5 votes

Want to purchase a firearm? Better read that "Yellow Form 4473" line 9L and 9M one more time!

Here's a classic example of the difference between knowing who you really are and just assuming you're a United States citizen:

When buying a firearm, you must fill out a yellow form 4473. Notice, if you answer YES to any question between 9b and 9k, you are prohibited from buying a firearm.

Now look at question 9L .... Are you a citizen of the United States?

Now most people jump with pride and check "HELL YES" I'm a United States citizen, not knowing they are actually volunteering to give up their Inherent Rights, and now by their own consent agree to be granted their rights and privileges, as well as agreeing to abide by all US Codes and Gun laws (I mean statutes).

You are either free or you are a citizen of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES, and if you are of the latter, you will obey their internal statutory gun rules/codes/regulations as outlined in the US Code.

You can either answer YES, which means you agree that you are a 14th Amendment statutory citizen who is bound by US Code and statutory rules, or you can answer NO.

Then read question 9m .......... Are you a Citizens of Kentucky, Texas, Missouri, Rhode Island, etc; a state Citizen?

Did you notice that if you answer "NO" to question 9L you are not prohibited from purchasing a firearm, they just want to know which state you are a resident of?

By answering no on line 9L you are saying "I'm not a 14th Amendment statutory citizen who is obligated to abide by your internal - corporate gun rules/codes/regulations"

You do not want to be considered a (c)itizen of the United States; to do so is granting the foreign corporation the legal right to govern you and impose it's statutory codes upon you.

Better read line 9L and 9M again:

http://www.instapunk.com/images/BATF_Form_4473a.png

Morale of the story:

This means you can say "NO", I'm not a (c)itizen of the United States, I'm a resident of the state of (insert state here) and still purchase the firearm.

Why would you ever agree to being a citizen of the United States?

PS. When you register to vote, you are giving up your Inherent Birth Rights on this land mass called America, and agreeing to be governed (controlled) by internal - corporate rules of a foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

Govern yourselves accordingly, or they'll be glad to govern you the way they see fit.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What do you suggest ...

... when people fill out paperwork for a passport?

They ask it on EVERYTHING now

Or maybe I just notice it now.
"Can I have a burger and fries?"
"Sure, just sign this for me..."
OK, not quite that bad.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Federal law supercedes State law

Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution reads:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.

The laws will apply to you regardless if you're a U.S. citizen, State citizen, Resident of another country, or illegally present in the U.S.

You can call yourself whatever you want, and you can "agree or disagree" to abide by the Federal government's laws all you want - But ultimately the Federal laws will be enforced upon you regardless of "citizenship", or State laws.

No. It does not. That's a common misconception.

If you actually read it, the most important part of the Supremacy Clause that you really should've emboldened is:

which shall be made in Pursuance thereof

A law that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is NOT a law at all.

THAT, is what that really states.

That's not that "Federal law supercedes State law", it's about the Constitution superceding any other law of the land (Common Law). And, as the 9th and 10th clarifies, anything not explicitly delegated in the Constitution shall remain reserved to the People and the States.

Fed. Govt is NOT the Constitution. Granted, they're tyrannical and are clearly not acting Constitutionally right now, but technically, Federal Govt has no powers that the People or their Reps in States did not delegate to it, period.

Supremacy Clause has always been about all laws NOT made in accordance to the Constitution, shall be considered null and void.

In fact that's where the popular phrase "An UnConstitutional 'law' is no law at all!" originated from.

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution FOR the United States of America SUPREME, not Fed law, nor State Law, only those laws that conform to the Constitution shall have the force of the law. That, in essence is what the following means:

...any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"any Thing CONTRARY notwithstanding."

Anything contrary to the Constitution and laws made NOT "in pursuance thereof," do not count, does not stand. That's pretty literal as it can get.

This whole Feds superceding the State canard is a byproduct of almost a century of Progressive public indoctrination centers.

