it ex post facto is simply untrue, if you for some reason owned some cocaine prior to when it was made illegal to posses the government can still prosecute you for possession of a controlled substance even thought it was legal when it was purchased. THIS IS NO DAMN DIFFERENT.

 

[Wiseone]

Your right they are both no different and they are both ex post facto and violations of the 5th amendment as well.

Maybe in your personal opinion but that's not how ex post facto has been applied since the Constitution was written, so basically your opinion is that since Day 1 the Constitution has been implemented incorrectly which is a pretty arrogant argument to make that 200+ years of legal and judical history has all been wrong.

 

[Wiseone]

I agree the ex post facto won't help the people of CA defend it, but that doesn't mean the judges will automatically allow it to stand either. The state passed a similar rule several years ago and in the process it was determined to grand father existing "units" in place rather than try and "confiscate" them. I'm curious why the anti's feel like they can confiscate property again. I did not read anything in the law that says they are gong to pay for the magazines turned in?

BTW the previous law did not outlaw people buying parts of magazines and repairing their magazines - it set off a "parts kit" revolution to which gun owners in CA still enjoyed many hi cap magazines by buying all of the parts and assembling them - legally.

Is it not an illegal taking of property to require one to turn in an item or destroy it? I would think that would be an eminent domain issue which typically only applies to real estate, but this still seems like an unlawful taking of one's property.

Thank you for a much more reasonable argument.

 

[Crimefree]

Gun Confiscation Begins In California

Did they say never happen here? Are you saying never happen here the people will rise up... Fact is they will not rise up if they will not fight now. Why would they if they accept gun control now? It is never to late to start objecting becasue this is what happens when we don't.

You can check Louisiana during hurricane Katrina for the prototype government testing peoples reaction to mass confiscation. A success, little to no objection from the public. They could not care less. It is time to change that.

Gun Confiscation Begins In California - YouTube

 

[Master PO]

You're trying to change the topic because you can't justify your statement that the government cannot make a once legal product illegal and prosecute you for owning it once it becomes illegal. Until you can explain why the ex post facto defense has never been used against any current drug law, or during prohibition, if they both violate ex post facto then you have no argument whatsoever.

really............ here is the court on ex post facto law, and the 4 things which make it an ex post facto law.

Calder v. Bull 1798

I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done [ ownership] before the passing of the law, and which was innocent [lawful] when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

The words, ex post facto, when applied to a law, have a technical meaning, and, in legal phraseology, refer to crimes, pains and penalties. Judge Blackstone's description of the terms is clear and accurate. "There is," says he, "a still more unreasonable method than this, which is called making of laws, ex post facto, when, after an action, indifferent in itself, is committed, the legislature, then, for the first time, declares it to have been a crime, and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has committed it.

before this law.... my purchase and ownership [ which is an action ] of the product was legal, by this law it makes my legal ownership now illegal and myself a criminal.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s10.html

 

[Master PO]

“…Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.

They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding…” James Madison, The Federalist No. 44, Friday, January 25, 1788

 

[Wiseone]

really............ here is the court on ex post facto law, and the 4 things which make it an ex post facto law.

Calder v. Bull 1798

I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done [ ownership] before the passing of the law, and which was innocent [lawful] when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

The words, ex post facto, when applied to a law, have a technical meaning, and, in legal phraseology, refer to crimes, pains and penalties. Judge Blackstone's description of the terms is clear and accurate. "There is," says he, "a still more unreasonable method than this, which is called making of laws, ex post facto, when, after an action, indifferent in itself, is committed, the legislature, then, for the first time, declares it to have been a crime, and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has committed it.

before this law.... my purchase and ownership [ which is an action ] of the product was legal, by this law it makes my legal ownership now illegal and myself a criminal.


Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: Calder v. Bull

The california law does not make it a crime to have purchases or to own a magazine prior to 1JAN14 when the law goes into affect, hence its not ex post facto because no one is going to be charged for purchasing or owner prior to that date.

In other words, the "action" is purchasing or owning one of these magazines, California has decided to make this illegal for all purchases and ownership after 1JAN14 therefore its not "after the action" because literally no one in the world has purchased or has owned a magazine after 1JAN14 because 1JAN14 is still in the future.

In other words because the law goes into affect 1JAN14, it makes all ownership and purchases of these magazines after that date illegal, however since 1JAN14 is still in the future no one has purchased or owned a magazine after 1JAN14 therefore you cannot complain that owning/purchasing a magazine after the date of 1JAN14 is "after the action" since no one has committed the act of owning/purchasing a magazine on 1JAN14 or after.

