Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 3,259
- Reactions
- 7,011
Democrats Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment
Things are looking rough.
Things are looking rough.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait isnt that illegal too?Adding new crimes to strip you of your 2A aren't enough:
"Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed."
WOW so she should think this through cause every time I see or hear about that old cow I get emotionally distressed. I also feel like she has singled me out and is stalking me in an attempt to ruin my emotional well being.
But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....I don't think this will work for you? Didn't see mention of Violence against men? In their mind it doesn't seem to be a problem for men.
That's where I was going. Since you now have gender fluidity......But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....
Not really but why not use their laws against them.
Wait isnt that illegal too?
Maybe im misremembering but i remember learning about a provision that doesnt allow people to be tried for "crimes" they commited at a time they were legal. In other words arent they not allowed to, say, make smoking cigarettes illegal tommorow then convict everyone who smoked prior to the law being passed?
Or would that not apply in this case as its an additional punishment to already existent convictions?
Adding new crimes to strip you of your 2A aren't enough:
"Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed."
Or double jeopardy? All all know is it stinks to high heaven.Isn't this an example of an ex post facto law?
So..... violence against women is OK now and we need a new law to protect them? What happened to the rule of thumb anyway......
It evolved into rule of wrist....
Thank you i knew there was a name i wasnt remembering. And also for the clarification.You're probably referencing ex post facto law, which is generally prohibited by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. However, they likely argue it is regulatory, not punitive. They did exactly that with Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1997 and it was upheld in court, so there is precedence.
Total crap, of course, but what else is new.
But.....But I self identify as a female today so therefore she is in violation of this already....
Not really but why not use their laws against them.