Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« 10th Circuit rules against Wyoming | Main | Interesting thought »

KY Supremes to consider retroactivity of "no retreat"

Posted by David Hardy · 31 August 2008 06:24 PM

Story here.

Had the same issue here in AZ. It'd help if drafters of legislation remembered always to include a saving clause. I.e., this legislation applies to events occuring after the effective date, or prosecutions filed after its date, or cases pending on its date, or cases or appeals pending on its date. Just say what it is, and that's it. Leave it open, and anything can happen (most likely the courts find it only applies to events occurring after its date). I did some research a ways back, and found some cases indicating that a loosening of a criminal statute is given broad effect, while a tightening, under the double jeopardy clause, can't be given.

· State legislation

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Flash Gordon | September 1, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply

Seems to me it is always constitutionally suspect to convict someone under a criminal statute that has been repealed such that the specific conduct is no longer illegal. For example, if drug prohibition laws were repealed would a lot of people in prison for drug offenses be released? Seems that they should be, at least if their conviction related only to drug possession.

What happened when the 19th amendment repealed the Volstead act? [maybe prohibition was so difficult to enforce nobody was in prison for violation of it!]

Bill | September 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply

Not necessarily. If it was illegal when you did it, you should not have done it. You violated the law, for which the law provided a stated penalty or punishment. That is quite a different thing than being prosecuted for something that was NOT illegal when you did it, but was subsequently made illegal. That is the very nature of ex post facto laws, which are expressly unconstitutional.

Obviously, as part of legislation repealing a criminal statute, the legislature could provide a mechanism for reviewing prior convictions and/or freeing people convicted under the old law, but the Constitution does not mandate it.

Leave a comment