illegal search a seizure question

Status
Not open for further replies.
The courts will disagree with your assessment of what is ex post facto. The same reason the lautenburg amendment is not ex post facto, because it doesn't punish for past firearm possession, will be the same reason that an awb with no grandfather provision will not be ex post facto.

And the government will not have to pay for the property if they sieze it from you after it's possession has been prohibited, as in you committed the crime of illegal possession of an "assault weapon". If the law was enacted you will have to comply by modifying, destroying, or rendering inoperable your "assault weapons".

Any future ban will likely contain a grandfather provision because it will be much easier to enforce.
 
Any future ban will likely contain a grandfather provision because it will be much easier to enforce.
Click to expand...

I think it would be more easy to enforce it without the grandfather provision. Without a grandfather clause, all a cop will need to know is that a given gun is of a prohibited model. With a grandfather clause, a cop would need to know not only that a given gun is a prohibited model, but also exactly when the receiver was manufactured. The '89 import ban is largely unenforceable and unenforced for this very reason.
 
Unlikey to pass without one

Note that the 94 AWB passed only with a grandfather clause, AND a sunset proivision. And that it basically passed by only one vote.

Any future ban bill will most likely contain a grandfather provision, as without one, it will be more difficult to get passed. And, a grandfather provision can actually make the law more enforcable, if worded correctly. Note that while the 94 bill did not ban manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rnds, it did ban their sale and posession by civilians, if the mags were made after 94, and it required the mfg date marked on the mags.

So, a 30 rnd AR mag with no date was made before the ban, and grandfathered. But a 30rnd AR mag with a 1997 date on it would be illegal for a civilian to own.
 
If an AR15 is in your possession today, and the rifle is legal, a law passed tomorrow will not make that gun illegal. Your intent when you purchased it doesn't have anything to do, and can't be construed that you planned to break a law which hadn't been enacted.
 
If an AR15 is in your possession today, and the rifle is legal, a law passed tomorrow will not make that gun illegal. Your intent when you purchased it doesn't have anything to do, and can't be construed that you planned to break a law which hadn't been enacted.
Click to expand...

Will not, maybe. But can not? You seem to be completely ignoring the idea that the government can require turn-in (with compensation) of the offending items, along with a reasonable grace period. There is absolutely no reason that all AR-15s could not be made illegal after a reasonable date...say, two years from now.

And if you continued to own the rifle after that point, yes you would be breaking the law.
 
ok i get what your saying thanks for the info i will have to look into this alittle deeper but still useful do u know where i can view all the details of the new "assault weapons" ban

There is none. It doesn't exist. No such legislation has passed either house of Congress, and chances are none will. Until and unless such legislation is passed, there is no way to know what would or would not be in the bill.
Click to expand...


After having breakfast a couple times per week at the same place for 20 years I changed dining places. This is all the guys there talked about for the past 2+ months. To a person they believe that congress has passed an AWB and Obama is about to sign it.
 
After having breakfast a couple times per week at the same place for 20 years I changed dining places. This is all the guys there talked about for the past 2+ months. To a person they believe that congress has passed an AWB and Obama is about to sign it.
Click to expand...

Some times arguing with gun people (especially me) is just as frustrating as discussing gun rights and facts with the antis. What's the saying - "you can't fix stup..."? If you can't agree to the facts, there is no need of further discussion.
 
If an AR15 is in your possession today, and the rifle is legal, a law passed tomorrow will not make that gun illegal. Your intent when you purchased it doesn't have anything to do, and can't be construed that you planned to break a law which hadn't been enacted.
Click to expand...

When you purchased or possessed it legally has nothing to do with it. The only question will be did you possess an item after a law was enacted that prohibited such possession? If the answer is yes it will be irrelevant that you possessed it legally before the enactment of such a law.
 
