Baradium
Regular Member
imported post
Liko81 wrote:
I disagree based on the premise that it is additional prosecution for the crime (domestic violence) due to a change of law that occured after it was committed.
Liko81 wrote:
Applying this to the gun owner with the domestic violence charge, if he bought the gun when a domestic violence charge did not disqualify (before '96), it was legal for him to buy it and they cannot charge him for buying it. Whether it was legal by the letter of the lawfor him topossess it when it was found in his homeafter the law passed, OTOH,depends on whether the law specifically makes an exception (a grandfather clause) for weapons ownedeither before the law passed or before theperson wasfound guilty. The law probably does not specifically grant or deny this exemption, however thesituation is similar to others where things are grandfathered either explicitly or implicitly, and thus the question before the court is whether it is unconstitutionalto refuse tograndfather a possession that is made illegal to possess. In either case, it is perfectly logical that it is illegal for himto buy any new gun after 1996, because that is the letter of the law. Depending on the ruling he MAY be able to keep what he has until for whatever reason he doesn't have it anymore, but he cannot get more.
I disagree based on the premise that it is additional prosecution for the crime (domestic violence) due to a change of law that occured after it was committed.