Look, until you can point out why alcohol and drugs were banned and confisicated and not a single court overthrew those laws for violating ex post facto, and not a single defense lawyer even attempted to present that argument than you have no ground to stand on. You cannot tell me that confisication of an "formerly legal" product is a violation of ex post facto when that very same fact has been occuring nationally in this country for the better part of a century and NOT A SINGLE PERSON has presented ex post facto as a defense or argument against it.

 

[Crimefree]

The california law does not make it a crime to have purchases or to own a magazine prior to 1JAN14 when the law goes into affect, hence its not ex post facto because no one is going to be charged for purchasing or owner prior to that date.

In other words, the "action" is purchasing or owning one of these magazines, California has decided to make this illegal for all purchases and ownership after 1JAN14 therefore its not "after the action" because literally no one in the world has purchased or has owned a magazine after 1JAN14 because 1JAN14 is still in the future.

In other words because the law goes into affect 1JAN14, it makes all ownership and purchases of these magazines after that date illegal, however since 1JAN14 is still in the future no one has purchased or owned a magazine after 1JAN14 therefore you cannot complain that owning/purchasing a magazine after the date of 1JAN14 is "after the action" since no one has committed the act of owning/purchasing a magazine on 1JAN14 or after.

Look, until you can point out why alcohol and drugs were banned and confisicated and not a single court overthrew those laws for violating ex post facto, and not a single defense lawyer even attempted to present that argument than you have no ground to stand on. You cannot tell me that confisication of an "formerly legal" product is a violation of ex post facto when that very same fact has been occuring nationally in this country for the better part of a century and NOT A SINGLE PERSON has presented ex post facto as a defense or argument against it.

Alcohol in the USA was banned after one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in history exceeded only now by gun control.

The war on drugs is like gun control a monument to man's continuous stupidity in believing the control of objects can change or rehabilitate people without any proof or even vague evidence of the mechanism of this ridiculous assumed ability to control actions. There is more written on gun control that any other subject yet not one study has identified this magic means objects use to control people and influence their decisions. Nobody even questions its existence. It is just accepted. It is a BELIEF based on propaganda.

There is no argument both the laws and people are an ass but in the case of guns the supreme laws based on our Creator given rights state clearly "shall not be infringed". How do you interpret that? Who gives the law the power to decide it may be infringed if or when...

The law is simply what citizens say it is and agree to. However the power of the majority is also limited in protection of the minorities rights. Government in its illegitimate quest for control tells citizens the majority rules and punishes those who object enforcing and reinforcing its incorrect agenda driven objectives. Control.

There is no point in arguing semantics when the principle is flawed. Government has no legal right to make such laws but if the people do not object and the watch dogs are to stupid and lazy to inform the people the people get the laws they deserve. Unproven "It's for the public good" is not a legal argument when rights are in the balance. It is emotional blackmail.

Prohibition: Roots of Prohibition | PBS

You may note the similarities to all propaganda campaigns including gun control and the war on drugs. All of these are social problems and point to bad governance and management of the causes of these problems. Under what pretence of sanity do we *believe* the lies of agenda driven people who manipulate the system for their own desires and benefit?

===

Federal Agencies: Temperance Approach Toward Alcohol

The activists who promoted National Prohibition (1920-1933) acted in a time when there was little scientific knowledge about the effects of alcohol and they had strange ideas. Consider these ridiculous assertions:

• Alcohol is the dirtiest drug we have. It permeates and damages all tissue. No other drug can cause the same degree of harm that it does.
• Alcohol is harmful to the body (no level of consumption indicated).
• Alcohol is a poison, and drinking it might lead to death.
• Alcohol is toxic (no level of consumption indicated).
• The effects of alcohol on men (no level of consumption indicated) are that hormone levels change, causing lower sex drive and enlarged breasts.
• Alcohol is a gateway drug leading people into illicit drug use.
• Alcohol (no level of consumption indicated) can cause deterioration of the heart muscle.

Astonishingly, all these statements, which are very misleading at best, were not made by prohibitionists of old but by officials representing governmental agencies of today. Significantly, the comments are not based on scientific evidence but instead seem to reflect a neo-prohibitionist effort to stigmatize alcohol.
The effort to stigmatize alcohol includes promoting the prohibitionist belief that there is no difference between moderate drinking and alcohol abuse--the two are portrayed as one and the same. This leads the U.S. Department of Education, for example, to direct schools and colleges to reject educational programs which promote responsible drinking among adults and instead favor a simplistic call for total abstinence.

