Printable View
There is much debate over firearms and the 2nd Amendment. Listen to this and then think about this next time you hear the rhetoric.
Do you own a firearm? You sure? Listen to it all, but to answer the question, start right at 49:00.
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-74235/TS-708144.mp3
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.
And what was that decision?
California is wrong http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-c...200220826.html
call your revolver, pistol, shotgun or rifle your property
the only "Amendment" worth citing, for comparison purposes only, is the "ninth"
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
not only do i believe i have a right to claim my property, the law which binds you, and the principal you represent, agrees with me [cf. Ninth Amendment to The Constitution]
i; a man, retain the right to claim property [revolver, pistol, shotgun or rifle, etc.]
and I agree and shall not be construed.
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people.
Nice touch AJ.
Without having listening to the audio, is not a firearm a cannon or the guy who lights the touch hole of a cannon?
if the code, statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, etc. uses a certain word [legal term of art], then i do not use said word(s)
i don't even know what a "firearm" is; i didn't create or right the 'code' that uses such a term, i am not capable of deciphering said code and i believe i am not required to understand it
however, i use my property [cf. 'firearm'] to defend my family against bodily harm, injury or robbery
if it helps to communicate to others what your property is, use a comparison for their benefit only [cf. __________ ].
define, keep and stand upon your own words and rights as man; and, do not harm any other man while doing so
I've been following your posts more carefully lately, and I'm seeing the wisdom in your approach more clearly. It's simple enough that anyone can wrap their mind around it, yet is true to the value system I most admire. I think it's good to know and understand code law, but as a practical matter, standing as a man is key. I'd like to see millions of people doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
standing and acting as man, in honor, is key
we need to learn how to conduct ourselves, and our affairs, as such in all situations with full liability for our own actions
we need to learn how to move, hold and keep our courts [man's court as superior to all 'non-man' courts]
it is prudent to know your adversary; however, never pretend to understand the 'legal realm' because you simply cannot
only use the 'statutory/code' realm for comparison purposes only since you are not competent to know it, nor are you a privileged member of that society [card carrying BAR member] to use it; as man, it does not apply to you and yours anyway
contract wisely
This of course continues until someone with a pen and a telephone decides that "the constitution is nothing more than a god damn piece of paper."Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
And please tell me who is the people?
People. A state; as the people of the state of New York.
A nation in its collective and political capacity. The
aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the
state. Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d 80, 81. In a
more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional
law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or
nation who are invested with political power for political
purposes. See also Citizen; Person. Blacks 6th ed.
Gee people means citizen, person, state, a nation. I do not see the sentence end like ...... to deny or disparage others retained by the men and women.
12 USC 136
(d) Animal
The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.
(s) Person
The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.
Looks like a man means an animal and a person is not defined as a man.
All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We're all equal in the presence of the law.
if one looks to, and trusts in, the definitions of others; one is bound, or a slave, to said definitionsQuote:
Originally Posted by salsero
if one looks to, and trusts in, 'case law'; one is subject to the whims and opinions of those who create 'case law'
you use '12 USC 136' as a means to understand what man is, or what others may point to as a definition; i only use, and trust in, one source for the definition of man...
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
by the way, the 'Constitution' is nothing more than a piece of paper
and people are more than one man collectively
what source are you using to etymologize the words used by others?
shouldn't you utilize sources prior to the writing of the 'Constitution' if you wish to offer an opinion regarding the definitions of words used in said document?
do you claim to know the hearts, minds and intent(s) of the creators/writers of that document with absolution?
if you choose to accept "man means animal"; so be it, and i hope it works out for you
Between these two threads Who needs a drivers licenses and Do You Own a Firearm and edited with the filler words out its starts to become clear that the 28USC15-ABC a federal corporation with statutory law that governs the federal judicial system and their courts looks at a wo/man as a any individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not, and further drops the standard to “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals and tells God to take a hike.
Part of the paper trail is the Declaration of Independence stated in the last line "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." the we, the mutually pledged, the life fortunes, the lives and honor for whom, the USC-28-15-ABC a federal corporation or the wo/man.
As the supreme court recognizes that you are not a party to the constitution: Paddelford, Fay and Co v Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 1854: whereas no private person has a right to complain by a suit in a federal corporation with statutory law court, on the ground of a breach of the compact Constitution he is not a party to whereas, the States are.
