Source of meme and quote below.
Ok, raise your hands if you have heard of the ex post facto clause in the federal constitution and all state constitutions.
Its like every lawyer in amerika has been told that they will not use this vital provision of the law to defend anybody against any new laws.
If you got chickens in your yard and the city passes a law that says nobody can have chickens anymore, that law doesnt apply to you.
Its often called the grandfathered clause, because you are grandfathered in.
I bet that term is familiar to you.
You get to keep your chickens because the new laws can't pass the ex post facto clause test.
You dont have a constitutional right to keep chickens, but posessing them cant be criminalized by new laws.
You do have a constitutional right to keep, and bear, arms.
They can't be taken, either.
If you posessed a gun yesterday, you can't be disadvantaged by new laws passed today, unless you waive your ex post facto protections of the law.
The burden is on the state to prove that you didnt own that gun yesterday.
Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Wake up, nap time is over.
If you dont know your rights, you don't have any, because silence is consent in a court of law.
If you dont object, at the time, you have waived your right to object.
Dont expect any lawyer to defend you, either.
The deep state has controlled access to law skools for too long.
They know they will get disbarred by the hidden hand.
Same for medical skool, trust a modern doctor at your own risk, eh?
Quote from the reference:
After passing these laws against "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines, the liberals have also included in that law not only that you cannot purchase these items anymore, but you can't own them. In other words, if you purchased a gun legally the anti-gun liberal left now believes is now an "assault weapon," or you legally purchased a high-capacity magazine they believe you shouldn't be allowed to have, the new laws indicate you can't own those items anymore.
Wait a second. If I bought them legally, and they were legally obtained by me at the time of purchase (or perhaps at the time of inheritance), because there were no laws against them at the time, they cannot be made retroactively outlawed. The Constitution says so.
In Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution the federal government is prohibited from passing any Ex Post Facto laws.
In Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution the States are prohibited from passing any Ex Post Facto laws.
How is it that if someone has a particular firearm that they obtained legally, the next day some bureaucrat can suddenly make it illegal, and it must be confiscated?
If it was bought legally, it is being owned legally. No ex post fact law of any kind is allowed by the United States Constitution.
Yet, somehow, the eyes of the anti-gun folks, the politicians, the lawyers, and the judges have glossed over that part of the U.S. Constitution.
While I am not downplaying the fact that I have a natural right to keep and bear arms, anyway, and no government can legally pass laws infringing on that right, why are we not also zeroing in on the fact that the government has completely disregarded the Constitution when it comes to the prohibition against both the federal government, and the States, of passing ex post facto laws?
Do we need to begin ex post facto committees to train these idiots in Washington or at our State Capitals regarding what "ex post facto" means?
Have they simply and conveniently ignored that portion of the Constitution. . . or worse, know about it but don't care?