Temperance Movement Groups and Leaders in the U.S.

[h=5]American Issue Publishing Company[/h] The American Issue Publishing Company, incorporated in 1909, was the holding company of the Anti-Saloon League of America. Its printing presses operated 24 hours a day and it employed 200 people in the small town of Westerville, Ohio, where the company was headquartered. Within the first three years of its existence, the publishing house was producing about 250,000,000 (one-quarter billion) book pages per month, and the quantity increased yearly. This dwarfed the enormous output of the National Temperance Society and Publishing House, which took over half a century to print one billion pages.
The American Issue Publishing Company played a major role in advancing the interests of the temperance movement. Not only did it publish an enormous quantity of temperance materials but it also produce some of the most prestigious temperance publications, including The Standard Encyclopedia of the Liquor Problem, a multi-volume work edited by Ernest Cherrington and published between 1925 and 1930.

[h=5]Anti-Saloon League[/h] The Anti-Saloon League was a non-partisan organization established in 1893 that focused on the single issue of prohibition. The League had branches across the United States to work with churches in marshalling resources for the prohibition fight.
From 1948 until 1950 it was known as the Temperance League, from 1950 to 1964 it was called the National Temperance League; from then it has been known as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. The current name disguises its prohibitionist agenda.
The best single source of information about the Anti-Saloon League is Peter H. Odegard, Pressure Politics: Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928, reprinted 1966); the League’s archives and other materials are now located at the Anti-Saloon home page (wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/)


[h=5]Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)[/h] CASA has a long record of producing highly suspect papers about alcohol that are later discredited. For example, a researcher "examined some of the references in (a) CASA paper and found the conclusions in the articles to be shockingly different from the way CASA depicted them." Report after report by CASA has been exposed as lacking credibility, leading The Washington Times to observe that CASA has a "proven disdain for the facts."


[h=5]Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY)[/h] The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) was up and funded by the Pew trusts and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The stated mission of CAMY is to monitor "the marketing practices of the alcohol industry to focus attention and action on industry practices that jeopardize the health and safety of America's youth."
CAMY explains that "reducing high rates of underage alcohol consumption and the suffering caused by alcohol-related injuries and death among young people" requires limiting the appeal of alcohol beverages to young people and their access to them." It seeks to create "public outrage" against alcohol advertising to achieve its objective.


[h=5]Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)[/h] The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is not a science center but, by its own admission, a public advocacy action center. CSPI demonstrates a continuing pattern of presenting alarming but erroneous and misleading statistics to promote its agenda. A major goal of CSPI is reducing the alcohol consumption of adults, even among moderate drinkers. A full-time director, George Hacker, and his staff work toward this goal through the group’s Alcohol Policies Project.


[h=5]Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)[/h] The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is a massively-funded federal agency that aggressively promotes the reduction-of-consumption or neo-prohibition approach to reduce alcohol problems: "Less alcohol is always still too much alcohol."
Although it is a federal agency supported by taxpayers, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has long been guilty of illegally misappropriating taxpayer money for lobbying, of censoring citizens with whom it disagrees, of self-servingly distorting statistics, and of using its power to abuse innocent Americans.


[h=5]Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems[/h] The Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems vigorously promotes a temperance agenda and should more accurately be called the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol. It is a coalition of temperance groups co-chaired by George Hacker of the Alcohol Policies Project and Stacia Murphy of the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence (NCADD).
Members of the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems include the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), the American Council on Alcohol Problems (earlier called the Anti-Saloon League), the Temperance League of Kentucky, the General Board of Global Ministries, and the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol Problems.


[h=5]Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)[/h] Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created in 1980 to reduce drunk driving and the death and injury that it can cause. Over time, temperance forces have gained control of MADD and it has largely become anti-alcohol rather than anti-drunk driving.


[h=5]Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AMA)[/h] The American Medical Association (AMA) first passed a resolution supporting abstinence from alcohol even before National Prohibition was imposed in 1920 and continues to support it to this day.

[h=5]Scientific Temperance Federation[/h] The Scientific Temperance Federation was founded in 1906 upon the death of Mary Hunt, head of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’s Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction.

