(click on ads for more details)

Kentucky Militia Head Charlie Puckett raided by ATF

Puckett was convicted in Virginia in 1966 for the misdemeanor of petty theft -- stealing food from a grocery store. The Gun Control Act of 1968 stated that a convicted felon could not possess firearms, but this crime was not processed as a felony, and it happened two years before GCA '68 was signed into law. Puckett was 19 years of age when the incident took place.

Puckett vows to fight back. "I will do whatever it takes to get my firearms back," he said.

See the full article at:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/n

ewsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd

=view&articleid=2144

Comments from Claude Bohn:

Not that anyone actually knows - or cares - anything at all about that dead letter we call the Constitution for the united States - least of all the BATF agents and U.S. attorneys who have sworn to uphold and defend that document - I would like to draw your attention to Article 1, Sec. 9,
clause 3 of that rule book for Government, which reads: "NO Bill of
Attainder or EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED." [Emphasis mine]
According to Black's Law Dictionary, ex post facto means: "After the fact;" and an ex post facto LAW is described there as: "A law passed AFTER the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which
retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact
or deed." Read that last definition again.
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Seems to me that this would preclude "grand fathering" felons convicted BEFORE such a law was passed. Contrary to the misconceptions of some of our more zealous "law enforcement officers" in the BATF, and the enlightened "contention" of the U.S. attorney's office, no citizen  of the United States - not even one who
belongs to a militia - can be charged with and/or punished for breaking a law which didn't exist at the time they committed the act. WHY? Because - BY LAW - Congress is prohibited from enacting such a law!

For Congress to pass a law - in 1968 - punishing felons by denying them the right to possess firearms for crimes they committed PRIOR to that time, for agents of the government to enforce such an unconstitutional law, certainly seems to me to be a clear violation of their Constitutional mandate, as well as a violation of their oath of office, not to mention, a violation of the law itself!
Of course, like I said, its all academic, a moot point at this sad stage in our history. This government slipped its constitutional chains long ago; we really can't expect them to pay much heed to it now. I just
wonder what law they'll pass tomorrow, and how many of the rest of us will be "grand fathered" in and singled out for persecution? I mean prosecution!