View Single Post
Old February 14th, 2018, 12:50 AM #85
Stephen M Stephen M is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 63
Stephen M Stephen M is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpickering View Post
The issue with these proposals is two-fold:

1) They don't grandfather existing magazines. That violates ex post facto.

2) They require the magazines to be turned in for destruction without compensation. This violates the 5th Amendment as a "taking".

How are these laws not even being talked about violating the US Constitution on this basis? Forget the 2nd Amendment, this violates other aspects of the Constitution as well and should be argued on that point, in my opinion.

Matt
On 1), the ex post facto prohibition only applies if they tried to charge you with illegal possession after the law passed on the basis of having possessed magazines BEFORE the law passed. But they can indeed charge you with illegal possession if the law passes and you continue to possess the magazines. It wouldn't matter when you purchased them, since it's the possession, not the purchase, that's the crime. Grandfathering is often politically expedient but isn't necessary to avoid running afoul of ex post facto.

On 2), I think it might be tough to make a 5th amendment claim. The property isn't being taken for public use, and if the law passes, the property is not legally held.

IANAL, and would certainly be interested in hearing other perspectives on this. Particularly other precedents of an item being banned without grandfathering or compensation.
Stephen M is offline   Reply With Quote