Because of the substantial fortune she had amassed in promoting compulsory temperance education, and the tens of millions of textbooks this required, the Scientific Temperance Federation was able to engage in a wide variety of activities to promote the temperance movement and prohibition. A major nation-wide project was an innovative “Education on Wheels” project that took temperance education directly to people at their homes and farms.


[h=5]Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU)[/h] The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1874 and claims to be the oldest voluntary, non-sectarian women’s organization in continuous existence in the world. WCTU membership peaked at about 200,000 members in the late 19th century.

 

[Wiseone]

Alcohol in the USA was banned after one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in history exceeded only now by gun control.

The war on drugs is like gun control a monument to man's continues stupidity in believing the control of objects can change or rehabilitate people without any proof or even vague evidence of the mechanism of this ridiculous assumed ability to control actions. There is more written on gun control that any other subject yet not one study has identified this magic means objects use to control people and influence their decisions.

there is no argument both the laws and people are an ass but in the gas of guns the supreme laws based on our Creator given rights state clear "shall not be infringed". How do you interpret that. Who gives the law the power to decide it may be infringed if or when...

The law is simply what citizens say it is and agree to and the power of the majority is also limited in protection of the minorities rights. However government in its illegitimate quest for control tells citizens the majority rules and punishes those who object.

There is no point in arguing semantics when the principle is flawed. Government has no legal right to make such laws but if the people do not object and the watch dogs are to stupid and lazy to inform the people get the laws they deserve. Unproven "It's for the public good" is not a legal argument when rights are in the balance. It is emotional blackmail.

Prohibition: Roots of Prohibition | PBS

You may note the similarities to all propaganda campaigns including gun control andf the war on drugs. All of these are social problems and point to bad governance and management of the causes of these problems. Under what pretence of sanity do we *believe* the lies of agenda driven people who manipulate the system for their own desires and benefit?

The activists who promoted National Prohibition (1920-1933) acted in a time when there was little scientific knowledge about the effects of alcohol and they had strange ideas. Consider these ridiculous assertions:

• Alcohol is the dirtiest drug we have. It permeates and damages all tissue. No other drug can cause the same degree of harm that it does.
• Alcohol is harmful to the body (no level of consumption indicated).
• Alcohol is a poison, and drinking it might lead to death.
• Alcohol is toxic (no level of consumption indicated).
• The effects of alcohol on men (no level of consumption indicated) are that hormone levels change, causing lower sex drive and enlarged breasts.
• Alcohol is a gateway drug leading people into illicit drug use.
• Alcohol (no level of consumption indicated) can cause deterioration of the heart muscle.

Astonishingly, all these statements, which are very misleading at best, were not made by prohibitionists of old but by officials representing governmental agencies of today. Significantly, the comments are not based on scientific evidence but instead seem to reflect a neo-prohibitionist effort to stigmatize alcohol.
The effort to stigmatize alcohol includes promoting the prohibitionist belief that there is no difference between moderate drinking and alcohol abuse--the two are portrayed as one and the same. This leads the U.S. Department of Education, for example, to direct schools and colleges to reject educational programs which promote responsible drinking among adults and instead favor a simplistic call for total abstinence.


[h=5]American Issue Publishing Company[/h] The American Issue Publishing Company, incorporated in 1909, was the holding company of the Anti-Saloon League of America. Its printing presses operated 24 hours a day and it employed 200 people in the small town of Westerville, Ohio, where the company was headquartered. Within the first three years of its existence, the publishing house was producing about 250,000,000 (one-quarter billion) book pages per month, and the quantity increased yearly. This dwarfed the enormous output of the National Temperance Society and Publishing House, which took over half a century to print one billion pages.
The American Issue Publishing Company played a major role in advancing the interests of the temperance movement. Not only did it publish an enormous quantity of temperance materials but it also produce some of the most prestigious temperance publications, including The Standard Encyclopedia of the Liquor Problem, a multi-volume work edited by Ernest Cherrington and published between 1925 and 1930.

