[marktwain]

According to the court decisions, restricting and or prohibitinbg the right to travel, to buy, to sell, to work, to publish, to talk, to keep and bear arms, to practice your faith, are not punishments.

It is only being put in jail or fined for doing the things that you have been forbidden to do that are "punishments" so ex post facto does not apply.

[John O]

I see nothing in the Constitution that allows any judge to infringe on ANYONE’S right to keep and bear arms.

[faithhopecharity]

...”The right to bear arms shall not be infringed....”

so much for our being a nation of law...

if these judges can write any damned orders that give them chills up their legs...

[dangus]

The fault may lie with the judge in the lower court who initially threw out the charges, or the defense attorney who filed the appeal. My understanding is that the upper court is only reviewing the legality of the lower court’s decision. If the lower court’s judge made his decision based on the punishment for owning the gun being applied ex post facto, his ruling is wrong for precisely the reason the higher court judged it to be wrong. The next step would be to appeal not on the matter that his gun violation’s sentencing was ex post facto, but that the law which said that he could not own a gun was applied to him ex post facto.

[fungoking]

I played college football with this judge....while the school was really liberal the guy I knew was a real good ole boy from a small town and wouldn't have held this position; sad to see the change.

I'll make sure not to vote to retain next time.