Posted by Brody on 1/30/05

More | Report Post

I know the Lautenberg Amendment has been tried at every
angle to be found unconstitutional and those angles failed.
I read that if a person is arrested with a weapon after
being convicted and they fall under the L.A. This isn't Ex
Post Facto because they are in trouble for the weapon, not
for the Domestic. But I say, they are in trouble for the
D.V. since they would have been able to possess a weapon
if not for the D.V. Does this make sense? One other thing.
If one can't prove the L.A. is unconstitutional, or an Ex
Post Facto law, could it be challenged that the
retroactivity of that amendment is unconstitutional, since
that is Ex Post Facto? Comments are appreciated.

This can not Constitutional, can it?, 1/30/05, by Brody.

Second Amendment Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST