Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


txblackout
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#16

Post by txblackout » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:07 am

txblackout 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. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?
Ex-post facto is if they made it illegal to buy and then punished you for buying them before they were illegal (even if you had gotten rid of them)

Ex-post facto is if they made it retroactively illegal to possess, you got rid of them, but they prosecuted you for possessing them while they originally had been legal.

If they make them illegal now, and you continue to keep them, you are now breaking the law because it is your current action, not a historical action.


txblackout
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#17

Post by txblackout » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:10 am

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. Also, where is the just compensation for what amounts to the taking of peoples' possessions, unless they could sell them out-of-state?
No, you are being penalized for something you are doing right now, possessing illegal capacity magazines.

That being said, it does fall under eminent domain. Meaning the government is essentially "taking" the magazines and should be compensating you.

Would be awesome if people could buy them at a discount and then get the state of california to have to pay for them at full MSRP


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3255
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#18

Post by chasfm11 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:08 am

dlh wrote:Here is the NRA link to the injunction.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017062 ... gazine-ban

I have no faith in the ninth circus and believe they will overturn the judge's injunction.

At some point the Scotus will have to elaborate on Heller--something it appears it does not want to do at this time given its refusal to accept other cases we have discussed in the forum.
I'm not sure that is a bad thing. If the rumors of a Kennedy retirement in 2018 are true, there is at least the chance that we'll get someone more 2nd Amendment friendly than he is and postponing sending this case to SCOTUS would be a help. I do understand that we are in for a massive earthquake, hurricane and typhoon all rolled into one in during the process of trying to get another Conservative judge onto the court. It sure is nice to dream, however.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#19

Post by KLB » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:44 pm

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.

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#20

Post by KLB » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:44 am

txblackout wrote:Would be awesome if people could buy them at a discount and then get the state of california to have to pay for them at full MSRP
Indeed it would. But don't take a check from California. It would probably set your pocket on fire.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#21

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:05 am

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).
Ding dong, the witch is dead


apostate
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Houston Texas

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#22

Post by apostate » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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).
Don't be silly. That would violate the rights of gay men. :nono:

If California banned cis het males starting 1/1/2018, that might be upheld by the Ninth Circus. However, if the courts overturned the law it would be for some reason other than ex post facto because such a law wouldn't be so.
I'm too old for this...

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#23

Post by KLB » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:37 pm

apostate wrote:If California banned cis het males starting 1/1/2018, that might be upheld by the Ninth Circus. However, if the courts overturned the law it would be for some reason other than ex post facto because such a law wouldn't be so.
Yes, whatever the problems might exist with that law, it would not be ex post facto.

There was a time when I would have argued that being male (or female) is an immutable characteristic (which has legal significance), but now . . .

:lol:

User avatar

SpringerFan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Hockley, TX.

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#24

Post by SpringerFan » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:46 am

God bless Texas. :txflag:
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
Col. Jeff Cooper


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1675
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Federal Judge blocks CA magazine ban

#25

Post by K.Mooneyham » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:15 am

I guess I really didn't quite understand ex post facto, but then again, IANAL!

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”