re: #64 goddamnedfrank

Why? The consequences to the citizen facing a criminal record based on the reality are just as tangible.

How about we move on to the issue of the State making criminal continuing to possess an item that was not only legal to own at the time of purchase but was then specifically grandfathered under previous law. Even under Prohibition there was no ban on prior possession, only production, distribution and sale. That’s why the rich weren’t inconvenienced much, they had plenty of time to stock up.

Your original post does not appear to reference any ban on prior possession, so I have no comment there.

The identified constitutional issue remains ridiculous in my view —- it can be cleaned up by further legislation if necessary. Note that the only judicial remedy for unconstitutionality is to throw the law out in its entirety, which is why I’m pushing back. Banging on the “unconstitutional” drums here is, in this context, an argument for doing nothing.

All language has some elements of vagueness to it. For example, stepping out into the street to enter a parked car could be construed as attempted jaywalking by a loon. Trying to draft language to prevent that level of twisted reading is tilting at windmills.