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.

Most state constitutions say something to the same effect also.

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.

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...

Wait till they try and force gun enthusiasts to join a "well regulated" govt. militia (ie. the National Guard).

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.

EMNofSeattle said:

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...

Click to expand...

beebobby said:

Wait till they try and force gun enthusiasts to join a "well regulated" govt. militia (ie. the National Guard).

Click to expand...

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.

sharkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Indentured sevitude? Run with it.

Keylock said:

Indentured sevitude? Run with it.

Click to expand...

see

sharkey said:

If you refuse to serve then you are taxed like in Obamacare.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

see

Click to expand...

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?

Keylock said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

sharkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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

sharkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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

sharkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

sharkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Keylock said:

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

Click to expand...

So you do agree with me. The only way to get rid of the standing army is to become it.

unreconstructed1 said:

According to 10 USC § 311, you already are part of a citizens militia:

Click to expand...

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.

Freedom1Man said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

sharkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

EMNofSeattle said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

sharkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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.