Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: A little known clause in the Constitution outlaws firearms confiscation

  1. #1
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    A little known clause in the Constitution outlaws firearms confiscation

    I'm sitting here reading an article about the anti-firearms political movement in Illinois and the fact that they are now talking about confiscation, when it hit me that this is not legal. They cannot do this, not because of the Second Amendment but because of a little know clause in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 9. Here it is;

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    The key phrase is "or ex post facto" in this sentence. What this means is that what was once a legal endeavor, one's purchase and possession of an AR rifle for example, cannot be suddenly made illegal and result in one's arrest.


    "Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws.."

    "Latin for "after the fact." Refers to laws adopted after an act is committed, making it illegal retroactively. Or, it can refer to laws that increase the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9."


    And from Section 10, we have this (note that the phrase shows up again, this time for states);

    'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

    So neither the Federal government nor a state can pass a law that would make you a criminal for something you did legally prior to that law's passage. The possession of an AR when legal doesn't suddenly become illegal and warrant your arrest and incarceration.

    Now is congress or the executive branch or are state legislatures fully aware of this little impediment and will they abide by this constitutional restriction? I wouldn't hold my breath.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Most state constitutions say something to the same effect also.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    I guess they (the gun grabbers in Illinois) are betting on confiscating a whole bunch of guns before the first case gets to the Illinois supreme court. When they are ordered by said court to return those illegally confiscated guns many years of unlawful confiscation will have been accomplished and the whereabouts of said confiscated guns will be unknown.

    I may be incorrect, and some legal beagle may be able to shed some insight on this, but, is it not required for a wronged citizen to have standing before a court before they can sue the state? Given the propensity of the legal system (judges) to move much slower that a glacier in winter, a great many Illinois citizens should expect to be completely disarmed by the time the state is "informed" that they made a big booboo way back then.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Ex Post Facto applies to criminal prosecution for acts that occured prior to the law.

    For instance, you buy an AR-15 and the government outlaws the sale of AR-15s, you can't be prosecuted for the purchase

    now if the gov. banned the continuing possession of AR-15s would ex post facto protect your continued ownership?

    I wouldn't hold my breath, because by the time the courts are done dissecting an ex post facto claim it really means we've lost big. Before ex post facto is even considered it would have to mean we lost challenges on 2nd amendment grounds. very bad.


    Keep in mind also, sex offenders were registered retroactively under Megan's law and the Supreme Court ruled it was not an illegal ex post facto law, I think because they'd already been convicted of a sex offense, but I don't remember exactly what the justification was. whether or not that was a valid interpretation of the clause or another run-away court ruling is a matter of debate. Tread carefully in relying on that clause.

    Although I would agree with you on how you read it, the real question is, "how will SCOTUS read it"? and THAT is a scary idea...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Wait till they try and force gun enthusiasts to join a "well regulated" govt. militia (ie. the National Guard).

  6. #6
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Exactly except you can strike the question.

    Legal (used loosely) Example: Government bans something currently legal. You keep it after the ban. You are charged.
    Not legal Example: Government bans something currently legal. Say a 20 year old dating an 18 year old. You're now 50 in this example but because you dated an 18 year old 30 years ago you are arrested.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Ex Post Facto applies to criminal prosecution for acts that occured prior to the law.

    For instance, you buy an AR-15 and the government outlaws the sale of AR-15s, you can't be prosecuted for the purchase

    now if the gov. banned the continuing possession of AR-15s would ex post facto protect your continued ownership?

    I wouldn't hold my breath, because by the time the courts are done dissecting an ex post facto claim it really means we've lost big. Before ex post facto is even considered it would have to mean we lost challenges on 2nd amendment grounds. very bad.


    Keep in mind also, sex offenders were registered retroactively under Megan's law and the Supreme Court ruled it was not an illegal ex post facto law, I think because they'd already been convicted of a sex offense, but I don't remember exactly what the justification was. whether or not that was a valid interpretation of the clause or another run-away court ruling is a matter of debate. Tread carefully in relying on that clause.

    Although I would agree with you on how you read it, the real question is, "how will SCOTUS read it"? and THAT is a scary idea...

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Wait till they try and force gun enthusiasts to join a "well regulated" govt. militia (ie. the National Guard).
    We actually do need a militia where citizens are required to serve (domestically only!) and be trained in military tactics with military weapons (missiles, tanks, etc) If you refuse to serve then you are taxed like in Obamacare.

