• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A little known clause in the Constitution outlaws firearms confiscation

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Mandating you register for the draft, says to me they are mandating you sign up for involuntary servitude. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Involuntary servitude does not free you of your duty to the State. Take jury duty for example.

Edit to cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System


The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude."[SUP][38][/SUP] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[SUP][39][/SUP]
During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968).[SUP][41][/SUP]
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Mandating you register for the draft, says to me they are mandating you sign up for involuntary servitude. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

In a highly technical sense you're not... since congress has to authorize a draft before drafting can begin.

and no draft is presently authorized in law, until a law is passed authorizing a draft no one can be drafted.

so you're really just giving uncle sam your contact info...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I am both highly amazed and extremely disappointed in you all, so far. All this talk about ex post facto when that would have absolutely nothing - NOTHING, I say, NOT A DARNED THING - to do with any attempt to confiscate your guns, your fishing poles, or your gas-guzzling automobiles.

Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".

The government can, generally speaking, take whatever it wants from you so long as it compensates you for not the (as in what you or the open market might define it to be) but some value for what they take. There is a great body of case law regarding the Takings Clause and the government's use of both imminent domain and outright confiscation. A good examplwe of what we might be facing would be what happened to the Australians - they were "compensated" at a rate set by the government which had no bearing on what the open market might have brought immediately before the confiscated guns were declared contraband. (Once declared contraband, the value actually goes into negative figures based on the fines and other penalties for possession of the contraband item. Thus, reasoned the Australian government, any amount we give you is more than the "actual value" of the confiscated gun.)

Sorry to have burst a two-page long bubble.

stay safe.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".

well, that particular clause talks about taking private property for public use. While it is possible that the FED could try to "interpret" that clause for a confiscation, that would be a farther stretch than just about any "interstate commerce" B.S. they ever tried. I just don't see them taking that route.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I am both highly amazed and extremely disappointed in you all, so far. All this talk about ex post facto when that would have absolutely nothing - NOTHING, I say, NOT A DARNED THING - to do with any attempt to confiscate your guns, your fishing poles, or your gas-guzzling automobiles.

Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".

The government can, generally speaking, take whatever it wants from you so long as it compensates you for not the (as in what you or the open market might define it to be) but some value for what they take. There is a great body of case law regarding the Takings Clause and the government's use of both imminent domain and outright confiscation. A good examplwe of what we might be facing would be what happened to the Australians - they were "compensated" at a rate set by the government which had no bearing on what the open market might have brought immediately before the confiscated guns were declared contraband. (Once declared contraband, the value actually goes into negative figures based on the fines and other penalties for possession of the contraband item. Thus, reasoned the Australian government, any amount we give you is more than the "actual value" of the confiscated gun.)

Sorry to have burst a two-page long bubble.

stay safe.

Tact skidmark... tact.

I disagree with your assessment for one simple reason. Yes, some things may be taken by the government after due process of law, but they may not take private arms. The fly in the ointment is the Second Amendment. When Madison wrote the Fifth Amendment, he had already drafted the Second Amendment. Were he to believe that the takings clause also applied to arms, he would have said as much. But he didn't. And since the Second Amendment came first and takes precedence over the Fifth Amendment in this regard, the takings clause does not apply to arms. I trust he know exactly what he was doing when he drafted the Bill of Rights. After all, he had Mason and Henry leaning over his shoulder.

However, I also included a caveat in my original post in this thread that stated;

"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."

While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and We the People are the supreme sovereign, I wouldn't trust our political servants as far as I can throw them.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'm not well convinced that the smaller numbered amendments equate to primacy of any of the listed amendments.

For the official record:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall ....blah blah blah yaddi yaddi yadda..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notice the semi colon. Who says the feds will confiscate our guns under the guise of "for public use." All the feds have to do is pass a law and then follow a due process to confiscate our guns in accordance with that law.

