View Single Post
Old November 13, 2008, 12:59 AM   #13
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
Everyone who has a modicum of knowledge on ex post facto has to know that Lautenberg flies in the face of the Constitution
That's not so clear. Article I, section 9 provides in part:

Quote:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The prohibition on an ex post facto law means that conduct that was lawful when it occured can not be made unlawful after the fact. A bill of attainder is a legislative act declaring a person guilty of a crime without his having been convicted in a court. Coupling the two provisions in the same sentence of the constitution suggests that they have something in common, which IMO means congress can not penalize someone without first having passed a law and then having a court find the party violated the law after it was passed.

Let's look at the Hayes case. For the purpose of discussion, let's assume two things. First, the Lautenberg amendment applied to Mr. Hayes (which is the issue before the court now so the assumption is solely for the purpose of this discussion here). Second, everyone is presumed to know what is criminal and what is not (and as a result is prosecuted the same whether they know or not).

Step 1. Mr. Hayes hits his wife and is convicted of battery. No ex post facto there.

Step 2. Lautenberg amendment becomes law. Mr. Hayes is not subject to punishment. No ex post facto there.

Step 3. Years after the passage of the Lautenberg amendment, Mr. Hayes is found in possession of a firearm and is convicted of violating the Lautenberg amendment. At the time he possessed the firearm, he knew he had been disqualifed from possessing a firearm since he knew he had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Knowing that, he chose to possess a firearm. That's not ex post facto. That's his choice to violate a law. (What we think of the Lautenberg amendment is beside the issue here.)

It's true that the Lautenberg amendment had an ex post facto effect on Mr. Hayes, but that's not necessarily unconstitutional. The Lautenberg amendment did not punish Mr. Hayes for his prior action or conviction, only for his possession of a firearm subsequent to the passage of the Lautenberg amendment.
Ricky B is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02843 seconds with 8 queries