View Full Version : Suppressors Owners! Options If State Bans Them?
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
04-01-18, 22:53
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)
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
"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?
"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 TapatalkThere 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
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.
Has anyone chall ged it yet?Not that I heard about yet.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
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.
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
04-03-18, 16:18
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.
Legal precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is void. MisterHelix, in order to help protect your rights, it's critical that you understand how to defend them. Reading the Constitution is the easiest place to start. While it's not an easy read, it's not too difficult to understand because it was written in plain English so that everyone could understand. There was nothing hidden inside it that people were not aware of 200 years ago, but people now can figure out. It's not to be reinterpreted as time goes by and society evolves. If people want to change the Constitution, it includes an amendment process.
MisterHelix
04-03-18, 17:50
Legal precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is void. MisterHelix, in order to help protect your rights, it's critical that you understand how to defend them. Reading the Constitution is the easiest place to start. While it's not an easy read, it's not too difficult to understand because it was written in plain English so that everyone could understand. There was nothing hidden inside it that people were not aware of 200 years ago, but people now can figure out. It's not to be reinterpreted as time goes by and society evolves. If people want to change the Constitution, it includes an amendment process.
Sure thing. I read it through frequently, and when I do, I find things like the "ex post facto" thing, and say hmmm.
Then I'm told it doesn't mean what I think it means.
It seems to me like a bunch of stuff done at the federal and state level is unconstitutional, but it seems like there's always a reason why they can do it. National Security and Interstate commerce seem to be the most popular excuses.
So a certain city in Illinois banned assault type rifles and high capacity magazines today with a 30 day limit to sell, remove, or forfeit said items allowing confiscation if not forfeited. If say a citizen in that city owned an ar-15 sbr with a federal tax stamp what happens then. If Nebraska bans suppressors and you have federal permission to own that suppressor, I guess state/city law trumps federal law?
medicman816
04-05-18, 22:47
In general, with NFA, state/city law does trump federal law. There was a poster on another site who did a form 1 for a moltov cocktail and was denied because it was illegal in his state (posted a picture of the denied form 1 with reason being illegal by statute or something). You cannot own a NFA item in states where they are illegal. You would probably also be denied a form 20 into a state if the item was illegal there, also.
The same would hold true if one suddenly became a prohibited person. You have the stamp, but cannot legally possess the item.
I guess the question will be answered by the law, if and when it is written, i.e. grandfathered, time limit to dispose, keep but not transfer, etc. I think we have to keep in mind that at one point everything was legal until one day it wasn't. Laws restrict things, not allow them. If there is no law against it, it is legal.
I feel many citizens of this country will loose their second amendment rights to this new form of gun control. Cities will jump on the band wagon.
That's why getting a statewide gun law preemption passed is so important. If we didn't have that in Georgia, then there would be some cities, towns and even counties that have gun control. As it is, they can't pass any gun related laws because Georgia has a preemption law.
Several Florida legislators/ politicos are trying to get rid of Florida's preemption laws / rewrite the Florida state constitution
Legal precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is void. MisterHelix, in order to help protect your rights, it's critical that you understand how to defend them. Reading the Constitution is the easiest place to start. While it's not an easy read, it's not too difficult to understand because it was written in plain English so that everyone could understand. There was nothing hidden inside it that people were not aware of 200 years ago, but people now can figure out. It's not to be reinterpreted as time goes by and society evolves. If people want to change the Constitution, it includes an amendment process.
Different people, different judges, interpret the Constitution differently. The Constitution may not say what you think it says.
Different people, different judges, interpret the Constitution differently. The Constitution may not say what you think it says.
More often, they just do want they want and disregard what it says simply because it doesn't fit their agenda. Anyone who has half a bit of intellectual honesty knows that the 2nd Amendment protects our right to keep and bear firearms. If they still don't fully understand what it means by simply reading it, then they can dive in to history and remove all doubt. Those who choose to ignore what's plainly written (2nd, 9th, 10th Amendments, etc.) and find what's not written (right to abortion, prohibition against death penalty, gay marriage, etc.) are simply tyrants at heart.
I'd really like to know why people who propose gun control cannot be charged with treason?
The most widely used definition of treason is: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. A lesser used definition is: the action of betraying someone or something. Your context is using the lesser used definition as in the betrayal of the Constitution. However, the crime of treason is associated with the first definition. So long as someone doesn't attempt to overthrow the government or advocate for its overthrow, they won't be considered to have committed the crime of treason. Wanting to change the Constitution or even denying what it says is not treason from a criminal standpoint. Those who deny parts of the Constitution that don't suit them or find things in the Constitution that are not there are unfit to hold office or even vote in my opinion, but they have not committed the crime of treason for their willful disregard of the law.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.