JETX said:
And of course, that is all crap.
The OP is noticed of being charged with 'felon gun possession'. The law is clear. Why would you even think that your 'wonderful' post has any value at all??
The FACT is... we don't know the facts of why the OP is facing FEDERAL gun charges. The law (18 USC 922) has a plethora of restrictions..... any one of which could be the issue here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Though I assume it is likely 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) which provides that it is unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to possess . . . any firearm or ammunition."
A statute which increases the punishment for a crime after its commission violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
you are assumming the situation based upon the case of United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 513 U.S. 894 (1994). In Brady, a defendant named DeMatteo invoked the prohibition of ex post facto laws in contending that his 1951 felony conviction could not serve as the predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1988), a statute enacted after 1951 that makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year to possess any firearm in or affecting commerce.
This does not seem to be the case,in this posters claims is that he was allowed to own a firearm by state authority,regulated under state authority,thus unless he traveld across intrastate,or on a highway federal law would lack jurisdiction to enforce it.
reveiw the courts definition and distinction between highways,roads,etc.
Otherwise the federal law would invade upon state Sovereignty.
But dispite this arguement,the fact may very well be that in the above case cited was based upon ,
1. Proper notification.
2.and whether or not it was changed by effects of a misdemeanor,to a felony.
It is not a compelling arguement to assume that simply owning a gun by a previousely convicted felon that they will simply use the gun in a crime,intent must be established,did the poster have the gun in his possession legaly?
That answer is made clear that he was authorised to own the gun.
After authorisation of a gun permit under the regulatory purposes of the constitutional commands of the commerce clause,he was legally allowed to own it.
On the other hand the state may very well in an attempt to oblige federal law revoke the owners gun license.
Upon notification but the poster may also invoke his constitutional right to keep and bear arms,because he was allowed and the license was revoked not according to commerce,unless the state provided for a specific law forbidding a previousely convicted felon from travelling within the states boundaries of roads.
Certain rights cannot be abolished simply because the state or federal government wishes to convert a right to a privilage,theres a clear distinction between a governmental boundaries specifically for commerce,and for a non commercial purpose of owning a gun.
Owning a gun is no more inheritantly dangerouse then for the same person to own a rifle.
The Supreme Court held that “a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause where it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.”5 The holding contains two distinct requirements: for its application to be found unconstitutional, the statute at issue must be (i) enacted “after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period” and (ii) “applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.”
Its clear that the state law of the poster allowed gun ownership by a convicted felon after the end of the statutory period had ended,thus the federal law as I original posted if it were enacted after the statutory period then YES,it clearly becomes an ex post facto law.
It all depends upon the end of the statutory period,and whether or not the poster had knowingly violated the law,and had been given due process of notification that upon gun ownership he was breaking a law.
Just to clarify I had a family member that was a victim of a violant crime of murder,she was killed by a gun,more specifically a shotgun useing Deer slugs.
So I know of the dangers involved with a weapon.
But I am not willing to surrender rights to be totally regulated by my servants.
Criminals in general arent going to register a gun,and then commite a crime with it.
So the law lacks reasonablness.
A lier will lie,and a theft will steal.
A theif will lie about stealing,and a lier will lie about stealing.