Ex Post Facto?

K

Kframe

New member
I've got a question.
Actually it's got three parts.
And I may just be misinformed, since I'm not fluent in Constitutional law, but bear with me.

1-Currently there is a law prohibiting persons, who've ever been charged with domestic violence, from possessing a firearm or purchasing one.
Is this basically correct?


2-Now, I thought that if I chew gum today, and if gum-chewing is outlawed tomorrow, then I cannot be charged with the offense since it was commited prior to the new law.
Is this basically on the right track?

3-So, how come cops and other currently law-abiding citizens who may have slapped their spouse nineteen years ago, are now being punished (by losing the RKBA and often facing unemployment) under a new law enacted dozens of years after their crime?

It just doesn't make sense to me.
-Kframe
 
Kframe,
That was made law several years ago, by our truly Herr Klintler. It was another attempt to snare more people, under the ruse of protecting women from abusive men.
What it did was, reclassify a crime, albeit a non-felony when commited, a felony.

Just like he did when entering his 2st term, re raised taxes retroactively. Same kind of crap.
Oh, but, it was done to protect the women, not to ensnare more, so that they no longer have the RKBA.

Is that simple enough?

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited February 07, 2000).]
 
Donny pretty much nailed it.

The Law means nothing anymore as it is subject to the whims of the moment.
If you haven't read 1984, do so. I believe His Billness mistook it for a gov't primer

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Ex Post Facto Laws are unconstitutional. A legal challenge to this law can, and should, be made on those grounds and the law will be declared unconstitutional.
 
The Ex Post Facto clause of the Laughtenburg Law is just one of the Constitutional Issues... there are a few others...

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (loss of a Constitional Right for a Misdomeaner)

Self-Incrimination (there are not very good records on Domestic Violance offenses)

Double Jeopardy - Conviced & sentenced, then what could be years later sentenced again.

And these are just off the top of my head not to mention no jury trial (it IS a misdomeaner) in addition to what is the definition of Domestic Volance? A DV complaint is alot of time used in Divorce proceeding as leverage. Mental abuse, Verbal Abuse, in addition to physical abuse (aaaa what happens when a spouse (female) attacks her husband and he pusher her to get away? DV!)... these are all grouped under DV.





------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
While I was in the Army in '97 I believe, our Commander held a formation asking if anybody has EVER been convicted, arrested for, or plead down to a family violence related charge. Nobody had, but he told us that it was to determine if we could still serve in the military. He posted the memo for us to read, and sure enough, if you'd ever been convicted of any family violence related charge, you were no longer eligible to serve in the military because you could not handle any firearm government issued, or personal. This ruined a lot of careers, and was a blatent ex-post-facto law. Law dog may could clarify this, but in Texas, if I come home and get mad at the wife, and I destroy the TV, or furniture, I may be arrested for Family Violence Assault. Even if I didn't even so much as speak to my wife, I cannot destroy my own property without losing RKBA. Of course it's up to the discretion of the responding officer, but I think I should be able to destroy all the personal property I want. TV's are now just as protected as the golden cheeked warbler, and the spotted owl. I'm sure that this is exactly what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution!
 
They have claimed that the law does not violate ex post facto prohibitions because the loss of your RKBAs is not technically a punishment. If it were, it would also violate double jeopardy prohibitions.

Of course, this argument is ridiculous.

Someone also brought up the fact that there is no clear definition of what domestic violence is.

That is correct, because every state has its own domestic violence statute. In Tennessee, domestic violence is simply a Simple Assault violation with someone in the same household. Simple Assault is simply the offense of putting someone in fear of bodily injury. While this includes actual physical violence, it can and has been used to prosecute people who simply screamed at a spouse or broke plates or something. If the victim had a reasonable fear of being struck and injured, even if they were not, the perp is guilty of domestic violence.

Once again, this varies from state to state. Of course, everyone imagines this law taking guns away from people who beat the tar out of their wives, or threaten their lives, or use weapons against them.

These are all felonies, and already carry a 2nd Amendment disability upon conviction.

------------------
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" - Patrick Henry
 
Quite interesting, this rolling back the clock to charge a person already charged, either convicted, or acquitted.

Since the inception of Klintlers actions concerning this, I believe nobody has challegened their Fifth Amendment as being violated. For it surelay has. What was considered a civil charge was rectroactively escalated to a felony, without your being able to be retried, therefore Due Process has been denied for the greater charge of a felony.
You, in essence are being punished twice for a crime. Again, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Where in hell is the ACLU here??


And if losing your RKBA isn't punishment, then what the hell is it?
They could have easily just refined the persons more money, and then been done with it. Which I'm sure they did as a result of the retro-crap. And if that isn't double-jeopardy, I don't understand the term.
For the same reason the drug czars were challenging the courts with the seizure of their properties, including cash taken from accounts, etc, then fining the individuals as well. It was found that that was double-jeopardy, if my memory serves me here. Is it OK for the drug kingpins, but not OK for a patriot? We are in a Socialist State then.

Also my earlier reply, I mistated the deal, it was Klintlers 1st term lie about not raising taxes. And to celebrate, he had a barbecue in Texas with Queen Anne, another Democrat.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
That same law Klinton passed raised misdemeanor crimes comitted by immigrants to a felony status.

On 20/20 just a couple of days ago, they showed the story of a 34y.o. woman in Georgia who is a registered alien from Germany (military parents adopted her). They never got her citizenship as they were waiting for her to turn 18 and make her own decision... needless to say, time goes by, never gets citizenship. she caught her boyfriend when she was 22 with another woman. Got in fight with other woman, pulled her hair, and was charged with assault and battery misdemeanor. Now this "crime" was raised to a felony and she's being deported for pulling someone's hair.

Gimme a break,
M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top