Posted: 3/8/2004 10:56:22 AM EDT
|
Hey guys, This question has been bugging me and I'm not sure. For example, when the AWB dies, and I put a collapsing/folding stock on a former post-ban firearm, and then the ban goes back into effect, would I have to remove it, or would it be grandfathered in? Also, if for example I put a folding stock on, at a later date could I have the muzzle threaded and a bayonet lug put on even if the ban goes back into effect? Thanks for clearing this one up. |
| Yes, you could do that. Yes, you could keep them on, because making something that was legal before a crime retroactively is ex post facto prosecution. And that is not allowed, other board members misunderstanding of what ex post facto actually is not withstanding. |
| Ok for the last time, when the ban sunsets you can do any damn thing you want but make it an SBR or a MG. If a new ban came along they could not make it retroactive to the date of the old one so yer gun would be ok as is. Unless they ban them and require them to be turned in than it wouldn't matter cuz all hell would break loose. |
|
Quoted: Yes, you could do that. Yes, you could keep them on, because making something that was legal before a crime retroactively is ex post facto prosecution. And that is not allowed, other board members misunderstanding of what ex post facto actually is not withstanding. Yeah.... ex post facto is illegal. Just like that Lautenberg amendement..... Sure is nice to live in a country ruled by law. |
|
Quoted: Alright, excellent. Sorry photoman, you don't really have to be a snappy bitch about it. I looked around and I couldn't find anything similar to the exact question I was asking. Sorry dude, I didn't mean it to sound all bitchy and all. The question was asked about 30-10000 times and barried in to many threads durring the S1805 debats. I guess a smiley would have been good. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Yes, you could do that. Yes, you could keep them on, because making something that was legal before a crime retroactively is ex post facto prosecution. And that is not allowed, other board members misunderstanding of what ex post facto actually is not withstanding. Yeah.... ex post facto is illegal. Just like that Lautenberg amendement..... Sure is nice to live in a country ruled by law. Lautenberg was covered here: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=232375&w=searchPop[/url] Lautenberg wasn't ex post facto. ex post facto is convicting you of a crime for something you did while it was legal, but was later made illegal. Lautenberg didn't do that. What it did was expand the conditions of what could result in loss of 2nd amendment rights to include other previous convictions for illegal activities. That's why the supreme court didnt' strike it down on ex post facto. They should have struck it down under basic infringement on 2nd amendment rights, but on the 2nd they don't seem to have a spine. |