TexasCHLforum.com

If it was legal for me to own a particular gun last month, and now it is not, that's ex post facto.

jimlongley wrote:If it was legal for me to own a particular gun last month, and now it is not, that's ex post facto.

Not necessarily. If it was legal for you to own a gun last month and they changed the law this month, then under Ex Post Facto: They can not bring charges against you for owning a gun last month. They can file charges this month as you are not in compliance with the current law.

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" id exercising my rights as an american means being a criminal, then so be it.

KaiserB wrote:

jimlongley wrote:If it was legal for me to own a particular gun last month, and now it is not, that's ex post facto.

Not necessarily. If it was legal for you to own a gun last month and they changed the law this month, then under Ex Post Facto: They can not bring charges against you for owning a gun last month. They can file charges this month as you are not in compliance with the current law.

Still looks ex post facto to me. If I own a gun, legally, and a law is passed making it illegal for me to own that gun, it is criminalizing something that already exists, and that sounds pretty ex post facto to me. Now if I owned a gun in the past, and got rid of it, and then tried to buy one again after its possession was criminalized, that would be a different matter.

jimlongley wrote:Still looks ex post facto to me. If I own a gun, legally, and a law is passed making it illegal for me to own that gun, it is criminalizing something that already exists, and that sounds pretty ex post facto to me.

Inconceivable!

It's the nature of a new restrictive law to prohibit an action that was legal. For example I used to be able to carry my Spyderco on airline flights but now I can't.

boomerang wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Still looks ex post facto to me. If I own a gun, legally, and a law is passed making it illegal for me to own that gun, it is criminalizing something that already exists, and that sounds pretty ex post facto to me.

Inconceivable!

It is the nature of a new restrictive law to prohibit an action that was legal. For example I used to be able to carry my Spyderco on airline flights but now I can't.

Not quite the same thing. You can still own the spyderco. They did not ban you from owning the spyderco.

The next time a spyderco is used to kill someone they will come knock on your door and confoscate it.

Logical course of action. It has worked so well in UK and Australia.

Anygunanywhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX ... &index=115" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are the people we're dealing with. Tragic...

It's shoulder the thing that goes up!

Jason73 wrote:what guns? I sold them all to a guy at a gunshow for cash.....I think he was driving a pickup truck and he had on a cowboy hat.........

I miss my guns.

YellowTJ wrote:
Consider me a stomped on snake on this topic right now. Where is the best place to put my fight? I've yet to join the NRA or what not. i need some guidance on who and where is the best place to fight for this to go away.

JOIN THE NRA!!! Then join GOA. There is another group out there whose name is misleading. Im not exactly sure of its name, and Im sure someone will correct me if Im wrong, but its something like the American Hunters and Shooters or something like that. They are Antiguns regardless of what their name says.

Oh yeah, have I mentioned JOIN THE NRA? Get everyone you know to join too. They dont even need to own guns, only be supporters of the Second Ammendment. The Second Ammendment is a right, just like voting, and freedom of speech. If we allow them to restrict the Second Ammendment, whats gonna stop them from restricting the other rights? Could you imagine the outrage if barry and crew decided to restrict our voting rights? The same outrage should be expressed when they try to restrict our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Stripes make me look skinny.