On a fundamental philosophical basis, ask yourself this: if our republic is constructed based on the notion of "consent of the governed" (okay not really practiced in reality, but for the sake of discussion, you get the gist), how does an entity created by a group of people become superior to the original masters that created it??

This is 9th and 10th Amendment 101.

Are you familiar with what the Latin root word for "Federal" is?

It's "Foedus."

It means a compact, a contract, or a consensual voluntary agreement.

The Founders certainly understood what the term "federal" meant. We do not have a "national" govt, per-se, legally specifically speaking.

The People elected State Reps, then those State Reps created the Constitution which created a Federal compact. That compact, or contract is in fact what the Constitution is. And to enforce that contract, the Federal Govt was "created by Constitution," which was created by the State reps (reps at Constitutional Convention who 'violated' their original intent to 'fix' the Articles of Confederation which IMO is much more freer as they had no unitary executive, nor powers to tax, but that's for another thread altogether), whom the People elected.

So you have to ask yourself, how does a legal entity created by the People and their reps in State govt, become "superior" to the original masters who created it and delegated (not relinquished) specifically enumerated powers to it?

It's not "superior," period.

Here's Tom Woods on what the Founders actually said about the Supremacy Clause:

What Did the Supremacy Clause Mean?

Here’s what the people were told it meant at the state ratifying conventions, which is what matters. (I’ll be a sport and not even mention the proto-nullification arguments made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which settle the argument, though you can get the story in my Nullification or in Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America.)

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

For more on this, see Brion McClanahan’s Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I agree with you that in practice,

what the original thread author's intent to discuss "US Corp" UCC, Admiralty, etc. frankly won't matter much, to a bunch of thugs in Fed. gvt and their court system.

My reply wasn't about whether or not by admitting you're a citizen in the ATF form will or will not 'voluntarily' relinquish your rights. Nor, that factually what the thread originator contends is wrong. Most certainly, indeed, when you do admit you're a "citizen" you're binding yourself to the 14th Amendment personhood. But in practical terms, to argue against that, the court thugs will simply jail you and ignore your argument, or at least civilly draw out your lawsuit to the point of irrelevancy via bureaucratic attrition. Remember, they're an institution, we're an individual. When the current batch of govt lawyers move on, the next one simply takes over, to continue to make your life a living hell. Of course, this is not to say that one should be afraid of them, but simply a reality check on the nuisance in having to deal with THEIR system, pretending it has anything to do with justice, or real justice can be achieved via their system.

My specific reply to your Supremacy Clause discussion, is to counter your contention, a rather historically common misconception, that you believe the Supremacy Clause means that the Feds supercede the States: it clearly does not.

No current, reputable Constitutional scholar would say that, nor would anyone who've done their own individual due diligence on the Supremacy Clause, Constitutional history, nor anyone who's read any of the Founders' original writings about it, would ever say that.

The whole 'Supremacy Clause means that the Feds supercede the States' is the sole byproduct of Ante Bellum era statist centralizers, more solidified a few decades later at the beginning of the "Progressive Era" public indoctrination centers, now in its centennial.

Frankly, for all our due-diligence, historically legitimate academic and lawful persistence, we can argue at Federal court system about how they're wrong, but they'll simply declare "contempt of court" and railroad you, every time.

It's like asking a slavemaster to free you, while still inside a cage.

Sure, they have to twist their words all the time to give the semblance of legitimacy of the nonsense of 'consent of the governed.' But, in reality and practice, for anyone who's ever been through the court system in America for anything more serious than a traffic ticket would know, when you enter their court, it's always guaranteed to be a stacked deck.

But seriously, how 'legitimate' can their system be when grown men/women who represent it don Saturnian black drag, daily? 'Cause you know, nothing screams 'grown ups,' more than having to don Halloween polyester Batman capes decked around their necks, for a living, every day? Um, pretty f*cking hilarious!!! No?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I couldn't agree more AnCap

I understood what you were referring to in your earlier reply and I apologize for the confusion. Sadly, the "justice" system we currently have is nothing more than a circus, owned & controlled by the elite - and does as you say, have everything stacked against us. For example; just look at the BS show that happened with Obamacare. Another recent example is what happened in the courts regarding the NDAA. Can you say "Bought & paid for"?

