Would any attorney, or any other knowledgeable member, please explain how passage of these laws without a grandfather clause would not constitute an ex post facto law. For those not familiar with this please review the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

(An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.)

Bob, that is a good question.

Additionally, I can't see how laws or policies that are clearly in violation of Federal law like recreational marijuana use can stand either.

Especially when the bans on certain types of previously legal guns are actually protected by an enumerated right.

I guess they can all pick and choose which laws or rights they'd like to follow or agree with.

Not a lawyer, but have some practical life knowledge of the law.

Any event, incident or law can be litigated.

I PUSHED HARD for prosecution in the 12Pointer case... the Commonwealth's Attorney for Pittsylvania County was persuaded and the case followed.

The exact same crime occurred (for many, not me) with IA in Culpeper, but the CA in Culpeper PROBABLY would not have proceeded. Same with MANY MANY counties.

Same with Federal (vs. State) marijuana laws. It is all about willingness to take up a case. (i.e. is the DOJ going to take up a case against the state of California?)... they could, but typically they have bigger fish to fry... When I lived in Alaska years ago marijuana was neither lawful nor unlawful... it just was. The Feds tightened the thumbscrews by withholding DOT money... same with Montana and there no speed limit law back in the day.

Ex post facto laws will be/are ABSOLUTELY litigated by citizens that have been wronged... Slamfire stocks (or whatever they are called) is case-in-point of this. It is IN PROCESS.

Like I said... I am NOT a flipping lawyer, but this is what lawyers do... at $200-$2,000 per hour.

John Pierce is a lawyer and a GREAT FRIEND to gun owners... he write about many things on his homepage... https://johnpierceesq.com/

He also is a big part of VCDL...

IMHO... financially supporting VCDL and John is the #1 thing you can do specific to gun rights.

#2 is for EVERY ONE OF US... to contact our Delegates and let them know your feelings. If your delegate is a R... be very pro-2A. If your delegate is a D... be pro-2A, but be MORE pro "fix I-95 traffic"... more "better schools"... more "fix the potholes"... more "fix XYZ bridge"... more "lower taxes on my business"... etc.

Why? If Ds are distracted from 2A stuff by the THE VERY REAL PROBLEMS we face EVERY SINGLE DAY in Virginia... they may actually focus on that REAL STUFF and have less time for the anti-gun BS.

-------------------------------------

"Grandfathering" is a legislative negotiating point... wherein compensation for seized assets is mitigated by causing no harm... i.e. no case to litigate (or at least a much smaller case)

BUT seizure/confiscation in more "with the times" and has case history (I assume, beyond just the recent Slamfire case)...

IMHO, Slamfire stock owners (that turned in their items (and got a receipt for same)) will ultimately be compensated financially.

-------------------------------------

BTW...

There is one gun law I support 100%... and it will ABSOLUTELY save lives!

It is ALREADY A LAW, but goes unenforced most of the time...

Lying on a 4473 or the State form is a MANDATORY 5 YEARS... and IF that Straw Buyer's gun goes to her gang-banging boyfriend for the commission of a crime... she GETS EXACTLY THE SAME SENTENCE as the perp.

-------------------------------------

What I am hoping here now is that all of the REAL lawyers will jump in... call me names AND actually speak on the subject. i.e. this response in V8 baiting etc.

Well said

It's not ex post facto because it doesn't charge you for the crime of having them before. If you had a semiautomatic rifle with a flashider yesterday, but not today (assuming today they are illegal and yestersay the weren't) you are not chargeable. If you were to be charged for posession yesterday, that would be ex post facto. That is my understanding of it but not a lawyer. By providing a few months of time for you to dispose of or convert your violations into non-violations, they skirt the need to grandfather.

This isn't the first time it has happened and precedent favors them, street sweeper shotguns, for instance.

I wonder if arguments could be made basrd on undo economic hardship. The difference this time being the wide swath of guns instead of one.

If getting rid of your guns cost you money, then yes. But since you'll make money by selling them, then there is no hardship.

They don't consider guns as assets with monetary value. You can't record a loss on your income taxes.

But CYA = consult your attorney.

Speaking of costs. The restrictions will affect Class III firearms. My questions is how does that factor into the equation? Unlike regular firearms, can't sell or transfer out overnight, not even within a few months. Plus all of them are significant financial investments, not to mention $200 tax that is paid on each one.

Surrender, destroy (with proof), or report them lost in a freak boating accident.