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.
A Bill of Attainder would be singling out a person or group for direct punishment by fiat of law.
--- 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.
The state itself is prohibited from writting such fiat 'law' by provisions of our 2nd, 10th, & 14th amendments.
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.
Obviously, if possession of certain types of weapons are prohibited, only those who own them are affected. Gun owners are being singled out and punished by preemptive, fiat 'legal' decrees.
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.
You may imagine you're making sense here, but be assured, you are challenging basic principles of our liberty.
- To what end? -- Do you really think that you can legislate away the dangers of life? Isn't it more important to be free than 'safe'?
-- In fact, how can you be free to defend yourself from danger if the tools to do so are prohibited?