America, it's time to talk about ex post facto laws. Why has the time come to talk about such things and understand it? States, municipalities, and Congress are moving toward passing laws and ordinances against gun ownership that could move into ex post facto laws. For example; in the town of Deerfield, Illinois, the Board of Trustees passed an ordinance that banned certain "assault-type" weapons, large magazines that hold over 10 rounds, and semi-automatic pistols capable of holding over 10 rounds, requiring residents to turn in those firearms to government or face a fine of $250 to $1,000 per day per gun.
Residents have 60 days to sell their weapons, transfer ownership to someone outside the town, turn in their weapons and accessories to police or pay the fines. The ordinance can be read here.
Naturally, the ordinance exempts law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement officers, military members or any members of the National Guard or reserves in any State, and any agent or employee of the State of Illinois, the united States or of any other State.
Simply put, only agents of government and law enforcement are "allowed" to have these types of weapons in Deerfield.
The Chief of Police is "authorized" to confiscate such weapons upon violation of the ordinance.
To get a full understanding of ex post facto law, Publius Huldah has an excellent piece covering it on her website. An ex post facto law "RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct that was not criminal when it was done." The example Ms. Publius uses is barbequing.
Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even though when you did it, it wasn't a crime. That is an ex post facto law.
How does this apply to what the village of Deerfield, Illinois, has done? According to Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution for the united States of America, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." While this pertains to Congress, there is a provision against States passing ex post facto laws.
Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America 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."
Would it be safe to say that if a State or Congress cannot pass any ex post facto law that a town, municipality, village or city could not do so?
The "ordinance," which is nothing but a "town law," criminalizes the possession of certain "banned assault-type" weapons, including large magazines holding over 10 rounds and semi-automatic firearms holding over 10 rounds in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America. Additionally, failure to surrender those types of weapons results in a daily fine, interpreted as "punishment" for failing to follow their ordinance. This ordinance criminalizes an activity that was previously not criminal – having "assault-type" weapons, large magazines and semi-automatic pistols holding over 10 rounds and exacts punishment should one fail to surrender such firearms and accessories. The fine is such that at the $250 per day "punishment" levied in one month amounts to $7,500; in one year, the amount is $91,250. Who can afford those fines in order to keep their weapons? And, remember, the fine is levied per weapon and accessory.
Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist Paper No. 84, 4th paragraph, stated, "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."
There is no way the founding fathers would think of allowing towns to infringe upon God-given unalienable rights if States and the federal government are prohibited from doing so.
So, while Deerfield, Illinois, has not implemented imprisonment as a punishment, the fine exacted for the violations against the village ordinance is punishment. What would happen should someone not be able to pay their fine? Imprisonment? How would they know who has or does not have these types of weapons and accessories? Do they know already? What would happen should someone refuse to follow this unconstitutional ordinance then need to petition the city for a permit for a business license, to improve their home, or other business involving the city?
Clearly, when these individuals purchased these weapons, it was not unlawful. Now, it is unlawful to possess these types of weapons and fail to follow the means of disposal of said weapons. This is an ex post facto law enacted by a "village" in a republic where it is against the Constitution to enact such laws.
These types of infringements are happening all over the republic, including legislation introduced into Congress banning certain types of weapons. While weapons already in possession by citizens are not affected by some legislation, including that introduced into Congress, this is "testing the waters" to see how American citizens will respond to the infringement upon their God-given unalienable rights to keep and bear arms. The "grandfathered" weapons will more than likely attempt to be removed later should these initial efforts succeed.
Most Americans know the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers are under no obligation to "protect" the public, meaning the officers at the high school in Parkland, Florida, were, per the Supreme Court, under no obligation to "protect" the students from harm once being called to the scene. In another ruling, the Supreme Court indicated law enforcement can "shoot first, ask questions later." So, with the anti-constitutionalists moving to rid the republic of firearms and weapons that make it easier to defend and protect oneself, who is going to protect the people and their property if police are under no obligation to do so?
Criminals obey no laws. These draconian measures create a playground for criminals, which increase the likelihood of more mass shootings, not less. And, with police under no obligation to "protect" the citizens and citizens denied their God-given unalienable right to protect themselves and their property, mass shootings and other crimes will skyrocket because criminals will not relinquish their firearms and weapons nor follow any law. All the weapons being in the hands of "government" does nothing when it takes minutes for law enforcement to respond and does nothing to "protect" the people when under no obligation to do so. However, government does have the authority to use their weapons and force to impose the will of the government upon the people. It is the quintessential definition of tyranny and despotism.
These "children," the cult of Hogg, and the George Soros minions are calling for ex post facto laws, against the Constitution, to solve a perceived problem. While these Second Amendment illiterate trolls call for gun bans and confiscations (ex post facto laws), essentially removing the right of the people to defend themselves because of "mass shootings," they lobby for firearms and weapons to be in the hands of law enforcement officers, which has killed more individuals than all the mass shootings, and governments, which summarily killed 252 million people worldwide in the 20th century alone. Remember, these Parkland, Florida Hogg cultists gave law enforcement a "pass" for failing to protect them as well as the FBI, a federal government law enforcement agency.
It matters not what happens in Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden or any other foreign nation. Their decisions, laws, and actions have zero to do with the united States. So what if these nations banned and confiscated guns? It doesn't matter to this republic. So what if the United Nations wants nations to disarm all the nations' citizenry? It doesn't matter to this republic. But, those in this republic seeking to disarm the US citizenry always cite the UN and other nations on what the US should be doing. Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THESE OTHER NATIONS DO!!!! Our law rests in the Constitution for the united States of America, which declares ex post fact laws forbidden and recognizes and protects the God-given unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms without any government infringement.
So, people in towns, villages, municipalities, and cities that have or are trying to enact such unconstitutional ex post fact laws have a choice – comply, resist or leave. Those who cannot leave either comply or resist. It is a choice that will have to be made. And, there is no copout of "we don't have a choice." It may not be one that is liked, but it is a choice.
It won't be long before many of us in this republic will be making that choice since more and more States, towns and counties will seek to infringe upon the Second Amendment. Congress is working at it as well. Unfortunately, citizens may have to choose between "yellow snow" and "red snow." There won't be a middle ground. Now is the time to put this to rest by standing up in resistance. If not, prepare to kneel in enslavement and submission. No longer can citizens rely solely on the NRA or the GOA to engage in this fight. It is going to take all citizens in support of the God-given individual unalienable right to keep and bear arms to quell this squall.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.