L.A. bans large capacity gun magazines, draws lawsuit threat

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. The described ordinance is an imaginary ex post facto law. It doesn't exist.

From the linked article:

"The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to draft a law prohibiting the possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines, sparking lawsuit threats from two gun rights organizations."

"On an 11-0 vote, the council called for an ordinance labeling the magazines a public nuisance and “an immediate threat to the public health.” Although the state already has a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines, residents can still legally own them."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ban-ammunition-lawsuit-20130503,0,4884282.story

An ex post facto law, of course, "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

For those who value the Constitution and the rule of law, clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws and clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from doing so.

The Due Process provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments also operates as a barrier to those who also want to use governmental resources to take away property without just compensation.

Contrary to what was reported,

"The Los Angeles City Council" DID NOT VOTE "to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines."