I wouldn't be surprised if Barry tried something similar with a whole list of scary black rifles, declaring them to be NFA weapons that we can all own if we want - once we jump through the NFA hoops.
Whatever they're up to you can be sure it will be an indirect attack while clueless Feinsteins introduce outright banning legislation, knowing it will go down in flames if it ever reaches a vote.
When one hand is waving noisily, it's time to look at what the other hand is doing.
When one hand is waving noisily, it’s time to look at what the other hand is doing.
Exactly what I’ve been thinking for the last few days: what are they actually doing while Bozo Biden is out saying clearly unconstitutional actions will be taken? To turn a phrase on its head: “Pay no attention to the man in front of the curtain”.
There are provisions in the law to prevent the passage and enforcement of "Ex post facto" laws defined as :
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).
I'm not a lawyer (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once) but it seems that if Congress is not permitted to pass Ex post facto laws I'd rather doubt the Supreme Court would allow an EO to criminalize actions that have already occurred. I would think requirements for registration and such might also be questionable as purchases already made are clearly legal. What goes forward from the date on the EO is a different kettle of fish. Put your 4473 forms in a safe place, it's the only proof you have of date of purchase.
Somebody with deep pockets like the NRA will need to pursue that avenue 'cuz you and me and that man behind the tree don't have the "drag" to even peek in the door.
Regards,
GtG