The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns....

This is a discussion on The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns.... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I found this on another web site. I'm not the author A little known clause in the Constitution outlaws firearms confiscation..... I'm sitting here reading ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns....

  1. #1
    Member Array usmcj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    454

    The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns....

    I found this on another web site. I'm not the author

    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 State legislatures fully aware of this little impediment and will they abide by this constitutional restriction? I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Fighting these legalities through the court system would be expensive, and if it ever happens at all, I see the NRA as the only resource with the funding (from their membership) to fight the battle.

    I have also forwarded this to my elected officials. Please consider sending it to yours.
    NRA Life Member ... Marine Corps League Life Member
    Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...
    USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

    Some of my toys....

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    Good post Sir. There aren't enough votes in the Congress or the Senate to pass any kind of gun laws that deprive of us our rights to keep and bear arms. Even democrats realize this is a nonstarter. My guess is the occupant of our White House will try to shove yet another Executive Order down our throats, and that's where the battle will begin.

    Everyone needs to join the NRA, sign up another member or two, and take a bit of your firearms budget and send it to the NRA to help fund the fights that are coming. We have a lot more gun owners in America then NRA members, and we need to do what we can to change those numbers.

    Thanks for the post.
    RichB70, usmcj, oneshot and 2 others like this.
    " But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.

  4. #3
    Member Array usmcj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by KBSR View Post
    Everyone needs to join the NRA, sign up another member or two, and take a bit of your firearms budget and send it to the NRA to help fund the fights that are coming. We have a lot more gun owners in America then NRA members, and we need to do what we can to change those numbers.

    Thanks for the post.
    I agree on the need for more new NRA members... to that end....

    The $300 sponsored Life Membership is back in play, and is expected to last another 30 days or so.

    Call 800-672-3888 select option 3, then give your sponsors # , then your current NRA number and credit card number.... takes about 2 minutes.

    I will act as a sponsor, just PM me.

    If anyone else wishes to be a sponsor, just say so in this thread.
    NRA Life Member ... Marine Corps League Life Member
    Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...
    USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

    Some of my toys....

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,254
    The Constitution neither allows or prohibits anything.
    5 of 9 justices on the court do. It means what they say it does or does not . The last major ruling was a 5 to 4 vote we got by by 1.
    We have been told that was wrong and will be fixed when 1 new justice is appointed.
    Why do you waste your time with arguments about what anyone thinks it say meaningless.
    Right now 4 of the 9 do not see it as your right and when one more agrees the 2nd will no longer be a personal right. No congress can do anything to change that.
    All you can do is hope he does not appoint another justice in the next 4 years.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,076
    You're right, confiscation is utterly illegal. There are far too many government officials, at all levels, who either don't understand that or don't care. That is the real source of the trouble.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array MrBuckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Down Incognito
    Posts
    6,172
    Our leader has no respect for the document. It gets in his way. I agree with Smitty, they are going to use the bench. The worst thing from the November loss was the possiblity of a new Justice.
    BamaT, mulle46, Ransom and 1 others like this.

  8. #7
    Member Array JasonJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    256
    i don't know... the wording on that is pretty clear... there's no use of punctuation and commas that could be construed to mean anything else. Such as in the 2A itself.
    Bark'n likes this.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array yz9890's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado USA
    Posts
    1,083

    The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns....

    I thought about that yesterday when Biden swore in the new congress and asked the new members if they would uphold the constitution. So they said they would and next week he's going to ask them to take it apart.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,819
    A bill of attainder is a law by which a person is immediately convicted without trial. An ex post facto law is a law which applies retroactively, punishing someone for an act that was only made criminal after it was done. The ex post facto clause does not apply to civil matters.
    What the OP is surmising is incorrect IMO. The cluase is about being charged for a crime that was not a crime before. It has nothing to do with banning something and then confiscating it.

    Now..I ain't no Constitutional lawyer and I looked this up and checked the references besides Wiki. So IMO this means squat. They can not prosecute because you already own an AR r whatever. But, a new law that requires people to turn in firearms is not post exto facto. You would be charged with a crime of not turning in a firearm, not for have legally possesing it under an old law.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    The Constitution neither allows or prohibits anything.
    5 of 9 justices on the court do. It means what they say it does or does not . The last major ruling was a 5 to 4 vote we got by by 1.
    We have been told that was wrong and will be fixed when 1 new justice is appointed.
    Why do you waste your time with arguments about what anyone thinks it say meaningless.
    Right now 4 of the 9 do not see it as your right and when one more agrees the 2nd will no longer be a personal right. No congress can do anything to change that.
    All you can do is hope he does not appoint another justice in the next 4 years.
    What a ridiculous post. The SCOTUS is meant to determine the constitutionality of cases brought before them. They determine if things are allowed or prohibited by the constitution. The SCOTUS itself is not above the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, period. How can you say it neither allows or prohibits anything?
    Darrow75 likes this.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  12. #11
    Member Array usmcj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    All you can do is hope he does not appoint another justice in the next 4 years.
    Wrong. Perhaps all that YOU can do is hope, and wring yer hands, but I will pursue any and all means I feel have merit to protect what YOU and many others of us swore to protect and defend. You're opinion is just exactly that... as is mine.
    RichB70, MACC12, Darrow75 and 1 others like this.
    NRA Life Member ... Marine Corps League Life Member
    Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...
    USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

    Some of my toys....

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    Ladies and Gentlemen

    You do not understand, they are trying to trample the Constitution. They will do anything to subvert it to further their goals.

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,936
    No lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that applies to an action. What you "once" did cannot be a crime for a law instated today. You cannot be charged for illegal target shooting yesterday in an area where it becomes illegal today. However, if something is banned, continued and current possession would be illegal. But we're not the SCOTUS nor lawyers.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,910
    The problem is that it won't technically be an ex post facto law...

    they will pass a law requiring you to register your AR, AK, Glock, etc., and if you fail to do so, you will be breaking the new law... or they will make it illegal to leave the house with your AK, AR, Glock, etc., and if you do, you are breaking the new law...
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by SigPapa226 View Post
    Ladies and Gentlemen

    You do not understand, they are trying to trample the Constitution. They will do anything to subvert it to further their goals.
    They are not trying they have told to you loud and clear they are going to and dared you to try and stop them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

bill of attainder
,
consition fire arms
,
constitution prohibits confiscation
,

content

,
does the constitution prohbit all gun legislation
,
exto facto law
,

is outlawing guns constitutional or not

,

kentucky constitution firearms

,
outlawing guns is unconstitutional therefore illegal
,
why aren't gun laws ex post facto
Click on a term to search for related topics.