Posted on 03/10/2008 9:20:31 AM PDT by neverdem
If you buy a lawful product that is later banned, should you go to jail for 10 years, even though you didn't know it was banned, and the government that banned it now criminalizes any method to dispose of it?
In the world of gun ban extremist Bryan Miller of CeaseFire NJ, the answer to this question is yes.
Miller sees no distinction between violent criminals with guns (who should go to jail) and otherwise law-abiding citizens who were turned into "criminals" by the State with the stroke of a pen, when New Jersey banned an entire class of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms in the 1990s with no grandfather provision, no attempt to notify licensed gun owners, and a short time window within which to legally dispose of, disable, or register the banned guns.
At a March 6 legislative hearing on S1304, which would increase the penalty for possession of such firearms to a potential 10-year prison term, I argued that the higher penalty should apply to violent criminals with guns, but that otherwise law abiding citizens who had purchased the guns when it was legal to do so, who may not know they are banned due to the law's judicially acknowledged vagueness, who are not involved in criminal activity, and who presently have no legal means to comply with the law, should not be facing 10 years in prison.
In my testimony, I quoted a Court's judicial opinion finding that the gun ban's vague and confusing language made it impossible to know with certainty whether some firearms are covered by the ban. I cited another case in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term under the current penalty merely for possessing a common .22 caliber target gun he had legally purchased prior...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
Some people are just stupid.
What? RP hasn’t posted here yet? Wow. That’s surprising.
That’s not stupid. THat’s evil. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why and has a very precise goal and doens’t care who knows it.
Be afraid.
Insane. Owening a gun that is purchased legally gets you jail time, meanwhile violent predatory criminals who deal in crack get released from jail before their “previously legal” sentences are completed.
The destruction of America nears completion.
Isn’t there a legal term (Latin, I think) that says they can’t put in jail for violating a law which they passed after you had already done the deed lawfully?
“If you buy a lawful product that is later banned, should you go to jail for 10 years, even though you didn’t know it was banned, and the government that banned it now criminalizes any method to dispose of it?”
This is the same rationale that trial lawyers use daily to bludgeon and extract cash from productive American companies.
Tobacco, Asbestos, Silicone breast implants, Vioxx, Big Macs......
'stroke of the pen, law of the land'...we're all gonna be criminals soon...
When its time to bury em, its time to dig em up ...correct ???
LFOD...
Get pizzed. And let the little rat baztard know your pizzed.
lol.
How did this “vague” law S1304 get enacted in the first place in NJ? Weren’t the legislators intelligent enough to figure out that the wording of the law could be manipulated? Nevermind, I think I know the answer, lol.
Can’t legally dispose of it? Why not go to one of the numerous “gun amnesty/pay cash to turn in guns” events. I thought you could turn in a gun there, no questions asked. I know it’s not the point of the article, but it would seem like the place to get rid of it. Unless you have cops stopping people as they approach the place and arrest you before you can hand it in.
Ex Post facto
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.
In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10.
ex post facto doesn’t apply to present violation of a new law.
Yes, Ex post facto... ‘After the fact’.
Not stupidity. The left would be very happy to put us all in jail and seize our belongings.
ex post facto
I have a pretty big gun vault.... I’d invite them to bring the weapons to me for storage in another state... at least until we find a bigger vault.
The correlary is: it’s OK, so long as they publish the prohibition appropriately, and give you time to comply. Public record of passed laws is presumptavely appropriate publication, and 30 days to dispose of soon-to-be contraband is enough time to comply. That you don’t keep up on recently enacted laws and their compliance deadlines is your problem. All nice and legal, see?
Let me guess, more legislators that somehow think 'Semi-Automatic' is the same as 'machine gun'? (if you don't know the reference, there was a congresswoman a few years ago who, on the floor of congress, was railing against machine guns and talked about people playing Rambo, showing the infamous image of him with the M60, all in an attempt to outlaw 'semi-auto' guns..)
Like Dildo’s and Vibrators in Texas? Yes, this is a perplexing question.
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence," Pub.L. 104-208[1], 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996. The Act is often referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg.
This law applies ex-post facto. It is in direct violation of the constitution.
This law has been tested in Federal Court with the case United States v. Emerson, (No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001)[3], The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute which prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. Emerson does not address the portion of the Lautenberg Amendment involving conviction for misdemeanor
It was initially overturned in 1999 for being unconstitutional, but that case was reversed upon appeal in 2001
The ex post facto aspects of the law were challenged with:
United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 246 (1994)(denying ex post facto challenge to a 922(g)(1) conviction),
United States v. Waters, 23 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994)(ex post facto based challenge to a 922(g)(4) conviction).
Gettn pizzed yet? You should.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0
God, I LOVE liberal politicians!!
With their collective IQ of 2 (and I’m being generous, here!), they won’t rest until they have managed to criminalize 95% of us!!
Smaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrttttttttt!!!
They’re winning. We’re losing. I’m more scared than angry right now.
It might be a strategic errah for them to make criminals of 95% of us. What would we have left to lose?
“ex post facto”
Screw ‘em!
That law was struck down last month.
Wouldn’t an FFL in another state still be able to purchase it fromthem?
bump
There are two classes: Victims and Criminals.
Both can be controlled by the Government, which would gladly classify you in one or the other, even by force.
Carolyn
My guess (and it's only a guess) is the fact that 80% of the people wanted it had something to do with it.
Just what the hell do they think this is -- a republic?
The underlying purpose of this kind of legislation is to make it so impossible to lawfully own any firearm that honest citizens, not wishing to be in violation of the 10,000’th new gun law, just give up and turn in their firearms; leaving only criminals in possession of weapons.
Somebody taped a copy of the United States Constitution on his computer chair, and he's been unsuccessfully trying to reach his keyboard, hissing and wincing in pain like Dracula before the cross, ever since.
If they’re going to turn us all into criminals anyway, maybe it’s about time we used our weapons to blast away at these asshole politicians.
When I first read the headline, my thought was that this was another article on the faddish New Age Life-extension programs; on second thought, just before the fateful click that opened the thread my mind jumped ahead to the recent banning of kitchen garbage disposals in Raleigh...
Alas, turns out to be just another in an endless series of rantings about nitwit schemes to emasculate the 2nd Amendment, the perennial target, come rain or shine.
By that logic, then, if abortion by choice becomes illegal, women that chose abortions should be charged with murder. No?
Ex post facto
And just in case you didn’t catch it earlier, it’s ex post facto. :)
;)
For the comrades running the United Gulag of America, as long as they have absolute power over us, what difference does it make?
As long as the dumbed down masses are allowing our freedoms and the strongest nation on earth to be eradicated before our eyes, they don't care if they can still watch American Idol and Access Hollyweird.
You just made that up, didn't you rp?
I'd bet you don't even know when the law that S1304 would amend was passed. And yes, would amend is correct. I'd bet you didn't know that either.
Ex post facto is a term most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.
Regards,
GtG
give ‘em the bullets first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.