Quantcast

Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. TRUE OR FALSE?: Any law restricting gun ownership or the number of rounds in its magazine is inapplicable to guns already owned.

tncdel 2013/01/20 02:45:49
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In case you don't already know what an "ex post facto law" is, please see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • YouSirName 2013/01/20 15:22:37 (edited)
    FALSE [explain why you think not].
    YouSirName
    Ex post facto refers to a law criminalizing an activity that occurred before the law was passed. Restrictions on ownership of a specific type of gun would only apply to ownership that occurred after the law was passed. Usually the law also allows for an amnesty period. For example, laws requiring seatbelts in cars didn't criminalize not wearing a seatbelt before the law was passed. There was also a grace period. But today it is illegal to drive a 1960 vehicle without seatbelts even if it was manufactured without seatbelts originally.
  • john.ni... YouSirName 2013/01/30 01:06:36
    john.nicholas.399
    +2
    Actually as current law stands you are only required to have the safety equipment on your vehicle that came standard from the factory when the vehicle was made..
    So if your classic car did not come factory equiped with seat belts, turn signals, etc you don't have to have them..
  • YouSirName john.ni... 2013/02/01 11:43:13
    YouSirName
    I stand corrected. Perhaps the laws requiring wearing of seatbelts would be a better example. Prior to these laws even if you had seatbelts you didn't have to wear them. After, you do. Code laws would be another example. It isn't illegal to live in a house not up to code. But you won't be able to sell it or get things repaired by licensed repairmen without complying with the new codes.
  • Matt M 2013/01/20 06:26:37
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    Matt  M
    That seems to make sense.
  • Walt 2013/01/20 05:08:34
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    Walt
    +1
    That's true, but it would take a Supreme Court challenge and a win to convince liberals that their delusional fantasyland ideologies are subject to the legal framework of the United States.

    ... But it's a good point you make.
  • kaZappoo 2013/01/20 03:39:34
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    kaZappoo
    +1
    well they cannot take the arsenal & magazines already in legal possession ,
    including those fully automatic (permitted ) guns !
  • Jeff Smith 2013/01/20 03:17:11
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    Jeff Smith
    +1
    Need more High Cap mags I'd say
  • Mel 2013/01/20 02:50:21
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    Mel
    +1
    Well sure looks like it based on the link you provided, basically if you got a high capacity mag already I would say you are grandfathered in. But I'm sure the White House will come up with some type of loop hole to get around it.
  • tncdel 2013/01/20 02:49:52
    TRUE [comment as you wish].
    tncdel
    +1
    I read an article saying that Obama, etc. wants to reduce the number of bullets allowed in a gun's magazine as a pretext to confiscate Glocks and other guns with more bullets. But they cannot constitutionally take, restrict or limit what guns are already owned.

    So that if they pass a law today, that law cannot constitutionally apply to guns manufactured before the date the law was passed.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 05:58:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals