-9 votes

US Citizens Have No Constitutionally Guaranteed Right To Bear Arms (but people do!)

This is my last DP post for a while... good luck.
Edit 1-7 9:37 AM
Please check out this post first to be better able to comprehend exactly why I feel knowledge of these deceptions is so critically important to the R∃VO↵UTION.
Edit 1-6 8:30 PM
This post has fought it's way back from -39 votes. People are starting to dig deeper and expose the INTENTIONAL LIES of the Attorney who posted the other thread.
Edit 1-6 9:56 AM
FROM THE OP'S POST ON THE OTHER THREAD:

I saw the post about "giving up" your right to bear arms when you enter into a "contract" to drive. I have to respectfully disagree. Your RIGHT is an absolute right which (1) you do not have to power to "give up" as it is granted from your Creator, and (2) any "contract" has to have the terms fully disclosed and you have to UNDERSTAND those terms in order for the contract to legally stand.

HE IS CLAIMING TO DIRECTLY QUOTE ME. WHERE DO I WRITE "GIVING UP" below? Please stop letting people FEED on your EMOTIONS! Look how the paragraph above was so cleverly CRAFTED. The VERY BEST LIES are 99% truth.
Edit 1-6 8:41 AM
"It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." ~ Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings

The precise definitions of words DO MATTER! Please do not buy into the "semantics" argument! The BARflies want you to ignore the subtle differences and just keep going along minding your "own business" so they can maintain their MONOPOLY on the interpretation of Law!

Scroll down to section 15 to find out what "United States" means:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Do you really wanna be a citizen of (created by) the United States?

FYI - I really hope nobody here is clueless enough to think that I'm trying to convince them to give their guns away. If you had an option to keep them without having to die or kill would you take it?
End Edit

When you went for a DRIVER LICENSE you saw a question which asked:

Are you a US citizen? [ ] Yes [ ] No

You agreed by private contract to operate in the status of a United States citizen. You traded your right to bear arms for a state granted privilege. The constitution protects your unlimited right to contract, as well as your right to WAIVE ANY RIGHT.

The BARflies don't care if it's LOOKS right... smells right... feels right etc... they only care about if they can get away with it through LEGAL LOOPHOLES or not.

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.

It does not state:

... the right of persons ....

... the right of government agents ...

... the right of United States citizens ...

... the right of citizens ...

... the right of Citizens of the United States ...

I hate to break it to all persons but their individual government franchises will be disarmed because they have no right to bear arms guaranteed or protected in any constitution.

Legally speaking anyway...

Now PLEASE - Calm down... and think rationally for a minute. You are right now being LAUGHED at because you can't grasp this simple concept - by a bunch of BARFLIES. PLEASE - I know you are CAPABLE of following what I'm saying... I have FAITH in YOU.

This is SIMPLE STUFF... wanna hear how simple it is?

Don't let these BARFLIES drive us to killing each other while they sit on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.

Comment viewing options

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

Let me add one more thing.

Let me add one more thing. The reason the Constitution isnt allowed in courts is because "residents" of States are aliens to the State. They are Federal persons residing in the State of the Union for a temporary time (think hospital residency).

In California for example:

    An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
    In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).

Seems simple, but what is an "alien"?

California Government Code section 242.

Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens.

You see? A citizen of the United States is NOT a Citizen of another State, and is therefore an "alien" merely "resident" in the States.

This is why I always declare my status, and my special appearance. Here is my opening of a current suit:

Plaintiff, My Name, Sui Juris, flesh and blood man, appearing specially, hereby files this complaint as a free white Citizen of the Republic state of Michigan, and therefore a Citizen of the Republic state of California pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Plaintiff is specifically not a “citizen of the United States” (Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (1874) and Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)) and specifically not a “resident” of any State. (Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143)(“Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)...TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)).

Plaintiff hereby seeks justice from this Constitutional Court of Record. This action arises from a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM from the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW for a claim made by Plaintiff for a deprivation of Plaintiffs unalienable fundamental human rights; and from violations of fundamental rights protected by the California Constitution of 1849; to acquire, protect and possess property (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 1); to due process (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be free from a Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 16), to be secure in his effects against unreasonable seizure (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 19); to be compensated for the taking of private property by the State (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be guaranteed a trial by jury (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 3); to confront witnesses at trial (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 21 supported by the 6th Amendment to the Organic Federal Constitution for the united States).

Plaintiff declares that he is not a party to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because he is an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” with an upper case “C” as found in the organic Constitution for the united States of America, and therefore requests no protection from the 14th Amendment. (“No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent [13th and 14th] amendments to the Federal Constitution.” VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)).

