Suppressors Owners! Options If State Bans Them?

[joeg26er]

Suppressors Owners! Options If State Bans Them?

Nebraska was considering banning suppressors

Other states might be next
If you own suppressors and your state bans them are you sol?

[MisterHelix]

It wouldn't be the first time, but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 Clause 1 (with respect to state laws).

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Get a lawyer and file suit.

And good luck.

(Not a lawyer)

[223to45]

It wouldn't be the first time, but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 Clause 1 (with respect to state laws).

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Get a lawyer and file suit.

And good luck.

(Not a lawyer)

"but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden"


That didn't seem to stop WA state for out right banning bump stocks. Not even allowed to own them now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[MegademiC]

"but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden"


That didn't seem to stop WA state for out right banning bump stocks. Not even allowed to own them now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Has anyone chall ged it yet?

[UrHero]

"but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden"


That didn't seem to stop WA state for out right banning bump stocks. Not even allowed to own them now.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

There is a difference between ex post facto ( prosecution for a prior act that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed) and a ban that makes something illegal going forward.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Bret]

There is a difference between ex post facto ( prosecution for a prior act that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed) and a ban that makes something illegal going forward.

+1 If they give you some time period to comply before it becomes illegal, then it wouldn't be ex post facto.

Also, the 5th Amendment states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Their out for not providing compensation is going to be that it's not being taken for public use. Of course the founding fathers never envisioned our government taking property except for public use, so "for public use" was written in to the amendment for clarification as to why the government would take property. When it comes to our rights that liberals don't want us to have, they interpret the Constitution as narrowly as possible. For example, they incorrectly claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized state militias. When it comes to rights that they think they should have, they manage to find what's not written (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). The left doesn't care one bit about the rule of law. That's why they have no problem saying that a bump stock makes a rifle a machine gun when it clearly doesn't by what's written in the law. What the left cares about is getting the results they want by whatever means are necessary at the moment.

[223to45]

Has anyone chall ged it yet?

Not that I heard about yet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Renegade]

It wouldn't be the first time, but Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 Clause 1 (with respect to state laws).

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Get a lawyer and file suit.

And good luck.

(Not a lawyer)

Banning an existing object is not ex-post facto.

Not ex-post-facto: They ban silencers today. You have to get rid of your silencer ASAP.

ex-post facto: They ban silencers today, and also pass a law making it illegal to have owned one yesterday.

[Bret]

Nebraska was considering banning suppressors

Is it just some leftist in the legislature that has proposed it or does it really have a realistic chance of passing? Nebraska is pretty conservative. I'd be surprised if they could muster the votes for a ban, but I don't know Nebraska politics. Gun control won't pass in Georgia, but every year the Democrats (who are in the minority) propose gun control. I actually kind of like it that they do because it's a reminder for everyone of their intentions.

[MisterHelix]

Banning an existing object is not ex-post facto.

Not ex-post-facto: They ban silencers today. You have to get rid of your silencer ASAP.

ex-post facto: They ban silencers today, and also pass a law making it illegal to have owned one yesterday.

I suppose that makes sense. I'm not that familiar with what everyone else construes the constitution to mean. (Legal precedent).

I'm just sick off folks trying to ban stuff.