[h=5]Anti-Saloon League[/h] The Anti-Saloon League was a non-partisan organization established in 1893 that focused on the single issue of prohibition. The League had branches across the United States to work with churches in marshalling resources for the prohibition fight.
From 1948 until 1950 it was known as the Temperance League, from 1950 to 1964 it was called the National Temperance League; from then it has been known as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. The current name disguises its prohibitionist agenda.
The best single source of information about the Anti-Saloon League is Peter H. Odegard, Pressure Politics: Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928, reprinted 1966); the League’s archives and other materials are now located at the Anti-Saloon home page (wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/)


[h=5]Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)[/h] CASA has a long record of producing highly suspect papers about alcohol that are later discredited. For example, a researcher "examined some of the references in (a) CASA paper and found the conclusions in the articles to be shockingly different from the way CASA depicted them." Report after report by CASA has been exposed as lacking credibility, leading The Washington Times to observe that CASA has a "proven disdain for the facts."


[h=5]Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY)[/h] The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) was up and funded by the Pew trusts and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The stated mission of CAMY is to monitor "the marketing practices of the alcohol industry to focus attention and action on industry practices that jeopardize the health and safety of America's youth."
CAMY explains that "reducing high rates of underage alcohol consumption and the suffering caused by alcohol-related injuries and death among young people" requires limiting the appeal of alcohol beverages to young people and their access to them." It seeks to create "public outrage" against alcohol advertising to achieve its objective.


[h=5]Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)[/h] The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is not a science center but, by its own admission, a public advocacy action center. CSPI demonstrates a continuing pattern of presenting alarming but erroneous and misleading statistics to promote its agenda. A major goal of CSPI is reducing the alcohol consumption of adults, even among moderate drinkers. A full-time director, George Hacker, and his staff work toward this goal through the group’s Alcohol Policies Project.


[h=5]Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)[/h] The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is a massively-funded federal agency that aggressively promotes the reduction-of-consumption or neo-prohibition approach to reduce alcohol problems: "Less alcohol is always still too much alcohol."
Although it is a federal agency supported by taxpayers, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has long been guilty of illegally misappropriating taxpayer money for lobbying, of censoring citizens with whom it disagrees, of self-servingly distorting statistics, and of using its power to abuse innocent Americans.


[h=5]Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems[/h] The Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems vigorously promotes a temperance agenda and should more accurately be called the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol. It is a coalition of temperance groups co-chaired by George Hacker of the Alcohol Policies Project and Stacia Murphy of the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence (NCADD).
Members of the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems include the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), the American Council on Alcohol Problems (earlier called the Anti-Saloon League), the Temperance League of Kentucky, the General Board of Global Ministries, and the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol Problems.


[h=5]Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)[/h] Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created in 1980 to reduce drunk driving and the death and injury that it can cause. Over time, temperance forces have gained control of MADD and it has largely become anti-alcohol rather than anti-drunk driving.


[h=5]Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AMA)[/h] The American Medical Association (AMA) first passed a resolution supporting abstinence from alcohol even before National Prohibition was imposed in 1920 and continues to support it to this day.

[h=5]Scientific Temperance Federation[/h] The Scientific Temperance Federation was founded in 1906 upon the death of Mary Hunt, head of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’s Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction.

Because of the substantial fortune she had amassed in promoting compulsory temperance education, and the tens of millions of textbooks this required, the Scientific Temperance Federation was able to engage in a wide variety of activities to promote the temperance movement and prohibition. A major nation-wide project was an innovative “Education on Wheels” project that took temperance education directly to people at their homes and farms.


[h=5]Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU)[/h] The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1874 and claims to be the oldest voluntary, non-sectarian women’s organization in continuous existence in the world. WCTU membership peaked at about 200,000 members in the late 19th century.

You're missing the point, the massive campaign to enact prohibition doesn't have anything to do with ex post facto. Good red herring.

 

[Crimefree]

You're missing the point, the massive campaign to enact prohibition doesn't have anything to do with ex post facto. Good red herring.

For what valid reason was a perfectly acceptable practice in use for many thousands of years banned and removed from citizens?

For what valid reason are some firearm magazines in use for hundreds of years seen as objectionable and must be removed from citizens? Who authorised this confiscation of removal and who gave them the power to do that?

Hmm lets seen now in order to counter the many points made against foolish beliefs that become law it is charged only one point was made.... Reinforcing governments position the law is supreme and our rights are secondary or of no consideration all. All government or any other agency has to do is convince fools it is for their own good and the majority rules. Government, lawyers and fools will do the rest indoctrinating and manipulating citizens with lies.

I specifically ignored any legal argument as it has no force, irrelevant and of no consideration what-so-ever. That much should be obvious. If the majority rules then organise the majority and use the same principle, get rid of the ridiculous laws. If government, gun control, women’s rights, anti-slavery, the ANC and the abolitionists can do it why can't anyone else. What is stopping them? Why is this a legal argument, are our rights a legal document having legal power coming from some legal source?

