Even more on magazine restrictions
Ian:
we’re fighting this because to allow them to define the number of bullets you “need” in a magazine is to allow them to define the number of bullets you “need”, period.
Also, if the limit is arbitrarily set at ten, it will later be changed to five. Etc.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Ten yo’ momma!
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “There’s nothing wrong with ramming a magazine ban down the throats of America’s gun owners and threatening them with ten-year prison terms if they don’t comply, as long as we don’t engage in any incivility while we’re doing it.”
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:24 pm
I did read that a bill filed to restrict magazine capacity would supposedly apply to all in current possession. Such a bill would be flagrantly unconstitutional, accordingly:
Article I, Section 9
Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
But then they have already repeatedly violated the Constitution, “the Supreme Law of the Land”–which is what criminals do.
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:36 am
Ron,
That’s no what ex post facto means. (I assume you’re referring to that, because this isn’t anywhere close to attainting.)
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:19 am
Markie Marxist sez: “Magazine restrictions don’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because magazines have nothing to do with guns. They’re totally separate things, so there’s no infringement. Gun here, magazine there, completely separate – anyone can see that! It’s not a gun ban, so it’s perfectly legal. Your gun will still shoot with only one bullet in it and no magazine. You don’t even need a magazine to exercise your right to bear arms! It’s totally unnecessary! Unless you have one of those magazine disconnect thingies, which can be disabled, so that the gun still works, so there! No magazines required for the right to keep and bear arms! Ha! Ha! All your Second Amendment is belong to us! But we’ll still let you have one bullet. For now.
Oh? It’s still just ten rounds in the magazine for now? Oh, okay, you can still have a ten-round magazine. I have been informed that we’re not down to the one bullet limit yet. Oh well, we’ll get your magazines later. All your magazine will belong to us! Eventually.”
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 am
“Also, if the limit is arbitrarily set at ten, it will later be changed to five. Etc.”
Markie Marxist sez: “We were thinking of later changing it to six, but I like your suggestion better.”
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Sebastian’s troll-in-residence tried to claim that yes, in fact, there should be a limit to the number of magazines you could carry, and that such a law was necessary to prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law. Or something like that.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Ammo capacity is inversely proportional to caliber. The greater the capacity the small the caliber. The less the capacity the greater the caliber.. Would you want 17 rnds of 9mm or 15 rnds of 10mm?? 10rnds of 10mm or 8 rnds of .45…
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Diomed,
It says Bill of Attainder OR ex post facto Law. They’re two different terms, my reference was to the latter:
Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”
——————————————————————————–
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
But then, like I said, criminals don’t care about the law…except to break’em for their own purposes and use some killer as a pretext to do it.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Thus the common criminal (usually according to the “lone nut” theory) is the supposed propagandized reason for what the leglized version does:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” –Thomas Jefferson
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”–Thomas Jefferson
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“Also, if the limit is arbitrarily set at ten, it will later be changed to five. Etc.”
Yup, and when a 5 rnd limit wouldn’t stop homicidal maniacs they’d want to ban all semi-autos because you don’t “need” them. And when maniacs would roll up to a “gun free” zone with 5 revolvers and a 12w ga cruiser they’d tell us we don’t “need” to own that many guns and ammo. A hi-cap mag ban just a good starting point for the anti-gun pieces of s–t to usurp our 2A rights.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Only your enemy wants you disarmed—even if they can only do it piecemeal. It’s obvious that we have very evil people in high places working to enslave us! And we’re supposed to shut up and not mention it lest we cause some “lone nut” to snap and give them more emotional ammunition to propagandize their criminality.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Ron W –
“Ex post facto” currently means making something a crime prior to enactment of the law. If item x is banned on January 1, then prosecution for possession of it on December 31 is an ex post facto act.
This mag ban is not ex post facto. No court in the country will say it is either.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Diomed
“no ex post facto Law shall be passed”…that’s passing a law which would make something a crime (possesing a hi-cap mag) which wasn’t before.
Here you can re-read it:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
But then the Federal Government has NO “delegated powers” re: mag capacity of an armed citizenry. It only has “delegated powers” over “such part of the militia” which is called into its service and EMPLOYED”
But then you may be correct about the courts because many of them have demosntrated their criminality in refusing to abide by the wording of the Constitution and NOT reading and applying words according to their plain meaning according to English grammar:
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” –Samuel Adams
January 24th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.”
Ron,
Read that again!! Particularly the last 2 phrases.
Your should note that _every_ law ever passed in the history of the world that makes something a crime applies to an act that prior to the passage of the law was not a crime. Kind of a definitional thing. What would make it ex post facto is _punishing_ an act committed prior to passing the law.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
bob r,
“What would make it ex post facto is _punishing_ an act committed prior to passing the law.”
Yes, but the Constitution says No ex post facto law shall be passed– that is passing a law which would make an act punishable prior to that law. That is a law which would make something illegal and punishable which previously was not. The previous AWB made the sale of imported hi-cap mag weapons illegal. I actually purchased a hi-cap mag weapon from an FFL dealer in 2003,during the AWB because it was pre-ban and therefore legal prior to the law. The 1994 AWB law which expired in 2004 did not make POSSESSING one illegal because that would have been an ex post facto law aimed at citizens. But NOW, some Congressional criminals want to do precisely that…make millions of gun owners instant criminals.
But then they have acted criminally in the past with other gun control laws since the Federal Government only has “delegated powers” to govern only “such part of the militia that is called into service and employed” (Article I, Section 8.16) The 10th Amendment makes it illegal for the Federal Government to do anything for which it has NO “delegated powers”.
“[T]he particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”–Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 1803
Since the Judiciary claims the follow precedent, let them start there.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Ron,
You’re not the first person to misunderstand that, and you won’t be the last.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“What would make it ex post facto is _punishing_ an act committed prior to passing the law.” –Diomed
Yes, thank you, you’re correct in that statement and some Congressional proponents of despotism want to pass an ex post facto law to do precisely that–which is precisely what the WORDING of Article I, Section 9.3 prohibits: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The criminal element in the government despises the law which restricts their arbitrary power. And in that regard it seems that: “You’re not the first person to misunderstand that, and you won’t be the last.”
“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson