-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

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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We really don't need to jump through all their hoops

"It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head." MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

I think we both understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" is a political allegiance (registering to vote) and that signature can and should be revoked through the Secretary of States Office.

But the BIG picture is that, they are presuming you into an employment position with their corporation; enforcing their internal statutory codes on you, all the while forgetting to pay you for your time.

They are under the presumption we are ALL employees of their criminal-gangster foreign corporation, and you can add anything to one side of an equation, as long as you add it to the other side as well. So presumptions on both sides of the equation are fitting.

They presume we're their employees, and we should also presume we're getting paid for our employment. If they can't rebut our presumption that we are to be receiving pay, then our presumption stands as law, just as their does.

Can the rebut our presumption? Not without putting themselves at risk of a federal lawsuit for a labor management dispute in which they are requiring us to perform some function of government without pay.

Who do you think will win the war of presumptions when the cards fall?

You should read the Red

You should read the Red Amendment, as recommended above by Johnny Boy. There you will find your answer on getting paid as a federal employee. Or bother to spend a couple hours "deprogramming" by following the link in my signature line (though the book will take you much further)

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

I bought the book

about 10 years go or so.


one one were receiving food stamps or cash aid ie SSD welfare ect, could that be argued as pay?

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams


it's a benefit. Ultimately and as Rod Class has pretty much beaten the subject like a dead horse - they are not only under the presumption you are a public servant/acting as a corporate franchise agent... there is also the question of if you were on duty or not.

If you were on duty then they should be able to provide payroll records right? Arguably some of this is so deep no judge will touch it with a ten foot pole which is why we need to learn how to invoke our own court in their building. http://www.1215.org/ < good stuff.


I see you have hours and hours of information on other threads. I am going to start at the beginning and work my way back here. It looks like all good stuff. Thank you for taking the time to share.

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

Thanks for taking the time to do some research :)

We are all learning as we go along. Some things I and others have posted from six months ago, may be outdated with newer revelations, so study hard before you jump to conclusions.

We're almost there ..... that gauntlet is about to drop :)

I see...

Thanks Tx.

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


For those at the cutting edge of this.
THANK YOU. I am perhaps the guiltiest person here. I KNOW better, but I have not done anything. I do not want to go in to any government agency in my TINY little county and make any kind of waves, I JUST moved here.
I know just enough to get myself in a lot of trouble. I am studying, and my plan is to not renew my license and be ready to stand by it by then.
In my defense, I took on the banksters, fought to force them to show me the proper paperwork for years and lost a house for my efforts. 2 actually, although the second one we are not taking to court. The judge's ruling made it clear that the entire 2-3 hours he sat and took testimony from us, he was just doing Kabuki court; not one piece of evidence was acknowledged in his ruling. He made it sound like we were just trying to cash in on a national scandal. Never mind it was not a national scandal until people like me started to MAKE it a national scandal.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

It should be noted, ANY court

It should be noted, ANY court has jurisdiction over CRIMES. It is statute violations they will not have jurisdiction over. If you murder someone, steal, rape ect, you WILL be under their jurisdiction.

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

This argument is correct

People are men referred to in the Declaration of Independence. The Creators of Government. Men in Law means men and women because all law is written in the masculine form. Natural Person means the birth certified legal entity which may or may not be a Citizen. The original meaning of Citizen was one who participates in Government. The entire Civial War was fought explicitly to implement this fraud on the American people and resulted in the original republic being overthown. This is also the reason the original 13th amendment was deleted from the US Constitution that was ratified on March 12, 1819 because it represented American's founder's response to the Esquire asttornies of the British BAR utilizing the legal person concepts to usurp our case law through parallel meanings in law. This amendment was deleted from history using a war and the war was used to issue violent force to "ratify" the 14th amendment into place in order to confuse everyone into citizenship. The people are under Common Law whereas the Person is subject to legal code regulation. This is THE fraud that is going on in America and the sooner we all realize the self evident derivation of these facts the sooner we can restore the republic. The judges and high-level attorney's along with many of the politicians already know this and really expect that you will not figure this out. Because they know if you do then there corrupt criminal courts are toast and people will be fully awaken to the process of real Law.

If anyone says that this is not true then I would say they are either ignorant of the facts or they are a tyrant. I use this in court and I have over 5 cases successfully thrown out of court. In fact EVERYONE I know who knows this wins EVERY CASE!!

When you realize that applying code to the people is the equivalent to Wal-mart applying the employees hand-book rules to its share holder's you will then realize that code/legislation was never intended to be applied to the people because we always had common law and had no need for code because our issues are organic and because we are not under any capacity when we stand full liability. They need your consent and those of you who don't know this then I can prove that in every single case you have in a court that you consented to this without ever realizing this fact. In fact when I look for cases on youtube to find people who know this I find that more than 99% of the people consent when asked "do you understand the charges against you?" If you say yes then you are saying I stand under the facts presented to me that I represent the person being charged under that code. Notice how you are presenting but they presume that you re-presenting for another entity.

