oldman12
Ultimate Member
I'm so glad I don't live in CA. When I was a kid it was a dream to one day live there. Then again I also dreamed of becoming a Wizard.
I'm so glad I don't live in CA. When I was a kid it was a dream to one day live there. Then again I also dreamed of becoming a Wizard.
To paraphrase Connecticut Legislator in regards to massive non-compliance to their knee-jerk reaction laws post Sandy-Hook, "If you pass a law and it is ignored by an overwhelming majority, is it truly a law."
Funny how the New York knuckleheads came up with the amount of 7.The best way to point out the errors in reasoning here are to ask those in favor of this how exactly they arrived at 10 rounds. Ask why not 9 or 12 or 3. If it'still to limit how many people can be killed, why not ban magazines outright and force people to handload one at a time, why do they think it's OK for 10 people to be shot before a reload if they believe this will stop criminals? If this is such a good idea, make it mandatory for police as well. If they don't agree it should also apply to police force them to explain why police need more than 10 rounds and then ask why those same arguments don't apply to law abiding citizens using guns for THEIR defense.
I'm not a lawyer and did not stay at a Holiday Inn. That being said, I believe that the above only refers to Congress according to the Constitution and not to the States.
Please correct me if I am wrong (which happens a lot but that's how I learn). I'm sure that I'm wrong and would definitely appreciate constructive criticism.
It would only be an ex post facto law if they passed a law today that punished you for having the magazines yesterday. The new law is only prospective. It was ok to have the magazines yesterday and today, but you got to get rid of them before tomorrow. Heck, I'm sure the folks possessing cocaine and morphine on the '30's were upset when these things got regulated by the pure food and drug act, which suddenly made them illegal, or booze, when the Volstead Act was passed following adoption of the 18th amendment...
I'm neither a lawyer, nor did I stay at the Holiday Inn, but I am 2/3 of the way finished law school, so that has to be good for something.
That being said, the ex post facto clause is applicable to the states via Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. The "Takings Clause" involving just compensation is also applicable to the states.
I see what you're saying. But they're punishing the act of possession, which could have happened yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So I'm saying it's ex post facto by punishing the continuing act of possession that began as soon the person obtained the magazine.
The stupid is strong in the land of fruits and nuts with an ample supply of both.
That'll teach those hoodrats not to shoot people.
The rally cry of those of us from Colorado!
Everyone knows the "evil content" in a gun grows stronger and stronger as more evil bullets are jambed into a magazine.... oops! I meant "clip". When the amount of evil reaches critical the gun spontaneously goes on a killing rampage.
I bet there'll be a few Cali's who comply simply because the gov't is telling them to do it, disregarding the fact the mags have been legal to possess until today.
Politicians out there have been inhaling too much polluted air. Unfortunately for us, the nitwits in our GA might try to pass something similar for us. Don't believe there'd be a very high rate of compliance by our Md brethren.
Funny how the New York knuckleheads came up with the amount of 7.
I'll bet the intent there was a defacto ban on all pistols, so the only legal handguns for the peasants are revolvers.
It escaped the dumbasses' attention the 1911 mags hold 7 rounds.
Idiots.