Skip to comments.Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws
Posted on 01/15/2013 11:02:48 AM PST by WXRGina
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our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) cant be repealed because to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.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 cant repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws shows that whoever wrote that doesnt 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 wasnt 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 wont 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 shouldnt 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
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
“ex post facto laws “
Actually, gun control as they intend it is ex post facto. I am already in possession of the gun and they want to make possession of the gun a crime.
Like Ms. Publius said, it would not be ex post facto, because the law will be to “turn in your gun.” You won’t be committing a “crime” until you refuse to turn in your gun, because you would not be charged for formerly possessing the gun, but for not turning it in.
“The Dick Act of 1902”
What a coincidence!
None of that matters anyway, because the answer will be “NO”.
Yep. It’s NO.
It sounds like we should support the Dick Act. I don’t want to go around Dick-less.
I'm with the author on this, but for technical reasons only. Criminalizing your possession of one or more firearms that you already possess is not an ex post facto law. It is not your past possession that is criminalized but the ongoing possession. That hypothetical law is a gross violation of the Second Amendment, it is probably a violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition of being deprived of property and on taking "for public use" without just compensation, and it is certainly a violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment limits on the power of the federal government, but it's not an ex post facto law. I would still hope that over a hundred million households would ignore the silliness from DC and follow the Constitution rather than a demand from a petty tyrant, but ex post facto is not one of the many flaws in such a command.
“because the law will be to turn in your gun. “
No, the law will be “possession of”, not “turn in”. Besidesm “turn in” also then gets into other issues of being paid market value.
I can see you point, however, it is moot because I will not be turning in anything.
Sorry, having a Beavis and Butthead moment.
It is still not an ex post facto law, and I understand that you, like many of us, will say NO to being disarmed.
There is no longer a Constitution and rule of law. There is King Obama and his communists empire and America is under his law. He is acting as a dictator and it is working. Nothing the Senate or House can do to stop him except impeachment. That will never happen.
The left has its sights on firearms owned legally by law-abiding citizens. It knows there are millions of guns possessed by violent criminals, and deliberately chooses to leave the guns in their hands.
I want to see the inner city gun trafficking stopped. Severe penalties, including capital punishment for trafficking.
Never happen. Will be called racist.
The author confuses the Militia as being a symbol of freedom and use of the 2nd amendment. Yet, they were also part of the problem.
Various state Militia were conscripted and enforced Slavery. Slavery was part of the ultimate form of gun control. Slaves or conscripted labor in most cases couldn't carry or had to be registered and licensed.
If you want to see what a Gov't license and gun database would be. Think a society where a Gov't force[Militia] would come to your house regularly, inspect your weapons, arms and home.
It's also called the Militia Act of 1903 (or 1902, couldn't they make up their minds?), so maybe we should go with that.
Agreed, but it’s good to bear in mind that it’s distracting to be inaccurate and casts doubt on the rest; e.g. BAFT is BATF, or more recently BATFE. Never been BAFT.
Obama’s ‘Dick’ will never stand. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk
As a person living in a land (Canada) where ownership of guns is not guaranteed, I find the method of attack on gun ownership in the US rather curious. It seems the enemies of gun ownership are intent on punishing and stripping rights from lawful citizens.
That to me seems like an odd battleground to do battle on. I am not a gun owner, but the only rational argument that ever had appeal to me was when gun ownership resulted in accidental deaths. Meaning gun owners who don’t take care to store their arms which results in a family member injuring themselves. If and where that happens I see that as a true tragedy which perhaps deserves attention.
Responsible gun owners teach their kids respect for guns, and when they’re old enough, proper gun handling. Accidental shootings from home guns are not an epidemic in America.
A gun that is stored away—and worse, unloaded—is a useless gun. Guns should be easy to reach at a moment’s notice.
The governor of New York is in violation Article 1 § 10 ... Ive always maintained that an ex post facto law cannot be legal unless the person effected was born after said law ... I was born in 1948
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.