I also ONLY cite State Constitutional deprivations whenever possible, and in California I cite the 1849 rather than the 1879 Constitution. you see the United States Constitution has been interpreted to only be for the free white founders:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 243 243 (1833)

Although the Federal Constitution is the law of the land and states are not supposed make any law in violation of the Federal Constitution, I still try to stay in the State.

Really good stuff :)

I am SO ENCOURAGED that everyone here is starting to catch onto this stuff. One thing I would edit regarding your complaint is the use of the word "of" when you say you are "of" you are saying you were "created by" and therefore a subject of. They never taught us the meanings of prepositions in public school for this reason.

So instead of saying you are a "Citizen of the Republic etc etc" You should instead say you are "one of the people domiciled upon the Michigan Republic."

I also use "upon" instead of "in" when describing my physical location with respect to the states. If you are "in" you are obviously "bound by" that state and it's corporate regulations.

Also "res" actually means "thing" so you definitely don't want to be a res ident. Instead you are "domiciled" upon.

Crazy stuff... but really good information in your comment others are well advised to go through it and look everything up.

Very good observation

Being "one of the people" is a very key term to understanding the matrix.

You've got the title correct, but for the wrong reasons.

It has nothing to do with any "incorporation" issues that you bring up.

It has to do with the 14th Amendment.

If you are a "citizen of the United States" then that means you are a SUBJECT of the United States.

There are several SCOTUS cases documenting the distinctions and the very limited rights that a 14th Amendment citizen has, compared to a Citizen of one of the several States.

The modern dilemma is that most people routinely claim 14th Amendment citizenship, which is essentially claiming subject status, thus not claiming their true status of Citizen of the States, and thus enjoying the Constitutional protections of their inalienable rights.

Subjects don't have inalienable rights, they have government granted privileges.

Stop erroneously claiming you are a subject.

It escapes my mind at the time...

but there was some Massachusetts act that was passed which created "quasi corporations" which do not need articles of incorporation to be considered "persons." United States Inc is a corporation. The only way you could be subject to a corporation is if you are acting as a PERSON in a corporate capacity.

...but good stuff in your comment just the same :)

The United States is not "incorporated" in the sense

that you are referring to. (which likely stems from a misunderstanding of the Organic Act of 1871)

The phrase "United States" as used in the 14th has been determined by the SCOTUS to mean the government of the several States under the Constitution.

Since the amendment specifically and unequivocally states that the "citizenship" conferred therein applies only to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, it is clear that if you are claiming "citizenship" under the 14th, what you are really claiming is access to privileges granted by Congress.

There's nothing in there or even implied there about corporate personhood either for the United States or for any "citizen."

Those who are "subject" to the jurisdiction of the United States in a geographical sense, would be people living in the District of Columbia, (not because of any incorporation act, but because of Article I § 8's clause about 'exclusive jurisdiction') as well as anyone living in any territory, organized or unorganized, that is not a State.

Likewise, if you are on federal property, while you are on that property, be it on land, or by sea or air, you are under the temporary territorial jurisdiction of Congress. This has nothing to do with being incorporated or being an artificial person. It has everything to do with Article I § 8.

There are also issues of subject matter jurisdiction, but those are much more limited and much harder to define, as they are likely even more transient than territorial jurisdiction in many respects.

Much research has come from the "Red Amendment"

A very good book from pacinlaw.org. It was my first reading on the 14th amendment. Later on I was following the work of this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ_f7LHibNs

"The sheriff is the only constitutional law officer in the country."

In 2009 there was a guy studying the concept of "sovereignty" and also an independent journalist who was covering "Continental Congress 2009" - got in there and actually showed the "delegates" (delegated powers - NOT re-presentatives) that they had accidentally been elected as a LAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL government:

Here he is speaking to this same guy who was thrown out of the convention for pushing the issue of repealing the 14th amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCHwZGYoKf0&list=PL36FF6942A...

