A little known clause in the Constitution outlaws firearms confiscation

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...

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/s...-a-good-view&p=1864879&viewfull=1#post1864879

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

Still no SSN for it either.

Freedom1Man said:

That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

Still no SSN for it either.

Click to expand...

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.

Freedom1Man said:

That's odd, I have never been asked for my selective service card.

Still no SSN for it either.

Click to expand...

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...

sharkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bull **** cite please

EMNofSeattle said:

Bull **** cite please

Click to expand...

Maybe the meaning is you can't become one if you're not registered. At least I understand ex post facto so phlbbbtbb

ETA I was about to delete my P.S. when I saw you already posted.

SouthernBoy said:

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."

Click to expand...

But I guess it's OK when the fedgov did it???

Keylock said:

the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't for the people... but to LIMIT the fed.gov and thus only for the fed.gov.

Click to expand...

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.

So, am I to gather that the point of this thread is to claim that a law.....should.....protect us from more....laws?? Does anybody understand the fallacy with this? For one, the current government, and even GWB was dancing all over the constitution. I for one, would rather just tell these "representatives" that I do not believe they were put into office to pass more laws against my freedom. I do not entertain knee jerk attacks on my American freedom from a group of supposed lawmakers whose main argument most of the time are social issues, such as gay rights and abortion. I don't think that this government is doing what it was enumerated to do in the constitution. As a fellow American and patriot put it, "you ma'am, have crossed a line". I think more of us need to dig down deep and grab on to the parts that make us a man and agree and stand with a statement such as what this man has made. That we will NOT participate in a registration program, and we will NOT be tread upon by more gun laws. Politicians were NOT put into office to attack the constitution, they are supposed to protect it and follow only what they are allowed.

Both sides are out of control. They do not stay within the provisions of the constitution and what it assigns of the federal government. Nobody in this government represents me or my beliefs, including people that I voted for.

Perhaps it is a cue to begin standing up for some of the last freedoms that are country represents. Currently, and from what I can see, the first and second amendment are virtually all that remains of our true freedom. Even at that, the powers that be are working hard to curtail and destroy those as well.


It begins with a registration system, and banning certain types. Then it goes to banning more types of firearms, and ultimately, to asking for the total surrender of our firearms. By then, nobody will even care. Ask Australians. Ask the UK. It is a slow process, but that is how it is done.


The media, the politicians, the democrats, special interests such as the laughable "Brady Campaign", take your pick and/or combine them all, are waging a war of attrition against us, freedom of speech, the right to own firearms, and the constitution in general.



Why are we allowing this to happen? If this honestly goes through, I would hope to see some resistance to these new laws. We are being legislated out of freedom every single day, including laws that we don't even know about and are breaking every day! From what I understand, the proposed ban is illegal by default and therefore null. Should we just blindly continue to take what the feds dish out?

beebobby said:

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

Click to expand...

You don't quite understand the history behind much of the constitution, and why the anti federalist forced the bill of rights upon the misnomered Fedalist. There is no forcing to be part of the militia, you are part, and then you could conscientiously object to fighting.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts, I never looked at it that way. Of course our courts and legislators and executives have all been way to fond of reinterpreting the constitution and even full on lying or ignoring it.

But it is in my opinion discussions like these that get people thinking and talking about the subject and maybe that will affect some change.

After all the revolution was not the war or the fight the revolution was to paraphrase Otis was made in the hearts and minds of the people. The fight only came because England refused to recognize this resolve.

sudden valley gunner said:

You don't quite understand the history behind much of the constitution, and why the anti federalist forced the bill of rights upon the misnomered Fedalist. There is no forcing to be part of the militia, you are part, and then you could conscientiously object to fighting.



Interesting thoughts, I never looked at it that way. Of course our courts and legislators and executives have all been way to fond of reinterpreting the constitution and even full on lying or ignoring it.

But it is in my opinion discussions like these that get people thinking and talking about the subject and maybe that will affect some change.

After all the revolution was not the war or the fight the revolution was to paraphrase Otis was made in the hearts and minds of the people. The fight only came because England refused to recognize this resolve.

Click to expand...

I thought John Adams said that?

Oh well it doesn't matter, both were great men IMHO and it's a great quote...

EMNofSeattle said:

I thought John Adams said that?

Oh well it doesn't matter, both were great men IMHO and it's a great quote...

Click to expand...

Oh yea, it was Otis who fought the court case John Adams talked about. The one were he defended the honorable habit of smuggling and not paying taxes.

Re failing to register with the Selective Service System.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Odd, is it not, that you may not enlist but the feds could potentially toss you in jail for avoiding the draft. Once drafted, on active duty, you become eligible for federal jobs after your hitch. You are eligible college grants/loans. Eligible for a VA or FHA loan to buy a house.

