TexasCHLforum.com

I guess I really didn't quite understand ex post facto, but then again, IANAL!

KLB wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law?

It's not an ex post facto law unless someone can be punished for having possessed such a magazine before the law's effective date. I assume that is not the case with this law.

That's my point, though. If you live in California, and already owned the magazines, then you are being penalized for something that happened prior to the date of the bill becoming law. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?

If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.