If the "clause separation" as used by SCOTUS for a 2A argument applies to a 2A argument it must too apply to a 5A argument.

Though, I, not being a legal beagle.jpeg, could be way off on this.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Involuntary servitude does not free you of your duty to the State. Take jury duty for example.

Edit to cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude."[SUP][38][/SUP] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[SUP][39][/SUP]
During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968).[SUP][41][/SUP]


Disagree, it does not say impress into or conscript involuntary servitude. One of the many grievances the colonist had were the impressment into the navy , they argued and so did the Whigs in England that it was the same thing as slavery.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I am both highly amazed and extremely disappointed in you all, so far. All this talk about ex post facto when that would have absolutely nothing - NOTHING, I say, NOT A DARNED THING - to do with any attempt to confiscate your guns, your fishing poles, or your gas-guzzling automobiles.

Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".

The government can, generally speaking, take whatever it wants from you so long as it compensates you for not the (as in what you or the open market might define it to be) but some value for what they take. There is a great body of case law regarding the Takings Clause and the government's use of both imminent domain and outright confiscation. A good examplwe of what we might be facing would be what happened to the Australians - they were "compensated" at a rate set by the government which had no bearing on what the open market might have brought immediately before the confiscated guns were declared contraband. (Once declared contraband, the value actually goes into negative figures based on the fines and other penalties for possession of the contraband item. Thus, reasoned the Australian government, any amount we give you is more than the "actual value" of the confiscated gun.)

Sorry to have burst a two-page long bubble.

stay safe.

I find it an interesting discussion on the wording and on what that wording could mean.

Tact skidmark... tact.

I disagree with your assessment for one simple reason. Yes, some things may be taken by the government after due process of law, but they may not take private arms. The fly in the ointment is the Second Amendment. When Madison wrote the Fifth Amendment, he had already drafted the Second Amendment. Were he to believe that the takings clause also applied to arms, he would have said as much. But he didn't. And since the Second Amendment came first and takes precedence over the Fifth Amendment in this regard, the takings clause does not apply to arms. I trust he know exactly what he was doing when he drafted the Bill of Rights. After all, he had Mason and Henry leaning over his shoulder.

However, I also included a caveat in my original post in this thread that stated;

"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."

While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and We the People are the supreme sovereign, I wouldn't trust our political servants as far as I can throw them.

Does it matter anymore to our politicians? They take oaths to defend and uphold the consitution, yet then you have the current president we all know looks at it as nuisance, and the one prior to him who wanted it done his way because he is president of the U.S. and called the constitution "just a ******* piece of paper".
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I find it an interesting discussion on the wording and on what that wording could mean.



Does it matter anymore to our politicians? They take oaths to defend and uphold the consitution, yet then you have the current president we all know looks at it as nuisance, and the one prior to him who wanted it done his way because he is president of the U.S. and called the constitution "just a ******* piece of paper".

And that's why I was careful to include comments which inferred/stated that I don't trust our political servants one iota to do what is required in their oath of office. I just don't trust them one bit.

Obama once said that the Constitution is a document of negative rights. Well he really meant the Bill of Rights portion since the Constitution in its original form makes no mention of rights. But when you hear him say this, his real meaning is when viewed from the perspective of the government, not the People. That is a very dangerous perspective.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I'm not well convinced that the smaller numbered amendments equate to primacy of any of the listed amendments.

For the official record:Notice the semi colon. Who says the feds will confiscate our guns under the guise of "for public use." All the feds have to do is pass a law and then follow a due process to confiscate our guns in accordance with that law.

If the "clause separation" as used by SCOTUS for a 2A argument applies to a 2A argument it must too apply to a 5A argument.

Though, I, not being a View attachment 9808, could be way off on this.

Well they can pass all the laws they want but it is still an illegal act to confiscate privately owned firearms. As for the Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" versus the Fifth Amendment's "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", if the Fifth Amendment were to be used as the reason for confiscation, then we would effectively be at a Mexican standoff since the Second Amendment is diametrically the opposite to this.