    For those of us above a certain age we're exempt but still get to own full autos, grenades, no NFA BS. Then we could tell the anti's to S T F U because there is a militia, too bad for you we can now carry grenades, rpg's, etc.
    Last edited by sharkey; 01-03-2013 at 08:49 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    We actually do need a militia where citizens are required to serve (domestically only!) and be trained in military tactics with military weapons (missiles, tanks, etc) If you refuse to serve then you are taxed like in Obamacare.

    For those of us above a certain age we're exempt but still get to own full autos, grenades, no NFA BS. Then we could tell the anti's to S T F U because there is a militia, too bad for you we can now carry grenades, rpg's, etc.
    Indentured sevitude? Run with it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Indentured sevitude? Run with it.
    see

    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    If you refuse to serve then you are taxed like in Obamacare.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    see
    Slavery for those who don't pull their weight and abide by the mythical social contract that none of us ever signed. Keep on running.

    BTW, the Obamacare "tax" is not a tax... it's a penalty to insure compliance. Thus it's coercion. And immoral. Which is what you're advocating. Land of the free? Maybe not so much, eh?

  11. #11
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Slavery for those who don't pull their weight and abide by the mythical social contract that none of us ever signed. Keep on running.

    BTW, the Obamacare "tax" is not a tax... it's a penalty to insure compliance. Thus it's coercion. And immoral. Which is what you're advocating. Land of the free? Maybe not so much, eh?
    Maybe, but I still think it'd be cool if our military really was we the people and not this standing military we have. I think it would limit military "police" actions.

    Putting morals aside and just speaking legally is there any law against my idea? I was forced to register with selective services when I turned 18 with the threat of 5 years in prison for refusing. At least my idea does not use threat of incarceration.

    To be clear I registered without complaint or thought.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm

  12. #12
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Maybe, but I still think it'd be cool if our military really was we the people and not this standing military we have. I think it would limit military "police" actions.

    Putting morals aside and just speaking legally is there any law against my idea? I was forced to register with selective services when I turned 18 with the threat of 5 years in prison for refusing. At least my idea does not use threat of incarceration.

    To be clear I registered without complaint or thought.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm
    I'd say the 14th Amendment. But then the god in black robes would say otherwise. What most people forget is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't for the people... but to LIMIT the fed.gov and thus only for the fed.gov.

    I view standing armies as a threat to Liberty...


    A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen - James Madison

    None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important. - Thomas Jefferson

    Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

    Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? -Patrick Henry

    Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tench Coxe

    The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. - Trench Coxe

  13. #13
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Maybe, but I still think it'd be cool if our military really was we the people and not this standing military we have. I think it would limit military "police" actions.

    Putting morals aside and just speaking legally is there any law against my idea? I was forced to register with selective services when I turned 18 with the threat of 5 years in prison for refusing. At least my idea does not use threat of incarceration.

    To be clear I registered without complaint or thought.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm
    I'd say the 14th Amendment. But then the gods in black robes would say otherwise. What most people forget is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't for the people... but to LIMIT the fed.gov and thus only for the fed.gov.

    I view standing armies as a threat to Liberty...


    A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen - James Madison

    None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important. - Thomas Jefferson

    Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

    Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? -Patrick Henry

    Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tench Coxe

    The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. - Trench Coxe

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Maybe, but I still think it'd be cool if our military really was we the people and not this standing military we have. I think it would limit military "police" actions.

    Putting morals aside and just speaking legally is there any law against my idea? I was forced to register with selective services when I turned 18 with the threat of 5 years in prison for refusing. At least my idea does not use threat of incarceration.

    To be clear I registered without complaint or thought.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm
    There is no requirement in the law. A group of liberty minded paralegals looked it up one day as a research exercise.

    I would have to see if they kept the data before I could cite it though. I know that it has to do with the wording of the law. It says it's your "duty" to sign up, it does not say that you, "shall," "must," or are "required" to sign up.

    I too signed up at 18 with out use of a SSN. I still have that registration card too.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    We actually do need a militia where citizens are required to serve (domestically only!) and be trained in military tactics with military weapons (missiles, tanks, etc) If you refuse to serve then you are taxed like in Obamacare.
    According to 10 USC 311, you already are part of a citizens militia:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

    The "general militia" law has existed in one form or another as a part of U.S. law since the original "General Militia Act of 1792". It has been modified several times, but it has always been a basic part of the American tradition of the minute man/citizen soldier tradition.

    The original act:
    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    The general militia was REALLY every able bodied man (person?) period.

    They had 15(maybe younger even)-73 years of age fighting in the militias of the day.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    I'd say the 14th Amendment. But then the gods in black robes would say otherwise. What most people forget is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't for the people... but to LIMIT the fed.gov and thus only for the fed.gov.

