[OneWingedShark]

What a load.
Seriously; something does not alter its classification dependent on its application: it is either Ex Post Facto or it is not.

The law, being a single text, is not Ex Post Facto only for one group and then magically not Ex Post Facto for another — that you assert such shows that you believe precedent to be of superior authority to the Constitution. — At the very instant of its passage, in 1968, there were absolutely ZERO people for whom it would have NOT been Ex Post Facto, if the Constitution bars the passage of Ex Post Facto law, then how can a law which is Ex Post Facto at its inception suddenly gain legitimacy?

[Cboldt]

-- if the Constitution bars the passage of Ex Post Facto law, then how can a law which is Ex Post Facto at its inception suddenly gain legitimacy? --

The mechanism is that a court first issues a nonsense opinion upholding the unconstitutional law. Then, with the passage of time, the law becomes long standing. And all long-standing prohibitions on the RKBA, whether they were constitutional to begin with is irrelevant, become constitutional.

That's SCOTUS-quality reasoning, see Scalia in Heller.

[SampleMan]

What a load. Seriously; something does not alter its classification dependent on its application: it is either Ex Post Facto or it is not.

Applied to the wrong people, any new law becomes ex post facto. That is pretty much the sole definition of ex post facto. If it weren't, new laws could never be made.

Care to try that again?