TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Isn't that ex post facto?

No. If they pass a law this month saying it was illegal to own one in December 2012, that would be an ex post facto law. If they pass a law this month banning possession on or after 2/1/2013, that's not an ex post facto law.

Thy can't simply ban possession....that is confiscation and requires compensation. They're requiring you to register a gun and pay a tax...the tax itself isn't ex post facto, but not paying the tax means criminalizing an act that occurred prior to the law --possession. Under that law you're not being punished for a new act, but for an act already committed --they've made the act illegal retroactively, so, simply by doing nothing you're made a criminal. If, for example, they start taxing some other item not now taxed, like at one time was done with property, not paying the tax may result in forfeiture, but that's a civil, not a criminal remedy. They don't put people in jail for not paying their property taxes, they just take their property. This law puts you in prison for not paying the tax. Now granted, Obamacare requires you to perform a specific act, and the SC ruled it was OK, so it's anyone's guess, but I don't think the issue is cut and dried --I'd have to read more on original intent to come to a conclusion.

However, does it really matter one way or the other? We don't live under the rule of law anymore. The left is openly stating that the 2nd Amendment should just be ignored. The 2nd clearly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The proposed ban is clearly an infringement, a major one, so what difference does it make what is and isn't ex post facto?

APynckel wrote:

Kythas wrote:The government has no reason to need to know what types and quantities of firearms I own, unless they need a count of them to know what to confiscate.

We passed legislation back in the 80's making that type of data collecting by the government illegal.