When you purchased or possessed it legally has nothing to do with it. The only question will be did you possess an item after a law was enacted that prohibited such possession? If the answer is yes it will be irrelevant that you possessed it legally before the enactment of such a law.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. It's exactly the point. This goes to the root of our civil and criminal law. What a person does uses or owns today, will not be made criminal by legislation tomorrow. Purchase and possession of a weapon which is legal today, can't be confiscated tomorrow.

Not only is this protected by Article I, Section 9, it's also protected by the Fifth Amendment, which states in part, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Due process requires a hearing, and in most cases a trial and adjudication by one's peers. Further, confiscation serves no "public use". No gun control act has ever gone so far as to try and confiscate firearms. When police seized weapons in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, injunctive relief was immediately sought in Federal court. The Federal court responded by forcing the NOPD to return those firearms to their rightful owners. The people who had firearms confiscated, would be able to sue the NOPD in Federal court, and probably win, if they could prove harm was done to them by an unlawful confiscation.

What we have in this discussion, is a lot of supposition that smacks of "black helicopter and blue helmet" fear.
 
It has everything to do with it. It's exactly the point. This goes to the root of our civil and criminal law. What a person does uses or owns today, will not be made criminal by legislation tomorrow. Purchase and possession of a weapon which is legal today, can't be confiscated tomorrow.

Not only is this protected by Article I, Section 9, it's also protected by the Fifth Amendment, which states in part, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...

I fail to see what Article I, Section 9 has to do with it, as this is neither a bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. Good point on the fifth amendment, though, and I guess I'll just have to poke around when I get a chance to see if this is something that has happened before, or if it has ever been ruled on.

I will say that it probably wouldn't be impossible to show the removal of such weapons from civilian hands as a compelling interest, and provided it addressed other crime-related issues (not that ARs are generally used in crimes anyway, but whatever) I could see it possibly meeting a strict scrutiny standard for an exception to that clause.

What we have in this discussion, is a lot of supposition that smacks of "black helicopter and blue helmet" fear.
Click to expand...

From some, perhaps. It's not uncommon. I hope it's clear that I don't think this actually will happen...it's not something that concerns me in the slightest (though even an AWB with a grandfather clause is unacceptable, and not nearly as far-fetched). I'm merely arguing that it could happen. Like, legally.

To which you've made a fairly compelling rebuttal. ;)
 
If a law is passed and you violate it it by possessing a banned firearm you will certainly get your due process in the form of a criminal trial.

What you do today can't be made illegal tommorow but what you do tommorow can be made illegal today.

Here's an example.

Say you possessed a drug on 2 April and there was no law against said possession.

On 3 April a law goes into effect that bans the possession of said drug.

You still possess said drug on 4 April.

The conduct that will cause you to be charged with a crime is the possession of said drug on 4 April. Just because you legally possessed and used said drug only two days before doesn't mean you can continue to do so after the ban is enacted.

If you were no longer in possession on 4 April you would not be charged with a crime.

If it were ex post facto it would be passed on 3 April and make the conduct on 2 April illegal.

As long as a law makes some future conduct illegal it does not violate the ex post facto clause.

And if they sieze said drug pursuant to a criminal proceeding after the law has been enacted then they don't have to reimburse you for it.

Due process requires a hearing, and in most cases a trial and adjudication by one's peers. Further, confiscation serves no "public use". No gun control act has ever gone so far as to try and confiscate firearms. When police seized weapons in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, injunctive relief was immediately sought in Federal court. The Federal court responded by forcing the NOPD to return those firearms to their rightful owners. The people who had firearms confiscated, would be able to sue the NOPD in Federal court, and probably win, if they could prove harm was done to them by an unlawful confiscation.
Click to expand...

The reason they had to return the weapons is because they were not confiscated pursuant to any law. Had they been confiscated pursuant to a criminal action the NOPD would have been justified in doing so. As in the law regarding weapons possession was vilated so we took the weapon and chrged the offender. The due process would come as a criminal trial. Most states have laws regarding forfeiture of weapons used in crimes or possessed illegally.

These weapons were not confiscated because the possessors violated the law but because the NOPD did so because they thought they should which is not contained in any law.

