'I can't be a felon'

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article214798695.html
Gun owners sue California over faulty weapon registration system

Harry Sharp spent most of the last weekend of June sitting in front of his computer, trying resolutely to register his four newly banned guns on the California Department of Justice’s website.

The deadline to register his bullet-button assault weapons was June 30, and California’s online reporting system kept crashing.

Sharp said he managed to register his Steyr AUG, a bullpup-style rifle, on June 29, a Friday, but was unable to register his other three firearms despite the hours he spent trying.

“I got very little sleep that weekend,” said Sharp, a 52-year-old stay-at-home father and hunter from Redding. “I worked late on Friday, and on Saturday morning, I had a couple pops of coffee and kept going at it the whole day.”

The US Constitution A1, S10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

In short, no state shall pass a law criminalizing the actions of anyone after they've taken place. It's unfair and unlawful to legislatively make actions that were legal into convictable offense. This is equivalent to a state where it is legal to sell pot for recreational use making it illegal and arresting the operator of a recreational marijuana dispensary.

[reACTIONary]

1. Well, I don't know about...

..... whsts going on in CA, but your analogy is wrong...

This is equivalent to a state where it is legal to sell pot for recreational use making it illegal and arresting the operator of a recreational marijuana dispensary.

There is nothing wrong with making an on going activity illegal and then charging anyone who continues to engage in that activity after the law becomes effective. Else we could never have new laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I thought I made it clear by citing the ex post facto clause...

...that the scenario was that the dispensary operator would be charged based upon his actions IN THE PAST. I didn't mean to imply that he would continue operating after when it was made illegal and be charged based on the new law.

Someone who has acted in the past in a manner that was at the time legal must have a path to continued blamelessness. The CA law that makes the referenced weapon type illegal must also provide a reasonable opportunity for those current owners to maintain their property without becoming de facto criminals.

[reACTIONary]

3. Whatever is going on....

.... in CA, I'm sure it is not ex post facto. If it were even the ACLU would be up in arms - if not bearing arms

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. "...even the ACLU would be up in arms" The ACLU won't defend the Second Amendment

[reACTIONary]

5. The ACLU would definitely ....

.... defend against ex post facto aplication of a law, regardless of its content. The issue you raise is ex post facto, prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution, not the second amendment.

[Flaksie845]

6. How is it ex post facto?

The government made a law banning X unless X was registered by a date. If X was not registered on that date, it is now illegal.

I think there's a legal argument that could be made, but it's not ex post facto. It's more like a government operating a system that would be legal if it was run competently but not if it was run incompetently, either deliberately or accidentally. For example, it might be legal under current Constitutional law to require that in order to obtain an abortion, a woman would need to obtain an ultrasound at a government-operated clinic. If all the clinics were functional, that might pass Constitutional muster. If, on the other hand, the Texas government had this law and then all of the government clinics "had" to be shut down for months/years for repairs, that (hopefully) would not be Constitutional.

[reACTIONary]

7. You are right....

... it's not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. It's like this

You now own something. It's not a bottle of Glenlivet that you will consume while cursing officials for having made it illegal. This is something of enduring physicality that cost hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars. You bought this item from a dealer licensed by the government. Months or years pass with you owning this item without incident. The government, in its odd wisdom, one day passes a law that says that the type of item you own is now no longer legal to buy, sell or own. Since we have constitutional constraints, the government gives you a particular length of time apply for your exemption as a current lawful owner to continue owning your item without penalty. This exemption is the part of the law that mitigates the ex post facto characterization. However, if your application process doesn't work, the effect is that the law is ex post facto.

All this is over a style of rifle. Rifles are not a prevalent murder weapon. About 1 in 40 murders are committed by persons using a rifle. Not all rifles are "assault weapons". (374 out of 15,070 nationwide in 2016) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

I have yet to find any compelling reason for any particular interest by the government in regulating "assault weapons". Extendable stocks, bayonet compatibility or any of the other fluid attributes do not make a firearm more or less deadly and these laws serve only undermine the credibility of those politicians clinging to them religiously. Even in the list (https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202237) of most deadly mass shooting, less than half were committed using weapons that would qualify as "assault weapons".

Gun-"control" is a myth. The only real control is self-control. Empower the individual to help the overall situation and he/she will reward you much more than will a ban.

[Alea]

9. I'm hoping scotus takes up some of these cases