TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 . . .

God bless Texas.

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