Going in Circles

"The object of Satan's exercise is to keep you going in circles using THEIR "laws" to support/justify your righteous position instead of using God's Laws. This not only continues to lend credibility and legitimacy to the Hidden Hand's unLawful system, but guarantees income for JUDGE$ and £AWYER$. By first accepting the false validity of man-made legislation, most people waste time and effort getting caught up in arguing the "merits" of man-made forms such as capitalism, socialism, communism, objectivism, parliaments, congresses, etc. They protest and peck at various aspects of the system, depending what issue(s) they believe directly affect them or matter(s) to them most: income taxes; property taxes; gun control; mortgage usury; travel issues: driver licenses and passports; natural/organic farming vs. chemical fertilizers; nutrition supplements vs. pharmaceutical establishment; multi-national companies and globally managed economy; etc. "

"What everyone should be doing is scrapping ALL the man-made legislation and reinstating God's Laws, then all of these little battles will be wiped away in one stroke. "

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Patrick Henry Smelled a Rat

"Because of the general disinformation surrounding the American Revolutionary War (1775-1781) promoted by the Hidden Hand in their publishing/education/media apparatus, most American patriots automatically revere the men who led that apparent rebellion against Great Britain, and established the united States of America as a separate nation. What people do not know is that the so called "founding fathers" and king George (remember the king or queen of England is a member of the Hidden Hand) were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government (see Protocol 5, #1 below) over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. This is not to say that ALL the key men of that era were knowingly among the greedy, evil conspirators, but it appears that most were. One example of a possible exception is Patrick Henry who, when told of the proposed federal Constitution, is reported to have said, "I smell a rat."

jahtruth.net/plan.htm

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

One Correction

The Revolutionary War did not creat a new nation, but 9 independent sovereign nations which entered in to an international compact and became a union of independent sovereign nations that quickly expanded to 13, which then grew to become what are now 50 nations in that union. As a US citizen you do not participate in that union and therefore, for all practical purposes it does not exist for you. Only if you claim a state nationality does the union of the several independent sovereign states have any lawful meaning or relevance.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Hear hear!

Good stuff... but I believe 9 was for the 3/4 of states that ratified the constitution (it is under debate by the way if the constitution was ever properly ratified) 9 of 13 is greater than 3/4 ;-)

Perhaps you are correct due to the other four that did not vote for ratification but I'm not sure.

Have you "opted-out" of American Citizenship?

What are some negatives of doing so -- keep the answer simple? What can't you participate in?

Do you still have savings, investments, do you pay taxes, do you use FRNs?

Do you still buy corporatist products / services?

If the answers are yes to any of these then you are still a corporatist and ending corporatism is the better fight then complicating one's life in becoming a "sovereign" -- if the latter is your argument.

What is right?

That's what I do. When in doubt ask yourself that question. Of course that is a tough road to hoe right now but only because everyone else isn't doing it.

FYI: There is no such thing as "American Citizenship."

I think in many cases a lot of people reject this kind of information because once you know the truth you have an obligation to do something about it.

That's not what I was asking -- Have you removed your name

from the American "Civilian" Roll Count that is monitored and lorded over by the US Gov't?

If you have -- how did you do it?

Maybe we are talking semantics -- when most people say they are "American Citizens" they mean it in the sense that they could get back into this country from a foreign country without major castigation, that they have certain "rights" not afforded to non-nationals.

How would you rather hear it, what do you call yourself; an "American Sovereign" and is there a legal difference in the self-naming terms you use and are they recognized by the court system / IRS etc?

If not -- if you do not have a special name (that's recognized by gov't) -- then why talk about it, why say "there's no such thing as an American Citizen?"

Are you one of those folks who sees someone throwing up the "hook 'em horns" hand gesture and think they are an Illuminati Member?

No free-market was ever born from language lessons.

US Style Manual

The US Style Manual gives the proper names for the native inhabitants, or nationals, of each state of the American union. You could be a Massachusitsan, an New Yorker, or an Ohioan. Then you would not be a US citizen whose native land is Washington DC..... and that's not a state of the union, so the Constitution for the united States has no bearing there.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

"US citizen" is just a title

Your name in ALL CAPS is a title in the capacity of a "US citizen" - pull out your Certificate and take a look. Your mom and dad (usually) are titled in proper case (upper and lower) then your title is in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

Any idea why they would be in a different case?

It does help to make lawful public notice... which I have done.. three seals - yours, a notary... and a certificate of authority from the secretary of state - Article 4 section 1 of the constitution "full faith and credit" are due - it is a public Act as defined in that section. However looking back on it all what's really going on is the title you choose to use... which is your RANK in society.

Your "christian name" which is your "first" and "middle" name is what you should be using... that is your GIVEN name.

Then it's all about if you are an "employee" of "government" (which is only a corporation like wal-mart). If you're an employee of a corporation the constitution still applies but it protects your UNLIMITED RIGHT TO CONTRACT.

Note to BARFLIES: Isn't it about time you got a REAL JOB? Also: They got really great gun control in England why don't you get on a boat and ship your way back? The people are waking up and they are going to be REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF WHEN THEY FIGURE THIS OUT!!!

