|
muhly22222 -> RE: Disarmament: NY leads the way. (1/29/2013 1:17:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I see that, nevertheless, they were bought legally, and if I am in possession of one at some later point they are illegal? I see that as ex-post facto, which the fed can't do, I don't know about a state.
I think it would come to an 'among the several' issue. I don't like it, for several reasons.
Interesting thought. I wonder if there is the ability for a State to pass ex post facto laws.
They couldn't, but this isn't an ex post facto situation. It would be ex post facto if they had passed a law today criminalizing the possession of firearms since 2011 and into the future. Since the law doesn't do that, and instead makes any provision criminalizing possession a violation only after the law is passed, the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply.
There are two provisions of the federal constitution that could apply. Obviously, the Second Amendment is in play. There is also an argument that some of the restrictions violate the right to not have property taken without due process, depending on the exact enforcement procedures.
There could be other provisions in New York's state constitution, too, but I'm not familiar with that, and won't comment on it.
And to BamaD's comment about taxes: the ex post facto clause does not apply to non-criminal measures, such as taxes or civil laws. If the government wants to pass a law that changes the rules for contracts, for instance, it's perfectly entitled to do so (unless the voters don't like it, then it can be changed, in theory). The same goes for taxes. If Congress wants to increase a tax and collect that tax increase 5 years back, they can do that.
|
|
|
|
