[RonF]

Would it be legal for the state to change his sentence after he was convicted? No. So why is it legal for the feds to ban firearm ownership to someone who was convicted of a relevant offense BEFORE the legislation was passed? You are trying to disconnect the ban on gun ownership as a penalty - whereas that is a penalty, a denial of 2nd Amendment rights.

Actually, you make good points, and I'd like to see it argued by someone knowledgeable about the history of what ex post facto means.

[dirtboy]

I'd like to see it argued by someone knowledgeable about the history of what ex post facto means.

See my post 192 - in the end, ex post facto means whatever five or more justices on the Supreme Court decides it means. Therefore, someone can be convicted of a sexual offense, a state legislature can subsequently require after their conviction that they be required to register upon release, and SCOTUS upholds that because they decree that it isn't a punishment - blithely ignoring that imposition of a punishment is not a requirement of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws - it also applies to concepts such as zoning.