The only standing as wo/man has is in honor by conducting their selves, their affairs in all situations with full liability for their own actions against all adversaries whereas the only use of the 'statutory/code' realm is for comparison purposes only.
Wo/Man does not write for the corporations laws corporations do. Wo/Man are not competent to know it, unless are you a privileged member of the BAR society to use it; as man, it does not apply.
The aggregate people or the mass of the individuals who constitute the state as people in a nation in its collective and political capacity used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, not indigenous people. Citizen; Person: Blacks law 6th edition.
Was this another corporate move The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday, 13 September 2007, by a majority of 144 states the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was held on 17 May 2012? http://undesadspd.org/IndigenousPeop...usPeoples.aspx
The indigenous peoples of the Americas are the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America and their descendants. They were tribes they did not have treaties or declarations until the army showed up.
Indigenous peoples are peoples defined in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular ... http://www.accessgenealogy.com/nativ...ian-tribes.htm
She has become a great whore. Reference psalms 2
She was a golden cup in the hand of the Lord. But now she is perverted with the doctrines of Nazi socialism. And even worse theosophy.
Reference operation paperclip. She took the Babylonian robe into her tent.
I am fence end. My only hope is to call on the name of the Lord.
Shalom
MJ
Of course I agree with Gen 1:27. I am happy for you when you go into Your court or their court, however, you look at it and really let them know THEY are going to behave and do what you want. If you want to stand there in front of them and start defining their words with your meanings - go for it. THEY get to presume under their private court system exactly what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
This just came in this morning about those who are interested in common law. I did not write this --
"For those interested in the common law process, check this out. This is in the definition of the word Justice. Notice what it says pertaining to "In common law"
From what this here says it appears the only Judges qualified to act as a Justice in the common law is only a Supreme Court Judge within the federal government or an appellate court Judge within the States. This would mean going to the County court would be the wrong court for common law because County Judges are not given the title of being a "Justice"
Black's Law 2nd addition
Justice
In common law. The title given in England to the judges of the king's bench and the common pleas, and in America to the judges of the supreme court of the United States and of the appellate courts of many of the states. It is said that this word in its Latin form (justitia) was properly ' applicable only to the judges of common-law courts, while the term "judex" designated the judges of ecclesiastical and other courts.
look into Black's 2nd the definition of Government
Read that entire definition real close. It explains the defacto vs dejure and defacto applies under military rule.
From this definition the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to come into the State AT ALL! Their mere coming into the States in completely defacto which this is where they come in under military rule.
This is my comment: Therefore UNDER MILITARY RULE, BARRY gets to use a pen and a telephone. We, the People are under a state of emergency and have been since 1933. If we were not under a declared state of emergency AND all the titles were not seized, common law would be a good place to start; however, this is not the case. Do you see?
Stop reading the lawbooks and start reading THE LAW BOOK the Bible from which the common-law was derived.
Shalom
MJ
I agree mostly. Per the declaration of independence, Men are created equal ... with unalienable rights. However, man gets the unlimited right to contract, when man makes a claim to the Name or property of the state, he will be treated/presumed as having full knowledge of the law with his rights, subjects to his obligations. Both men and persons are equal before the law - the question is which law is he subject to, man's or God's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Alan
you continue to make false presumptions regarding 'wants', 'judges', 'courts' and definitions of terms and words by those in the 'legal society'
when i bring my court, i will not 'ask' or 'want' of anything, or from anyone
who requires something called "Justice", do you?
you continue to presume you can decipher "legal language" written by those in a private club [BAR]
i will use common parlance and communicate plainly so as any common man can comprehend
why would i require anything but a public court officer [cf. magistrate] to witness and keep order by my established rules of court?
