|
|
January 14, 2013 · By Publius Huldah · 27 Comments
Shooting a Glock 23 at Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida (Photo credit: Ratha Grimes)
The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.
Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?
Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.
In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.
Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds. See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, writes in the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46! The reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.
Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Regulation of arms and ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch.
Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!
In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/
But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.
And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.
This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Bill-of-Attainder.htm
An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.
Say you barbecued outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbecuing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.
Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.
Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.
It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
But it would not be an ex post facto law.
People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.
If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago. But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH
Endnote:
1 In Federalist Paper No. 84 (4th para), Alexander Hamilton says re ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):
“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.) In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.” But you can call him Harvey Milk. And now he's getting his own commemorative postage stamp.
There is a growing contention that "young adults haven't rejected the case for marriage; they simply haven't heard it." Exactly. Very few people, even in conservative circles, can articulate why marriage is important and must be defended from counterfeiters and other attackers. In the past, when society was strong and values were passed on from one generation to the next by stable family environments, such things were simply understood. Now we find ourselves--largely due to our own laziness and negligence, conservatives--in a culture where we must explain what was once obvious. If we consider the values that produced the greatest nation in history important enough to maintain and pass on, we are going to have to start explaining and articulating those values to the culture, and help them understand why they are so critically important.
After the shutdown and all the fighting in D.C., it is likely most of America will tune out the upcoming budget discussions as just more blather from people who can’t get along. That is exactly what those who would ignore the national debt problem would like. A bored, disengaged public that just wants all of the politicians to shut up and go away plays into the hands of those who urge “compromise,” a term that actually means grow government just a little less than Obama wants. As painful as it may seem, now is a time for even more vigilance for those who care about the fiscal health of our nation.
As many as 43 percent of the nation’s uninsured are completely unaware that come January 2014, they must purchase or carry health insurance or else pay a fine, according to a June Gallup survey. If they really don’t sign up or if the individual mandate is delayed for a year, the insurance pool won’t expand as expected, and everyone’s insurance premiums will necessarily skyrocket.
Political discussions commonly assume there are two separate sets of issues. There's a social agenda -- issues like abortion and marriage. And there's an economic agenda -- issues like federal spending, debt, taxes, and government programs like entitlements. But it's simply false that we can consider the challenges of our federal budget without thinking about the state of the American family, our birthrates and abortion.
Other News Other Commentary Featured Blogs|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
Pingback: Global Cape Breton-Nova Scotia-World Alternative News Headlines « Global-Cape Breton-Nova Scotia
Pingback: Walmart ‘Not Guilty’ on Ammo Charge? | American Clarion
Pingback: Walmart ‘Not Guilty’ on Ammo Charge? | Through the Eyes of a Calvinist
Pingback: Walmart ‘Not Guilty’ on Ammo Charge?