Do you own a firearm? You sure?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • salsero
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2013
    • 136

    #16
    Originally posted by Keith Alan View Post
    All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. We're all equal in the presence of the law.
    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?

    Comment

    • Anthony Joseph

      #17
      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

      Comment

      • Anthony Joseph

        #18
        Originally posted by Michael Joseph View Post
        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
        all the religions of men take the 'Babylonian robe' in its tent; it started with Nimrod and nothing has changed since

        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

        Comment

        • Michael Joseph
          Senior Member
          • Mar 2011
          • 1596

          #19
          Originally posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
          all the religions of men take the 'Babylonian robe' in its tent; it started with Nimrod and nothing has changed since

          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.
          The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

          Lawful Money Trust Website

          Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

          ONE man or woman can make a difference!

          Comment

          • Keith Alan
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2012
            • 324

            #20
            Originally posted by salsero View Post
            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?
            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.

            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.

            Comment

            • edward222
              Junior Member
              • Mar 2015
              • 28

              #21
              Offshore Direct provide legal company formation solutions to optimize your taxes.

              Comment

              • Chex
                Senior Member
                • May 2011
                • 1032

                #22
                And you've got to take responsibility for your own safety," Kent said.

                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
                "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

                Comment

                • shikamaru
                  Senior Member
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 1630

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Chex View Post
                  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
                  Lictor
                  Fasces

                  Comment

                  • allodial
                    Senior Member
                    • May 2011
                    • 2866

                    #24
                    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.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Stag2wi.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	198.1 KB
ID:	41412

                    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).
                    Related:
                    What's the Marking On A Frame or Receiver?
                    Last edited by allodial; 03-07-15, 01:16 AM.
                    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

                    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
                    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
                    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

                    Comment

                    • tommyf350
                      Member
                      • Sep 2012
                      • 43

                      #25
                      ...............................
                      Last edited by tommyf350; 04-14-15, 09:15 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X