TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Still looks ex post facto to me. If I own a gun, legally, and a law is passed making it illegal for me to own that gun, it is criminalizing something that already exists, and that sounds pretty ex post facto to me.

Inconceivable!

It is the nature of a new restrictive law to prohibit an action that was legal. For example I used to be able to carry my Spyderco on airline flights but now I can't.

Not quite the same thing. You can still own the spyderco. They did not ban you from owning the spyderco.

The next time a spyderco is used to kill someone they will come knock on your door and confoscate it.

Logical course of action. It has worked so well in UK and Australia.

Anygunanywhere

KaiserB wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:If you think it can't happen, look at the rest of the world.

Yes lets look at the rest of the world... Democracy? Constitution? Those are things unique to America, and what makes the country different from every other country in the world.

Dictators and rulers do not care about constitutions. Lots of constitutions are put in place only to be trampled on by those who swear to uphold them.

Anygunanywhere

nitrogen wrote:It'd be interesting to see those laws stand up today after a Heller ruling.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to push it.

You forget that in Heller the court said something along the lines that reasonable restrictions were allowed.

Heller left more maneuver room for the antis than it did to limit them.

Anygunanywhere

SlowDave wrote: Go ahead and call me naive, but I really can't see anyone trying to take away existing guns from gun owners.

Okay. You're naive.

I tend to take people at their word. The spoken and printed word has meaning.

A zebra cannot change its stripes.

The socialist agenda will not change no matter how many times their website is changed or how much they try to sugarcoat their intentions by saying things like "maobama respects sensible hunting".

Anygunanywhere