It's a noble and just cause to stand your ground, be it on principle and the Constitution, specifically when the law is right there in black and white. But UNTIL this nation unites and fights back, those "rights" that we supposedly have "protected by law", will in fact continue to be stripped, and made a mockery of by our "justice" system - even when it's Sooo obviously clear that it's a corrupt system. Until things "change dramatically" in this country, I'm afraid that the Federal government will always win through our corrupt "justice" system. The "justice" system has turned into nothing more than the PR puppet of this tyrannical government in order to fool the American people that "justice" has indeed been served and that the government is "fair & just" in its actions. The "justice" system seems to follow law when it's convenient for those in power within the government, and chooses to ignore law when not. We'll see how long before this country "gets it", says "enough", and boils over.

Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to type out the word "justice" without the quotes, when putting it next to the word "system". It's ironic, contradictory, and laughable - but mostly it just plain disgusts me to actually call THAT system "justice".

Shine The Light On This

We need to keep this debate out in public. Especially with elected servants, lawyers, and judges.

It is a common misconception. It irks me when I hear this from people with "power" or "education".

The fact is that the CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law Of The Land.

Any other law or laws that do not conform to the Constitution have no legitimate power, although judges, legislators, and executives totally ignore the Constitution unless it agrees with them.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

you're missing the point of

"in pursuance"

since most federal laws are NOT in pursuance of the constitution, the supremacy clause does not actually apply, legally speaking.

of course, challenge the feds and see where that gets you

What you need..

What you need to realize is that only federal laws that the federal government had the authority to pass is what that clause references. Since over 90% of EVERYTHING the federal government does is without any legal authority, those "laws" are void and do not have to be followed. One of these unconstitutional "laws" is the 1968 GCA.

No, I understand that just fine

and wholeheartedly agree with the statement of not having to follow and obey unconstitutional laws. My point is, and what I believe the OP is stating, is that you can somehow "legally" declare yourself a non U.S. citizen simply by proclaiming it and thus by doing so, are not bound to any laws of the Federal government that would apply to U.S. citizens.

Point is, if you're born in the U.S., you are automatically a U.S. citizen, and whether you agree with THAT particular law is moot. THAT particular law is NOT an unconstitutional law. You are certainly free to renounce your U.S. citizenship, but simply by stating it doesn't make it so.

I don't see this "loophole", if you will, standing up in court.

how would you handle question 9i?

.

Whoever down voted this post:

Go to your bathroom; look into the mirror, and Choke yourself Pyle.

You are a government troll; a system slave who fears information like this becoming widely known and accepted by the public.

Shame on you.

I Doubt It Makes A Difference

The legal system will do to you whatever it wants to do. The U.S. is so far beyond such petty distinctions it's ridiculous.

Bingo

I can't think of a bigger waste of time than to engage in the minutae of legal polemics. They've twisted the language of everything to the point where 2+2 = anything and everything EXCEPT 4.

So what does it mean to be a citizen of the United States?

Are you saying that if I have lived here all my life, I'm not a citizen unless I SAY in writing that I'm a citizen?

Is this semantics?

What for example are the ramifications of answering yes to the citizens question as opposed to a no answer.

I tend to think they will more likely track you down if you say no to the U.S. citizen but yes to a state citizen.

But I am open to listening to your argument.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

A (c)itizen of the United States is a 14th Amendment Federal

"person(s)"; a corporate fiction who agrees to be governed by the internal statutory codes/rules and regulations of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

If you answer YES, then you agree to abide by their own internal gun laws (I mean statutes), even if you're not an employee of that corporation.

You're either a (c)itizen of the United States, or you are a resident of your state on American soil, not obligated to follow the internal statutory codes of the UNITED STATES Corporation.