Post: Lautenberg amendment
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7ab77/7ab77609ea50f381c51b773802d8ee9c313a8f7c" alt=""
Posted by Bryce on 3/08/07
I plead guilty to a D.V charge in 1994. Not knowing this stupid law would come into effect, otherwise I would have took it to trial and won since all I did was push her away from me after he stabbed me in the back of my thigh with a btcher knife. Since this law came into effect in 1996/1997 and now I can't own a gun, isn't this then an ex post facto law, which is unonstitutional. I know case law says no, because ou are being punihed by the new law, not the D.V. But without the D.V. the new law would not have a recourse. therefore the new law is contingent upon the D.V. thus making it ex post facto. Am I wrong here? Are we going to stand and allow this blatent violation of the Contitution go unpunished.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Lautenberg amendment, 3/08/07, by Bryce.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 3/15/07, by Chris.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 4/24/07, by To All!!!!!!!.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 4/28/07, by Concerned Citizen.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 6/11/07, by Arla.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/24/07, by Greg R..
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/24/07, by Curmudgeon.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/28/07, by Bryce.
- Re: Lautenberg amendment, 3/11/08, by George C.
|