On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:17:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2015 8:36 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit
requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one.


If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why
should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal,
ex post facto.
That is yet another constitutional violation.



Man, has this discussion gone off topic. Maybe my fault for not being
more precise in what I've been yapping about.

To answer your question (above) ... in some states ... including mine
... you cannot legally purchase, own or have in your possession a gun
*unless* you have a state issued permit to own a firearm. Nothing to
do with federal law.

If you own or have in your possession a firearm but do *not* have a
state issued permit, you are subject to arrest, jail
and/or fine.

Is that clear enough?

You can make that case if the gun was purchased after the permit law
was passed.
You are talking about making an ex post facto law applying to
something that was purchased before the law was passed.