Article 17 of the Maryland Constitution: No ex post facto

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    C

    clingy

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 12, 2017
    110
    Posted on the HBAR thread but more directly relevant to this thread:

    From the bill: “A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.”

    Therefore, any FFL who sold an HBAR after 10/1/2013 that was not possessed before 10/1/2013 would be ex post facto in violation of the law effective 10/1/2019.

    Again, I don’t think it was the bill writer’s intention to make this an ex post facto law but without some additional wording added to grandfather sales/transfers of HBARs post-2013 (versus just lazily removing the HBAR exception), the FFLs are in violation of the law ex post facto AS WRITTEN.

    Maybe it’s not ex post facto for those of us who possess them because we have time to comply, but it appears to be for FFLs just for selling them.

    inb4 squaregrouper questions my intelligence or accuses me of asking dumb questions
     
    esqappellate

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    fabsroman said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    That is exactly right. HB 612 bans the continued possession, it doesn't criminalize retroactively past possession. The ex post facto bar does not apply to bans on continued possession after a date certain in the future. That point applies to dealers and everyone else. They simply have to dispossess the HBAR by Oct. 1, 2019, if it was acquired after Oct. 1, 2013. That's a Taking (arguably) but not a ex post facto law.
     
    B

    benton0311

    Active Member
    Feb 26, 2011
    358
    esqappellate said:
    That is exactly right. HB 612 bans the continued possession, it doesn't criminalize retroactively past possession. The ex post facto bar does not apply to bans on continued possession after a date certain in the future. That point applies to dealers and everyone else. They simply have to dispossess the HBAR by Oct. 1, 2019, if it was acquired after Oct. 1, 2013. That's a Taking (arguably) but not a ex post facto law.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, I see that now, even under Article 17 of the MD Declaration of Rights. Upon first look from a layman's perspective, Article 17 appeared to limit the ability of the state to apply restrictions retroactively, in addition to standard ex post facto limitations and would have offered additional protections as compared to the version in the U.S. Constitution. I see that the additional provisions are part-and-parcel of ex post facto, sort of a clarification that provides that additional oaths of allegiance or restrictions may also not be imposed on those who did violate an existing law before enhanced penalties where then later applied via a new law.
     
    Rab1515

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    esqappellate said:
    That is exactly right. HB 612 bans the continued possession, it doesn't criminalize retroactively past possession. The ex post facto bar does not apply to bans on continued possession after a date certain in the future. That point applies to dealers and everyone else. They simply have to dispossess the HBAR by Oct. 1, 2019, if it was acquired after Oct. 1, 2013. That's a Taking (arguably) but not a ex post facto law.
    Click to expand...

    i though a sale of a hbar after October 2013 was also illegal, if this passes.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Catoctin Outfitters banner ad Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,526
    Messages
    7,285,087
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom