Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 11th, 2019, 10:18 AM #11
Engine4's Avatar
Engine4 Engine4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,727
Engine4 Engine4 is offline
Senior Member
Engine4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by shootin the breeze View Post
I don’t know what else to do because we sure aren’t overthrowing them at the ballot box.
Matt Bracken knows...
Engine4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 10:19 AM #12
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,399
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by shootin the breeze View Post
But, but, but the fourth box is verboten or so we’re repeatedly told. I don’t want a war really but I think we are there in this state. Fortunately most of the country is on the correct path so the feds would crush a Maryland revolution. It would have to be a true civil war to start fighting and they know it. I don’t know what else to do because we sure aren’t overthrowing them at the ballot box.
I said not a word about w@@.

'Resistance’ still has its place in the US of today, of course — one just needs to acquire a permit that is appropriate for the particular type of rebellious activity.


Quote:
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [the People’s Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
— The US Declaration of Independence
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 10:32 AM #13
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 3,891
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 3,891
The MGA doesn't care about ex post facto laws...they vote the way they do to show voters they're "doing something about crime" and should a court overturn it (not likely in a Maryland court), they can criticize the "activist" judges for actually following the Constitution and say they did what they could.
__________________
It was me...I shot Liberty Valance.
TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 10:43 AM #14
gprimr1's Avatar
gprimr1 gprimr1 is online now
Former MSI BOD
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,295
Images: 4
gprimr1 gprimr1 is online now
Former MSI BOD
gprimr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,295
Images: 4
I think the devil in the details on these is going to be the time to comply.

A new law is made, you are being given time to comply with it before any legal consequences.

HBAR law passed on April 1st, goes into effect on Oct 1st. You have time to comply

Ex Post Faco:

HBAR law passed on April 1st, HBARS illegal effective date 10/1/2013.
gprimr1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 11:46 AM #15
JohnnyE's Avatar
JohnnyE JohnnyE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 2,086
JohnnyE JohnnyE is offline
Senior Member
JohnnyE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MoCo
Posts: 2,086
We won't get any help from an ex post facto law challenge. Arguing it just wastes our bandwidth. Here's why:

The MGA is not proposing to make it illegal to have acquired and possessed an HBAR's between 10/1/13 and the date the new law is proposed to take effect (some time in the future). Doing THIS would be unconstitutional.

Instead the MGA is proposing to make it illegal to own HBAR's that you acquired between 10/1/13 and the date the new law is proposed to take effect, AFTER the new law takes effect. No one will be legally on the hook for owning a post-FSA HBAR unless they continue to possess it in Maryland after the new law takes effect. If you get it out of Maryland before the new law takes effect, you are not a "criminal," thus it is not an ex post fact law.
__________________
This may look like legal advice. It is not. I am not a Maryland lawyer. I do not know you or the details of your concerns. I cannot advise you or answer your legal questions. Hire your own counsel to advise you.
JohnnyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 12:59 PM #16
dist1646 dist1646 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Eldersburg
Posts: 6,039
dist1646 dist1646 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Eldersburg
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
I said not a word about w@@.

'Resistance’ still has its place in the US of today, of course — one just needs to acquire a permit that is appropriate for the particular type of rebellious activity.
That's funny and sad at the same time! The very thought of having to acquire a permit to be able to resist, from those you are resisting.
dist1646 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 01:03 PM #17
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,428
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,428
[ATTACH]Testimony on HB 1108.pdf[/ATTACH]
Quote:
Originally Posted by benton0311 View Post
I just wanted to create a separate post to highlight the differences between the no ex post facto provisions of the Maryland Constitution and the United States Constitution The no ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution has been discussed a little bit here but the greater degree of protection afforded by the Maryland Constitution seems to frequently be overlooked.

The Maryland Constitution:
Article 17.
That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such
Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible
with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective
oath or restriction be imposed, or required.


The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Regarding the United States Constitution, note that the ex post facto provision of Article 1 Section 9 is a little more vague and has frequently been argued as to whether not it only applies to new acts committed after a law is passed or to newly-banned property owned in violation of laws moving forward. This is where you then go down the rabbit hole of the Takings Clause and Due Process.

Article 17 was one of the arguments I made to my legislators last year as well as during several parts of FSA2013. Whether or not it was heard, I also sent Article 17 to the bills' sponsors explaining that provisions of their bills were in clear violation of the Maryland Constitution with Article 17 copied and pasted in the text.
FYI: Here is written testimony on that provision that I submitted to the MGA last year.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf Testimony on 825 disqual.time.of.Offense.pdf (121.3 KB, 46 views)
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 01:31 PM #18
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,399
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,399
This attorney at Law is our friend. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...st-facto-laws/

ThePubliusHuldah [publiushuldah@gmail.com]

This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...-Attainder.htm
An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.
Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.
Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.
Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.
It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
But it would not be an ex post facto law. See postscript below!
People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.
If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago. But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH
Endnote:
In Federalist Paper No. 84 (4th para), Alexander Hamilton says re ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):
“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 04:13 PM #19
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 15,549
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 15,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankOceanXray View Post
Why so defeated?
Because it happens over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over...
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy"
To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

Clint Eastwood: “I tried being reasonable, I didn’t like it”
Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2019, 04:41 PM #20
fabsroman fabsroman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Friendship
Posts: 18,674
fabsroman fabsroman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Friendship
Posts: 18,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
[ATTACH]Attachment 253048[/ATTACH]

FYI: Here is written testimony on that provision that I submitted to the MGA last year.
Mark, as it pertains to the matter you wrote about, I completely agree with you. A law that a person violated in the past, that did not make him a prohibited person at the time he was convicted, should not make him a prohibited person in the future because the legislature decided to change the penalty for the law at some future time after the conviction.

However, what a lot of people are doing in this forum is trying to apply the ex post facto law to the Rapid Fire Trigger Device, the HBAR ban, etc. and say that because the item was purchased before the possession ban was passed, that it is an ex post facto law. I think gprim1 addressed this. With regards to the Rapid Fire Trigger Device and the HBAR ban, the legislature is NOT criminalizing possession of those items prior to the law going into effect at a future date. The legislature is passing a law in April, having it go into effect in October, and criminalizing the possession of those items at a future date. So, ex post facto does not come into play in these specific situations.
__________________
Nothing set forth on this board by me should be construed as legal advice.

Without a written agreement between you and I, there is no attorney/client relationship. Do NOT rely on what is posted by me or others on this chatboard as sound legal advice. Hire an attorney of your choosing, pay for the advice/research, and rely on that. I discuss topics of interest on this board, I do not provide legal advice for you to rely on.
fabsroman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service