    I view standing armies as a threat to Liberty...


    A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen - James Madison

    None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important. - Thomas Jefferson

    Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

    Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? -Patrick Henry

    Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tench Coxe

    The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. - Trench Coxe
    So you do agree with me. The only way to get rid of the standing army is to become it.

    Quote Originally Posted by unreconstructed1 View Post
    According to 10 USC 311, you already are part of a citizens militia:
    I know that but laws prevent me from owning grenades, rockets and machine guns. I don't have access to Apache's or fighter jets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    There is no requirement in the law. A group of liberty minded paralegals looked it up one day as a research exercise.

    I would have to see if they kept the data before I could cite it though. I know that it has to do with the wording of the law. It says it's your "duty" to sign up, it does not say that you, "shall," "must," or are "required" to sign up.

    I too signed up at 18 with out use of a SSN. I still have that registration card too.

    No requirement but a threat of imprisonment if you don't

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    So you do agree with me. The only way to get rid of the standing army is to become it.



    I know that but laws prevent me from owning grenades, rockets and machine guns. I don't have access to Apache's or fighter jets.




    No requirement but a threat of imprisonment if you don't
    No the threat of imprisonment is if you don't pay FICA tax, but you opt not to have an SSN it used to be common for people not to have them until their 20s or the like, then the Feds made it mandatory to register your kid for SS if they wanted to claim the child tax credit.

    He's right in the strictest sense, you do not need to have a social security number, but it certainly makes life harder on you...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No the threat of imprisonment is if you don't pay FICA tax, but you opt not to have an SSN it used to be common for people not to have them until their 20s or the like, then the Feds made it mandatory to register your kid for SS if they wanted to claim the child tax credit.

    He's right in the strictest sense, you do not need to have a social security number, but it certainly makes life harder on you...


    Facepalm

    Selective Service, not Social Security

    Context clues man ... read what he's replying to in order to understand what he's talking about. He says he didn't use his social security number TO REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICES
    Last edited by sharkey; 01-05-2013 at 02:47 PM. Reason: turned 1 long sentence into two smaller ones

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Facepalm

    Selective Service, not Social Security

    Context clues man ... read what he's replying to in order to understand what he's talking about. He says he didn't use his social security number TO REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICES
    That's not really a threat of force either, has anyone ever been prosecuted and sent to prison for failure to register? certainly not in the last 20 years.

    Most of the time the Big Bad Gov just punishes you administratively, you can't apply for federal jobs, can't enlist in the military, can't get government college grants, or government backed loans of any sort, etc

    Has anyone ever seen the inside of a prison cell for refusing to register?
    I'm not aware of anyone being indicted for failure to register since 1986. I'm not aware of any convictions at all but then again I'm sure it may have happened in a handful of cases.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No the threat of imprisonment is if you don't pay FICA tax, but you opt not to have an SSN it used to be common for people not to have them until their 20s or the like, then the Feds made it mandatory to register your kid for SS if they wanted to claim the child tax credit.

    He's right in the strictest sense, you do not need to have a social security number, but it certainly makes life harder on you...
    I have a thread for the tax thing.

    Oh and you will have to cite that law.

    Edit.
    The thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1864879
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-05-2013 at 03:20 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's not really a threat of force either, has anyone ever been prosecuted and sent to prison for failure to register? certainly not in the last 20 years.

    Most of the time the Big Bad Gov just punishes you administratively, you can't apply for federal jobs, can't enlist in the military, can't get government college grants, or government backed loans of any sort, etc

    Has anyone ever seen the inside of a prison cell for refusing to register?
    I'm not aware of anyone being indicted for failure to register since 1986. I'm not aware of any convictions at all but then again I'm sure it may have happened in a handful of cases.
    That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

    Still no SSN for it either.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

    Still no SSN for it either.
    I was aksed to verify my enrollment at the Workforce Connection (they use Workforce Investment Act money). They did not ask for my card though, they just put my SSN here.

    P.S. You're not legally an American citizen if you meet the requirments to register and failed to.
    Last edited by sharkey; 01-05-2013 at 03:32 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

    Still no SSN for it either.
    Any Gov agency probably doesn't need to see the card. I have no idea where my SS card even is, when I was trying to enlist in the air force years ago the recruiter was just able to pull it up by my name...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I was aksed to verify my enrollment at the Workforce Connection (they use Workforce Investment Act money). They did not ask for my card though, they just put my SSN here.

    P.S. You're not legally an American citizen if you meet the requirments to register and failed to.
    Bull **** cite please
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •