TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:If California banned cis het males starting 1/1/2018, that might be upheld by the Ninth Circus. However, if the courts overturned the law it would be for some reason other than ex post facto because such a law wouldn't be so.

Yes, whatever the problems might exist with that law, it would not be ex post facto.

There was a time when I would have argued that being male (or female) is an immutable characteristic (which has legal significance), but now . . .

txblackout wrote: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

Indeed it would. But don't take a check from California. It would probably set your pocket on fire.

hillfighter 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.

No. You would be penalized for possessing them after the date of the bill becoming law.

Correct.

Although you may now be forced to do something you don't want to do to avoid prosecution, you are not being prosecuted for what you did prior to the effective date.

None of this is to say I am sympathetic to the State of California or think what they did is a good idea. But barking up the ex-post-facto tree is a waste of effort.

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.