Videos tagged with Ex Post Facto Law

This video discusses the arrest of YouTuber Matt of CRS Firearms, highlighting the issue of the ATF reinterpreting existing laws to make previously legal activities illegal. The speaker argues this is a symptom of a larger bureaucratic problem where executive branches overreach due to stalled legislative agendas. The core issue is being charged for actions that were legal at the time they were taken, akin to being charged for speeding when the speed limit has retroactively changed.

This video discusses the arrest of Matt Hoover of CRS Firearms in relation to the auto key card case. The speaker argues that the charges are a stretch and that the ATF is overstepping its bounds by creating laws through arbitrary rule changes, likening it to making items like shoelaces or bump stocks into machine guns. The video emphasizes that this issue is larger than any individual and affects all firearm owners, warning that the ATF's actions could be applied to other accessories like pistol braces, potentially criminalizing many individuals.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) is appealing the federal bump stock ban, taking the ATF to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The core arguments revolve around the definition of a machine gun and the concept of ex post facto law, where a new law retroactively makes previously legal actions criminal. The GOA contends that if a simple household item can turn an AR-15 into a 'machine gun,' then the danger lies with the firearm itself, not the accessory.

This video discusses the Massachusetts bump stock ban, effective February 1st, 2018. It highlights that individuals will not receive compensation for surrendered bump stocks, as they are deemed contraband. A bill is expected to be filed proposing a $150 refund, but the legality and constitutionality of the ban are questioned, with comparisons drawn to Prohibition-era seizures.

This video discusses a legal challenge to Massachusetts' assault weapons ban, specifically focusing on the case Worman v. Baker. The lawsuit argues the ban is unconstitutional, violating the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by banning commonly owned firearms and using vague language. It also challenges an enforcement notice by the Attorney General that retroactively banned certain firearms.