Still and again, I don't trust them one bit to adhere to the law and have lived long enough to know that nothing would surprise me with this group of miscreants. I would not be surprised in the least to hear and see them do what we have all feared for many years.

Interestingly enough, the spark which ignited the American Revolution was gun control; specifically disbanding the militias, confiscating their arms, and taking control of the magazines.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Tact skidmark... tact.

About what or towards whom?

That you (as in "all y'all") do not understand the difference between confiscation of contraband and taking for public use is not my problem, except to the extent that you continue to muddy the waters with irrelavancies. And make my head hurt.:banghead:

That which once was legal, but is now declared contraband must be compensated for when it is taken away. I can't send it away for someone to hold or otherwise put it in storage until some time when it is no longer contraband. Contrast that to Prohibition, which did not criminalize the POSSESSION of alcohol. http://www.1920-30.com/prohibition/

Because Prohibition banned only the manufacturing, sale, and transport - but not possession or consuming of alcohol, some people and institutions who had bought or made liquor prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment were able to continue to serve it throughout the prohibition period legally.

Were the Prohibitionists so stupid that they merely forgot to declare existing stocks of alcohol as contraband? No - Congress realized that the government would have to compensate people for taking that which only became illegal by fiat. Now, if there had been a "reasonable" amount of time provided for the lawful disp[osal of existing alcohol stocks via commercial trade (sell it in saloons or sell it to someone outside the country as but two possibilities) there might not be any actual taking. But we are not, apparently, going to be given any time, "reasonable" or otherwise, to sell our guns at retail to someone outside the USA.

The declaration of all firearms, or all of certain classes of firearms, as contraband is a taking. It is not taking by imminent domain for public use, which is but one category of taking. I legally had it. Thegovernment came along and said I could no longer have it and provided no way for me to recover its intrinsic worth, thus the government took it from me.

Congress may not do completely away with the right to keep and bear arms. They may, for instance, allow us to retain non-modern pattern muzzle-loading black powder rifles. They will let us carry them in our hands or slung on our shoulders or on our back - except for a few "reasonable" restrictions such as have historically been excluded. All they will declare contraband is center-fire firearms and any ammunition which has an integral means of igniting the propellant. (And probably restrict us from carrying more than X ounces/drams/grains of black powder.) So there will be no absolute violation of the Second Amendment. So the argument that confiscation violates RKBA fails.

And you are left to fall back on the Takings Clause.

I'm too lazy to head to the local law school library to look up citations (having given up Westlaw/Nexis-Lexis for economic reasons) but you can find proson inmate lawsuits against the declaration of previously-allowed property items that were not compensated on being declared contraband. All upheld on the Takings Clause.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
About what or towards whom?

That you (as in "all y'all") do not understand the difference between confiscation of contraband and taking for public use is not my problem, except to the extent that you continue to muddy the waters with irrelavancies. And make my head hurt.:banghead:

<snip>

stay safe.
Well, you could, if you choose to, not think about irrelevancies. This would go far towards minimizing that which hurts your head.

On the other hand, you may have something here.
CONFISCATE
1: appropriated by the government : forfeited
2: deprived of property by confiscation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confiscate?show=0&t=1357820396

CONTRABAND
1: illegal or prohibited traffic in goods : smuggling
2: goods or merchandise whose importation, exportation, or possession is forbidden; also : smuggled goods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraband
But, you got busy banging your head against the wall. So, any further discussion with you must wait until your head clears.
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
But I guess it's OK when the fedgov did it???


No, the Constitution, all of it, places limits on government, all of it.
It is no more legal for a city police officer to break into my home & search it on a whim than it would be for a county deputy or a state patrol officer or a federal marshal.




