WL> -=> Quoting Steve Fragner to Tom Enright <=-
WL> -> What was done in Jonesborough is done also.  Do you advocate that
WL> -> those two kids escape any judgement for their actions?  Or do you
WL> -> propose punishing the "evil firearms" that obviously controlled
WL> -> the actions of those two "innocent darlings" against their will?
WL> SF> Unfortunately, the law is the law.....they will be free when
WL> SF> they turn 18.....a damn shame. I can not begin to know what those
WL> SF> families are going through. I have a 9 year old boy!......... 
WL>As you say, the law is the law.  Our system doesn't provide
WL>for making laws retroactive, nor should it.  (Well, there
WL>_was_ the 1993 tax legislation...but it should have never
WL>been allowed to happen.)  These two kids will stay in custody
WL>until they turn 18, or 21 if they are convicted on federal
WL>charges instead; after that, they will go free courtesy of
WL>the lawmakers who passed the existing legislation and the
WL>governor who signed it.  And please note, by "governor" I do
WL>not necessarily mean "Bill Clinton", since I don't know when
WL>this particular law was passed.
Walt, you forgot the Lauttenberg ammendment making the possession of a
firearm by someone convicted of a crime of "domestic violence", illegal.
THAT lovely piece of LIbEral legislation is retroactive as well.
Cops, who had been hired by departments AFTER their moment of stupidity,
found themselves in danger of losing their jobs.
Granted, domestic violence is not acceptable. However, to make a law
retroactive simply for political gain is just plain wrong. In fact,
making a law retroactive, generally, is improper.
There are some immigration laws that ARE retroactive. The definition of
"aggravated felony" has been expanded to include, among other crimes,
theft related offenses for which a sentence of one year or more in jail
was imposed (suspended sentences count).
It makes no difference as to when that conviction occurred. If it
happened, the offending alien is now an aggravated felon in the eyes of
the law. And as such, is removable.
John Sampson
Rocky Mountain ILKS
jnsampson@ibm.net
___
 X OLXWin 1.00b X I think not" said the liberal, and nobody was
                                                                              
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------