Just because no gun control act has ever gone that far doesn't mean it wouldn't be legal if done. The reason no gun control law has ever gone that far is because such an action makes it almost completely unpalatable. The best argument against such laws is not some misguided interpretation of the ex post facto clause, very similar to the one the courts have rejected regarding the lautenburg amendment, but an argument that such a law violates the second amendment.
 
There are a plethora of laws concerning use and possession of drugs. Until the 20th century, it wasn't illegal to use cocaine or opium. However, Congress used the commerce clause to regulate and control drugs of many types, effectively removing them from private or state control.

If you were a drug addict on April 3, your addiction would soon use up your supply, and whether you had drugs on April 4 would become a moot point, since the April 3 stash would be used up very quickly. After April 3, any procurement resulting in possession and/or usage would certainly result in prosecution. There is also the caveat, that some probable cause of illegal behavior would have to be known before anyone can be charged with anything. Also, no one knows how long you had the illegal drugs, since there's generally no manufacturing tag on marijuana, heroin, or crack cocaine.

Weapons manufacturers comply with a long list of Federal and state laws, which is one reason why there are fewer today than thirty years ago. The courts have generally been on the side of the manufacturer here. They produce a legal product, which for the most part is used for legal purposes. Courts have long taken a dim view of holding manufacturers responsible for legal products used in a legal manner. That's also why you can't be held liable if a person steals your guns and kills someone with it provided you report the theft(s). Courts have even held that you can't be held liable even if you don't report the theft.

Bills of attainder punish a person, or group of persons, by making something illegal, and bypassing the court system. If Congress and the President want to ban and seize a particular type of weapon, then they can certainly pass a law attempting to do so. However, a law suit would be filed in Federal district court before the ink has dried on the paper.

Congress passed a law concerning the AIG bonuses. They knew when they passed it, that it was a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law, since they knew and approved of the bonuses well in advance of March 2009. Their only intent was to pass a "we care, and we're mad as hell" law, and kick the can into the court system. They've targeted a specific group here, and courts have always held that this type of law was a bill of attainder.
 
You're all (well, most of you) overlooking the "takings clause" in the 5th Amendment.

Also, I don't think you really have to worry about the military confiscating weapons from civilians. If that order is ever given, the military will collapse because enough will refuse to follow such an illegal order. National Guard is a little more iffy.

The folks you need to watch out for are the thousands of federal (and sympathetic local) police, such as the FBI, ATF, Marshalls, Secret Service, etc. But there's not enough of them to be everywhere at once.
 
Back to the "So called up and coming AWB". I do believe we have no other choice than to get rid of the Obamanation and his staff as soon as possible. In my circle of friends, mostly retired military, the majority believe we are going to have major civil unrest in the near future because of the direction the Obamanation group is taking America. They also believe that he will first take as many weapons out of the hands of the civilins as possible to prevent any type of resistance. I am a law abiding citizen and will turn my guns over to them bullets first, all 32 surplus ammo cans containing about 15,000 rounds.
 
Ah, I LOVE the smell of a good "OMG!!!! OH NOES!" thread in the making. Smells like paranoia.

And then we get to the point where we start coming up with these WONDERFULLY clever nicknames for politicans we don't like...

Obamanation...

Hitlery...

Shrub...

McStain...

And so forth and so on...

If that's the best and most effective way you can find to express your feelings on the subject, how can we tell the difference between the adult you supposedly are, and the internet associative "5-year-old on the elementary school playground"?

No matter how wonderously clever you THINK you are, no matter the depth of your moral outrage and angst, no matter how much of a patriot you imagine you see looking back from the mirror in the morning...


CHILDISH NAME CALLING HAS NO PLACE ON THIS FORUM.

You're (hopefully) adults for God's sake, so try acting like rational adults. At the very least, it's a violation of our rules against invective.

Now, Chuck, don't for a moment think I'm picking on you.

You simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time and you're the one on the receiving end of my dissatisfaction. You have a lot of brethren out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top