[tpaine]

tpaine:
In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can flat out prohibit ownership/possession of certain types of property, based on what 'might' happen if it is misused.

_____________________________________


Smokin' Joe:
I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.

______________________________________


No, it's not.
A Bill of Attainder would be singling out a person or group for direct punishment by fiat of law.
-tbeatty-


______________________________________


In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can single out & punish gun owners by fiat prohibitions on 'dangerous' types of weapons.

[tbeatty]

In the case at hand, the state is claiming it can single out & punish gun owners by fiat prohibitions on 'dangerous' types of weapons.

No, it's saying everyone is prohibited from owning dangerous weapons. If it said only gun owners are prohibited, then you might have a case that it is a bill of attainder. But it's not.

It's a simple test, really. Is the trial of fact determining whether you are a gun owner or are you in possession of the prohibited item? A Bill of Attainder would only be trying to establish your identity.