AND..... I'm pretty darn sure you're not going to get their guns before that happens :)

Not that you have too, but you didn't answer my questions

Let me ask them differently.

1) Does the US Gov't recognize you, in your "sovereignty" -- is your "slave" name or "employee" name completely off their books?

2) How has this "bettered" your life? Other than philosophically.

3) Do you trade assets in a currency that is not priced in dollars?

4) Do you get out of paying taxes?

5) Can cops no longer pull you over and if they try to ticket you (for an obvious infraction) do you get out of the ticket -- if they give you one anyway do you ignore it?

Well done vince,you have exposed the vast # of trolls on the DP,

They are still down voting your great post which i have enjoyed immensely.Keep up the good work.May the good lord bless and comfort you...

BAZZA MAC

Any minute crumb of appreciation

that I get helping me gauge where we're at in this effort is greatly appreciated. It is unfortunate that a majority seem to need validation from others before they will dig deeper... hopefully as a race we can eventually get past that MAJOR obstacle to SELF-EDUCATION. Right now the masses need to be spoon fed little bits with lots of sugar before they will decide to digest it. Unfortunately all that sugar is really bad and not conducive to a healthy mind-set IMHO.

As tough as it is to be one of the ones vocally bringing this forward it's probably just as tough for some to speak up and say "you know what, I agree with his [crazy] arse!"

I'm honored by your comment. Blessings :)

This has been

An awesome discussion but I feel like we need a recap. For example if accused of a crime you should state for the record: ??

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

I wish they could do a recipe for soveriegnty - lol!

They have so many tentacles it is hard to know how to cut them all, but I like what South says down below, and what is indicated in that post you sent me. The real LAW is actually very simple and very old.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Thanks!

I will be checking that out.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Then people could get baked

and they would be all done with this nonsense.

I couldn't

Agree more Fishy:)

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

There

Was an action plan in that link I shared with you. I think I will take another look. It was just crazy that this post came about the same time I discovered that link. Talk about synchronism, its down right freaky sometimes:)

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Really the only thing that is

Really the only thing that is sure to save you is to tell the court they have no jurisdiction. And you can only do that if you have changed your status. Anything else, such as "the contract is not valid because I did not receive full disclosure", is only GIVING them jurisdiction. ANY ARGUMENT, gives them jurisdiction. If they did not have jurisdiction, you would not be arguing with them. If you have corrected your status you will have a letter from the US Attorney General to present them, by special appearance, and then the burden to prove jurisdiction is ENTIRELY upon the court. Failure to prove jurisdiction will result in a dismissal EVERY TIME.

An argument such as none disclosure of the full contract will be met with, "When did you learn of this? What LEGAL STEPS have you taken to remedy this since learning of such? Where are your records and other proof that you have taken steps to remedy this?" It will be followed by "Are you not aware that ALL statutes are made publicly available?"

You will need a defense to counter these questions. If you have already corrected your status then you need no defense, there is no argument. It becomes a matter of NO jurisdiction to even begin an argument.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The courts jurisdiction is not what one should challenge.

The jurisdiction of the one bringing you to court is what should be challenged.

The sovereign of the court

is the plaintiff. If you're the defendant the plaintiff is the pro se cutor... he/she is the one bearing false witness against you.

The referee's job is to officiate any game when two teams come to play.
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=1...

+1 as usual South - FYI give that first intro a listen ;-)

The situation is quite simple

The situation is quite simple and straight forward. There is a plethora of "methods" in the freedom movement that do nothing more than mislead freedom seekers. These involve very extravagant reading, often using court cases that are over a century old, as if the law never changes...

The 14th Amendment creates the Citizenship. There are 2 requirements for citizenship.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

This is very straight forward. In order to be a citizen you must 1) be born on US soil or naturalized, 2) AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.

Obviously one cannot change their place of birth. But JURISDICITION is a thing that MUST BE GIVEN, it is consent.

By correcting you status, in accordance with THEIR LAW THEIR remedy provided specifically for such purpose, you have removed the jurisdiction OF THEIR SYSTEM. When you do so the US Attorney General will issue a letter to you confirming your withdrawal from their system, and at that point you are no longer a Citizen, they no longer have jurisdiction.

The Court no longer has jurisdiction, the Judge no longer has jurisdiction, and the Agencies no longer have jurisdiction. The IRS MAY have jurisdiction, under certain circumstances, not to exceed 10 years.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence