9
9
0
I discovered while doing some research. I would appreciate any attorneys to explain why the current efforts for gun control in Virginia do not violate the 2nd Amendment "ex post facto".
Ex Post Facto
Posted from law.cornell.edu
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
4th Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 2
11
11
0
They do violate the 2A. The Dems make a mockery of their oath. That's the short of it.
What you see all over the country are laws that clearly are an infringement on the 2A. Then it takes many years to get the issue before the Supreme Court. The law has force until struck down.
One of the main reasons the Dems wail and gnash their teeth is that President Trump is appointing judges who won't ignore the clear words of the Constitution.
What you see all over the country are laws that clearly are an infringement on the 2A. Then it takes many years to get the issue before the Supreme Court. The law has force until struck down.
One of the main reasons the Dems wail and gnash their teeth is that President Trump is appointing judges who won't ignore the clear words of the Constitution.
(11)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Capt Walter Miller - very few of the gun control laws are ex post facto laws. They are still crappy laws that in most cases violate the Second Amendment, but they are not ex post facto.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Capt Gregory Prickett - I know what you mean. "An ex post facto law is one that declares someone's action to be criminal only after it was committed--a procedure forbidden by our Constitution."
It doesn't apply here. But our elected officials are passing laws they know won't pass legal muster. It occurred to me that framers wanted elected officials to "uphold and defend" the Constitution - by oath. If they took their oath seriously, it would be impossible to draft laws that violated the clear language of the document. But you get people that who have no moral underpinnings at all.
It doesn't apply here. But our elected officials are passing laws they know won't pass legal muster. It occurred to me that framers wanted elected officials to "uphold and defend" the Constitution - by oath. If they took their oath seriously, it would be impossible to draft laws that violated the clear language of the document. But you get people that who have no moral underpinnings at all.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see)
I will find you a copy of the last law that barely failed this week. I am a bit pressed for time this morning. Thanks!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google