Re: HR4205 / ex posto facto

From: Damon Gentile (damonfg@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Aug 04 2000 - 05:45:30 PDT


Novice question here but what is the difference
between calling for a demil (or similar) of MVs
and that incident maybe 3 or 4 years ago when
BATF reclassified those 3 types of shotguns as
"destructive devices" thus requiring any owners
to get legislative approval to keep them and
also be actively maintaned in a database under
the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Anyone ?

-Damon (does that passage apply to only
inter-state migration????)

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but
a tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars
for
each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended,
unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require
it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

I am certainly no expert (more of a devils Advocate) but No Bill
of
attainder or EX POST FACTO LAW shall be passed! I am sure that
the
bill
being discussed certainly has retroactive implications (ex post
Facto). So
could it not be argued that such a law if passed would be
unconstitutional?
Or is that me just trying to stretch things too far ??

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:23 PDT