TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:

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?

No, you are being penalized for something you are doing right now, possessing illegal capacity magazines.

That being said, it does fall under eminent domain. Meaning the government is essentially "taking" the magazines and should be compensating you.

Would be awesome if people could buy them at a discount and then get the state of california to have to pay for them at full MSRP

txblackout wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

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?

Ex-post facto is if they made it illegal to buy and then punished you for buying them before they were illegal (even if you had gotten rid of them)

Ex-post facto is if they made it retroactively illegal to possess, you got rid of them, but they prosecuted you for possessing them while they originally had been legal.

If they make them illegal now, and you continue to keep them, you are now breaking the law because it is your current action, not a historical action.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

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?

Ex-post facto is if they made it illegal to buy and then punished you for buying them before they were illegal (even if you had gotten rid of them)

Ex-post facto is if they made it retroactively illegal to possess, you got rid of them, but they prosecuted you for possessing them while they originally had been legal.

If they make them illegal now, and you continue to keep them, you are now breaking the law because it is your current action, not a historical action.