The Constitution was written and ratified by the states as a limit on the central government only. Each state, in turn has a state constitution which limits the power of the state.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

If one reads the above preamble carefully, one will notice that the 'people' of the united states established the constitution FOR the United States of America (the legal entity and title of the central government). As with all legal agreements, the parties involved are required to be named and listed to ascertain the duties of the document. Many people forget that the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, shows without doubt that the states were and are soveriegn. As sovereigns, they are incapable of being dictated to. And the states are comprised of sovereign human beings. The adoption of the current constitution did not change this relationship nor provide power beyond that ceded to it by the states that the states can take back whenever they choose to do so. The "United States of America" is the legal name of the entity the "united states" created with the ratification of the constitution.

If one takes the position that the Constitution is 'supreme' (Article 6 states that federal law is only 'supreme' when said laws are made in "pursuance thereof" of enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8) above state constituions and laws, then there is absolutely no need for state constitutions and state laws. There is no need for states. From the very beginning the PTB have been advancing centralization of power to DC. Politics is local. Eliminate the local and what is left...

The fact remains that each person was created as a soveriegn and free person. We each own ourselves. In spite of being born and living within the boundaries of invisible lines called nations or states, which I view as antithetical to the natural order of the Creator's obvious design and plan, we are not property of the nation. Yet for decades upon decades folks, mostly because of their ignorance, have failed to grasp this truth. And allow government at all levels dictate to us, when it us that ought to be dictating to them.

Land of the free? BS. Biggest lie out there perpetuated by people so needy of being identified as belonging to a nation for the sake of feeling good about themselves. The same type of person recites the assinine Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist) so they can say they are proud to be an American. We are human beings and nothing more.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Land of the free? BS. Biggest lie out there perpetuated by people so needy of being identified as belonging to a nation for the sake of feeling good about themselves. The same type of person recites the assinine Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist) so they can say they are proud to be an American. We are human beings and nothing more.
Interesting. Taking advantage of the perks that are derived from fate landing your genetic code in the Good Ole US of A is see.

Anyway, if you do not feel "good" about being a American, then options are available to you, no biggie. Some few folks around here have postulated that there are other, more liberty minded, nations beyond the invisible lines that are the generally accepted boundaries of the US of A. I pledge to not infringe upon your right to find more hospitable environs.

By the way, I am more than the sum of my genetic code.....so speak only for yourself.
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
Interesting. Taking advantage of the perks that are derived from fate landing your genetic code in the Good Ole US of A is see.

Anyway, if you do not feel "good" about being a American, then options are available to you, no biggie. Some few folks around here have postulated that there are other, more liberty minded, nations beyond the invisible lines that are the generally accepted boundaries of the US of A. I pledge to not infringe upon your right to find more hospitable environs.

By the way, I am more than the sum of my genetic code.....so speak only for yourself.

The reality is that there are no perks. That we're fighting to keep tyranny at bay bears this out. I've got no use for nationalistic pride, which as the old axiom points out, cometh before a fall. If pride of being an American is all it takes to keep people happy, you'd think the country would be a utopian paradise this side of a mythical heaven. The central government operates on the premise of dictating to us, taking our property every payday, demanding we buy the products and services they view are best, etc. Where is this freedom you elude to? You're comments back up the reality of the foolish, feeling good mentality of most arms forums where philosophical midgets abound.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The reality is that there are no perks. That we're fighting to keep tyranny at bay bears this out. I've got no use for nationalistic pride, which as the old axiom points out, cometh before a fall. If pride of being an American is all it takes to keep people happy, you'd think the country would be a utopian paradise this side of a mythical heaven. The central government operates on the premise of dictating to us, taking our property every payday, demanding we buy the products and services they view are best, etc. Where is this freedom you elude to? You're comments back up the reality of the foolish, feeling good mentality of most arms forums where philosophical midgets abound.
I can not discuss that which you do not "see", or, if seen, do not recognize.

+1 to you Sir.
 
Top