Who owns these rights? If the owners want to give away their rights that is their right but some hobgoblins making false promises they must be given up, is an abomination. Advise people correctly on their rights so they are not robbed of them by others and learn to protect them as they should and was intended.

 

[Jerry]

Gun Confiscation Begins In California

Did they say never happen here? Are you saying never happen here the people will rise up... Fact is they will not rise up if they will not fight now. Why would they if they accept gun control now? It is never to late to start objecting becasue this is what happens when we don't.

You can check Louisiana during hurricane Katrina for the prototype government testing peoples reaction to mass confiscation. A success, little to no objection from the public. They could not care less. It is time to change that.

Gun Confiscation Begins In California - YouTube

The American people will not rise up, over this or anything else, until the wefair runs out.

 

[Master PO]

Look, until you can point out why alcohol and drugs were banned and confisicated and not a single court overthrew those laws for violating ex post facto, and not a single defense lawyer even attempted to present that argument than you have no ground to stand on. You cannot tell me that confiscation of an "formerly legal" product is a violation of ex post facto when that very same fact has been occuring nationally in this country for the better part of a century and NOT A SINGLE PERSON has presented ex post facto as a defense or argument against it.

i have stated to you, that creating the law, makes people CRIMINALS, and according to the founders that is ex post facto, as well as the USSC of the early days of america, and men who wrote books on the constitution.... 1st. Every law that makes an action done [ ownership] before the passing of the law, and which was innocent [lawful] when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

when alcohol was banned, as you pointed out people did not go to jail for it ownership , only its manufacture, sale and transportation.........read the law yourself.

"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 18th amendment , required you violate the law after the law went into affect, by engaging in those 3 activities, .......the law of California , requires me to do nothing, and as of 1 Jan, i am now a criminal.

if i were going to challenge this law, i would not use ex post facto either, i would make it a rights issue, not a power of government issue......rights based on confiscation without compensation....


federalist 44--Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

this law by making people criminals, .........does not keep them secure.

 

[Master PO]

this bill, commencing July 1, 2014, would make it an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100, or a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $100, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, for any person to possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired. The bill would authorize various methods by which a person in lawful possession of a large-capacity magazine may dispose of the magazine prior to the July 1, 2014, prohibition on possession.

 

[Wiseone]

i have stated to you, that creating the law, makes people CRIMINALS, and according to the founders that is ex post facto, as well as the USSC of the early days of america, and men who wrote books on the constitution.... 1st. Every law that makes an action done [ ownership] before the passing of the law, and which was innocent [lawful] when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

when alcohol was banned, as you pointed out people did not go to jail for it ownership , only its manufacture, sale and transportation.........read the law yourself.

"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 18th amendment , required you violate the law after the law went into affect, by engaging in those 3 activities, .......the law of California , requires me to do nothing, and as of 1 Jan, i am now a criminal.

if i were going to challenge this law, i would not use ex post facto either, i would make it a rights issue, not a power of government issue......rights based on confiscation without compensation....


federalist 44--Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

this law by making people criminals, .........does not keep them secure.

Jesus Christ....

 

[Master PO]

Jesus Christ....

he will not help you here!

 

[CRUE CAB]

The American people will not rise up, over this or anything else, until the wefair runs out.

Speak for yourself, I never got a dime of gubmint money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

i have stated to you, that creating the law, makes people CRIMINALS, and according to the founders that is ex post facto, as well as the USSC of the early days of america, and men who wrote books on the constitution.... 1st. Every law that makes an action done [ ownership] before the passing of the law, and which was innocent [lawful] when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

when alcohol was banned, as you pointed out people did not go to jail for it ownership , only its manufacture, sale and transportation.........read the law yourself.

"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 18th amendment , required you violate the law after the law went into affect, by engaging in those 3 activities, .......the law of California , requires me to do nothing, and as of 1 Jan, i am now a criminal.

if i were going to challenge this law, i would not use ex post facto either, i would make it a rights issue, not a power of government issue......rights based on confiscation without compensation....


federalist 44--Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

this law by making people criminals, .........does not keep them secure.

Ex post facto applies only to charging you with a crime before that act (or even substance possession) was made illegal. If a law bans automobiles that exceed new emissions standards from being registered and driven on roadways that is legal, regardless of whether they used to be legal.