if i deem it necessary, i may also require a seated 'trial by jury' whereby i would submit to the decision rendered by said jury absent the interference of the 'magistrate' who is independent of the tribunal; such a trial would find any attempted testimony from, or interference by, an 'attorney' as contempt of court
there is no need of titles for man other than to turn a 'profit' in the commercial realm; if it is of benefit, use them, if not don't
all the religions of men take the 'Babylonian robe' in its tent; it started with Nimrod and nothing has changed sinceQuote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
the country [people and land are one] existed well before 'United States of America'
those who were called 'Puritans' on this land came out of her [Babylon whore of Rome and her sister 'Church of England'] and wished to break free from 'religious establishment'
then 'profiteers' realized the 'gold' that was 'America' and the whore came in to defile the house, slowly but surely
we are seeing the pinnacle of the destruction the whore has caused; defiling every last area and space there is in mind, heart and soul
it is up to the people to seek out the direction, discernment and power of the Creator in order to overcome these present circumstances; we already have the forever victory in Yehoshuah the CHRIST by his mighty and righteous work
Yehoshuah THE Christ. Amen. The Way. The Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
My research has led me to conclude that the legal name is the appellation by which the citizen is called, and to which the State binds the man by presumption as that person's agent. Since there is a diversity in personage, and citizenship, so too then there is a diversity in agency. So, all men are created equal, but not all men are bound to their persons in the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by salsero
Now the citizen is one of the people of a state. It is an organization in law, since it was registered under the laws of the State wherein it was born, and it is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as per the 14th Amendment.
In the State of California - and I assume in other States as well - it is possible to resign from this agency simply by withdrawing consent to be the citizen's agent. Voter registrations, drivers licenses, and the like, create presumptions in law that the citizen consents to receive service of process.
Since you mentioned the right to contract, let me concur and add that, that right is inalienable to the man. But conversely, since - and we must remember that the man is the citizen's agent - the man can bargain in the stead of his civil person, and consequently surrender the citizen's civil rights by consent, or have them removed by a superior authority.
I think all this talk about claiming the name, or refusing to claim the name, is very interesting, and useful for understanding the metaphysical reality of citizenship. However I think it misses the mark when contemplating real solutions regarding ownership controversies.
I see the mark as being nothing more than the citizen's agency in the State, and the man can lay it down or take it up again, according to his sovereign's will.
You asked about to which jurisdiction of law should a man hold himself subject. I think coming under God's law also includes recognizing God's authority of allowing States to exist. In other words, it's not an either/or kind of arrangement. As God's children we have Dominion, which includes the capacity to make contracts with others, and possibly bargain away civil rights.
It then falls to the man to choose to whom he owes his allegiance - to his belly, or to his God.
The Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. This decision created a radical shift in the meaning of the Second Amendment, but it doesn’t prevent smart gun regulations. In fact, courts nationwide have found a wide variety of firearms laws constitutional because they can help prevent gun deaths, injuries, and crimes in communities across the country.
As far as right to bear arms amendment in America the politicians here want to take that away from the people but our judges carry firearms for protection but you have on the otherhand.
Amanda Bronstad The National Law Journal December 7, 2006 Despite increased security at courthouses following shootings in Chicago and Atlanta about one year ago, many judges are bringing their own guns into their courtrooms for protection.
Earlier this month, a Florida judge was ordered to accept mentoring after warning a defense attorney that he was "locked and loaded."
In May, a judicial ethics committee of the New York State Unified Court System found that it was ethical for a judge to carry a pistol into his courtroom.
In Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas, incidences of violence in the past year have prompted new laws or solidified rules allowing judges to bring guns into courtrooms.
"Judges in our courthouse have been carrying guns almost all the time," said Cynthia Stevens Kent, a Texas judge in the 114th District Court, where a man in a family law case killed his ex-wife and son last year on the steps of a Tyler courthouse.
"We feel strongly about providing adequate security, but it comes down to personal responsibility.
And you've got to take responsibility for your own safety," Kent said. http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-239473.html
From what I recall a 'firearm' is a legal word of art for a receiver or frame registered with the BATF for sale through a FFL licensed dealer. Everything else that attaches to the receiver isn't the 'firearm', its the receiver. Its the receiver that is registered 'in commerce' and called a 'firearm'. They don't use the word 'gun' or 'arm by itself. The receiver 'carries' (a commercial term) the parts. So technically the idea of 'firearm' parts might be a misnomer in legalese with the notion of the frame or receiver being the firearm.
Attachment 2315
Related:Quote:
Q&A With "Allodial"
Q. What part of a a gun bears the serial number? A. The receiver or the frame.
Q. According to U.S. laws or regulations, what part of a gun is the firearm? A. The receiver or the frame. (It is the 'controlled part'.)
Q. Are there any guns that have more than one frame or receiver? A. Yes. An AR-15 has an upper receiver and a lower receiver. (The lower is typically serialized).
What's the Marking On A Frame or Receiver?
...............................