TexasCHLforum.com

KLB wrote:

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.

So if the state of California made it illegal for residents to be male, effective 6 months from now, that would be fine because people could comply by doing something they don't necessarily want to do (get a sex change).

crazy2medic wrote:Here is most likely why the State of California wants to ban them out right, since magazines have no serial numbers and no way to prove when they were bought then there is no way to disprove that you didn't have it before the ban, so they are laying down a blanket prohibition!
I have 4 14rd mags for my 1911 bought in the 90's
20 30rd mags for the AR given to me by my nephew when he returned from Afghanistan
one 13 rd and two 29rd mags for my .45 carbine
None have any serial numbers so no way to prove when they were acquired

I think you are being a bit naïve. Personally, I believe that the folks who lead the government of the state of California would like to make all gun ownership illegal. They can't do that completely, but they are doing what they can.

I also don't think the leadership is dumb enough to actually believe this is for increased safety. That is something they tell the rank and file of their party. The real reason is that they see government as a paternal force that is needed to keep the commoners in line, for their own good. They do not believe that people are fundamentally good, or that government should serve only at the behest of the governed. "Common" people having the means to provide for their own security is not consistent with this world view. So guns should only be possessed by the enlightened elite, or by agents of the state.

K.Mooneyham wrote:If anyone knows the answer to this, can someone please explain how this new California magazine law is not considered an "ex post facto" law? I thought that those types of laws were not Constitutional. In my thinking, that is why this law is different than the previous California magazine law saying that people couldn't buy any more greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines, but could keep their existing ones.

It's for the children so it must be constitutional.

I'm guessing that this decision will be overturned (and the ban reinstated) by the 9th circuit if it even gets that far. I think it might be a good thing if this gets to the current SCOTUS. If that happens, there is a decent chance that we could see some limits on the ability of states to regulate legally owned guns out of existence.