Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Eghad sorted out the legalese nicely. Some could (and have) argued that the ex post facto penalty in Lautenberg is the denial of Second Amendment rights for a crime that occured in the past. In effect, the penalty is being enhanced after you have already been convicted of the crime. So far that argument has not been successful.
The link gc70 gave has some excellent examples of precedent and legal reasoning explaining the distinction Eghad just wrote:
The link gc70 gave has some excellent examples of precedent and legal reasoning explaining the distinction Eghad just wrote:
In rejecting defendant's challenge, the court held:
Regardless of the date of [defendant's] prior conviction, the
crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm was not
committed until after the effective date of the statute ....
by [the date of defendant's conviction under section 922(g)1),
defendant] had more than adequate notice that it was illegal
for him to possess a firearm because of his status as a
convicted felon, and he could have conformed his conduct to
the requirements of the law. Therefore, the Ex Post Facto
clause was not violated by the use of a 1951 felony conviction
as a predicate for a violation of section 922(g).
Brady, 26 F.3d at 291. Cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Products 511 U.S.
244. 269 n. 24, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1499 n. 24, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)
("[A] statute 'is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon
antecedent facts for its operation.'") (quoting Got v. Hart, 260
U.S. 427, 4437, 43 S.Ct 151, 157, 67 L.Ed. 332 (1922)); United
States v. Allen, 886 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1989) ("So long as the
actual crime for which a defendant is being sentenced occurred
after the effective date of the new statute, there is no ex post
facto violation."). Finding defendants' argument and the Brady
opinion persuasive, the court holds that because section 922(g)(9)
does not criminalize conduct that occurred prior to its effective
date, it is not retrospective and thus not violative of the Ex Post
Facto Clause. [footnote 18] Accordingly, defendants are entitled to
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims to the extent that those claims are
brought under the Ex Post Facto Clause.