Remember, the feds send you a notice that you must register with the SSS. This means that they know that you have not, so, why not simply register you for the draft whether or not you do so yourself.

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...

The Supreme court, in their decision on Obamacare, decided that it IS a tax, as that was the only way they could uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in spite of the fact that the law itself did not consider it a tax, and Obama and the Democrats insisted while pushing the bill that it was not a tax.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

Click to expand...

ak56 said:

The Supreme court, in their decision on Obamacare, decided that it IS a tax, as that was the only way they could uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in spite of the fact that the law itself did not consider it a tax, and Obama and the Democrats insisted while pushing the bill that it was not a tax.

Click to expand...

Section 5000 (?), something, of the Internal Revenue Codes lists it as a Subtitle A tax. The earnings of the average citizen is not the subject of the tax.

It will be a fun day in court then the light gets shed on that subject.

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...

It would be interesting if a future pro-gun State legislature* declared the AR-15/M-16 platform to be the standard militia weapon and that all able-bodied adults residing in the State (not a felon or mentally incapacitated) be required to posses such arms in case they were ever required to be called up to serve.

The NFA, 86 Machine Gun Ban, as well as any potential assault weapons or magazine ban, etc. would obviously be vulnerable to a Constitutional challenge if the actual Plaintiff was a State looking out to ensure its Citizenry was properly equipped with privately-owned arms.

After all, the 2nd Amendment was originally put into place to protect the States from the Federal government (a point well-argued by the dissent in the Heller Decision).

While its nice having the NRA, SAF and state firearms groups chip away at gun-control restrictions in the wake of the Heller and McDonald decisions, there is only so much that private plaintiffs can accomplish. In our legal system, however, States themselves can sue the Federal government over such serious matters as Constitutional issues. A few of the States are starting to do this over other Federal transgressions (i.e. Obamacare, etc.) and it is only a matter of time - let us truly hope - that a freedom-loving State picks a direct fight with the Feds over gun-control.

In fact, Montana and a few other States have put up a a challenge to some Federal gun control issues enacted under the guise of interstate commerce (the States will probably lose), but such may not be the case in the event of a full-frontal assault via the 2nd Amendment.

*Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, etc. are ya listening?

OC4me said:

It would be interesting if a future pro-gun State legislature* declared the AR-15/M-16 platform to be the standard militia weapon and that all able-bodied adults residing in the State (not a felon or mentally incapacitated) be required to posses such arms in case they were ever required to be called up to serve.

Click to expand...

Considering that quite a few States passed Firearms Freedom Act type laws, and other tenth amendment type legislation, I could see a couple of States try this.

The "unorganized militia" is a recognized entity under Federal law as I posted above, and I know that at least in Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 58-1-104) it is a recognized entity as well. I would venture to guess that it is still law in several other States as well. Furthermore, some States still maintain "State Guard" type units as well. The underlying laws justifying those organizations could simply be expanded to allow more people to enlist. Or, as stated before, it could simply enroll every citizen as provided by law, and include "opt-out" provisions for those who do not wish to participate.

Whether or not the Federal government would see that as getting ready for a second Ft Sumter, I couldn't say.

unreconstructed1 said:

Considering that quite a few States passed Firearms Freedom Act type laws, and other tenth amendment type legislation, I could see a couple of States try this.

The "unorganized militia" is a recognized entity under Federal law as I posted above, and I know that at least in Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 58-1-104) it is a recognized entity as well. I would venture to guess that it is still law in several other States as well. Furthermore, some States still maintain "State Guard" type units as well. The underlying laws justifying those organizations could simply be expanded to allow more people to enlist. Or, as stated before, it could simply enroll every citizen as provided by law, and include "opt-out" provisions for those who do not wish to participate.

Whether or not the Federal government would see that as getting ready for a second Ft Sumter, I couldn't say.

Click to expand...

Washington State provides an "unorganized militia" far more expansive then the feds, I believe in Federal law, it's only males age 18-45, and in Washington law, RCW 38.04.030 all citizens AND legal immigrants who "intend to become citizens" age 18 and older are the unorganized militia.

I doubt the governor will be calling forth the unorganized militia anytime soon however.

EMNofSeattle said:

I doubt the governor will be calling forth the unorganized militia anytime soon however.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but one of the States pictured in green might be willing to do it:
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/

unreconstructed1 said:

Maybe not, but one of the States pictured in green might be willing to do it:
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/

Click to expand...

Sorry, we lost funding for the Arizona Special Missions Unit.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was 1985, not "since 1986", but well known columnist Paul Jacob was convicted and served six months in federal prison for refusing to register.

The irony of registration, of course, is that if they know where to find you for prosecution, they know where to find you for the draft.

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