This is THE confusion in America and why we are losing. Come one people wake all the way up. Declaration of Independence Men create government. Constitution We the People. Rights are Endowed by their creator, Our creator is nature and our laws are the laws of nature equal station to us, We the People created government and endowed the rights upon government capacity. The Constitution is the Law for Government and all code derivations relate to the entities under that contractually binding agreement. All references to Citizens are referriing to those who are bound by the contractual oath under the capacity of government. In short Code does not apply to We the People. Common law does which requires a valid cause of action of alleged actual injury or harm from an accuser that you the natural right to face in court of Law that is an impartial forum for non-violent dispute resolution of two parties.

Consenting to Personhood results in the contractual oath being turned on its head where YOU are subject to regulation meant for them and this allows them to violate a fundamental Maxim in real Common Law that the plaintif cannot be the judge in a case because this violates the requirement of impartiality required for a fair trial. This is because now the persons accuser is the STATE and you are being tried by the STATE. Under common Law this cannot be applicable because one can never reasonably expect to get truly fair trial with the same entity being the Judge and the Plaintiff. In fact this is the reason for having statutes outside of old Courts with a blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice. The scales of Justice weighs the facts of the case. The court is impartial so it only deals with the facts presented. If you consent and present the facts as applying the person with applicable code to You then these are facts heard by the court. If you state the clearly self evident fact that code has no application to a full liability man or woman and why their is no valid cause of action then these are the facts weighed by the court. When you realize that its actually fraud and treason then you can present the facts and begin to set the case law precedent. The courts are waiting for you to wake up and present the undeniable facts before the court, then the precedent can be set.

A clear example of this parallel meaning of language to cause usurpation can be demonstrated easily here by describing the same exact scenario in both Code applicable terms and Common Law applicable terms:

Code applicable fact presented to court:
A police officer pulled me over and gave me a ticket for X

Common Law applicable fact presented to court:
An armed man interfered with my path of travel and proceeded to use threats, fear and intimidation to force me into contract.

See how they collapse our wave function to get us to state the facts they want to hear in terms of code. If we understand that a valid cause of action represents alleged actual injury then we are the ones who have a valid cause of action not them because we were minding our own business and harming no one and then they harmed us. We are law abiding people or full liability men or women. Consenting to personhood enables the STATE using the court to extort resources out of us with confusion of the facts to the point where we are consenting to the tyranny being committed against us. Personhood is why their is not an accuser who is a member of governed initiating the powers of justice or just powers by alleging actual injury and seeking remedy from the court because we have not broken the law and the STATE is extorting resources from us!

I win everytime on everything because I know this, the form of law and the history of enlightenment in law this country was founded on and the code details that reinforce these facts. You can too and remove ALL of their power in the process.

Common Law requires an accuser accepting liability for their accusation because we are equal in our liability of our own actions. If you are the person you are in the same class as a corporation and citizen with limited liability. Limited liabilities entities only have no liability when they obey regulations. Men and Women are full liability ALWAYS because their own time is on the line.

Time is property and property is Liberty. The contractual agreement the People have with Government is that the purpose is to secure the blessings of Liberty. If one is taking liberty then they are not securing it. If we institute government with our labors to protect our liberty then when the "Citizens" or "Officers" or "Agents" of Government are men and women under contractual capacity then there time has become Our time because they are on the clock we pay for. If their duty is to secure our (meaning everyone not under the capacity of government at that moment) liberty then logically the Citizen/Officer can only respond to an accuser consenting to the action because otherwise the State will be the accuser and Judge violating a rock solid Maxim in Law. If their is no consent from the people paying for service the governed is paying for government to harm the governed all while the governed have a contractually binding agreement with the individual man filling that capacity of government who voluntarily signed a contract binding the man to rules under that capacity to protect not harm. Harming by government without a valid cause of action is tyranny and fails to make sense under real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Which Jurisdiction?

We all have natural rights which require vigilance to defend. In which jurisdiction will you choose to defend them? As a US citizen it is an up hill battle. As a state national on the other hand it becomes a lot less complicated.

I wrote a similar thought here:

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

(10) “Person”

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

Person is defined differently in thousands of different texts

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910.

Whenever it is being defined in a particular code it has a different effect other than what is generally meant. Would like to see the link (the context) where you got that from to comprehend what a "natural person" is.

A natural person is one that

A natural person is one that walks and talks. A natural person is ALWAYS a natural man, but a natural man is NOT always a natural person.

It is of utmost importance to remember that person is acting as something other, the natural person is ALWAYS 2 things simultaneously, both a natural man and a person.

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

I'd like to see the reference to that...

I'm pretty sure there is no possible way "man" can be connected to person in any legal text. That is the "Rubicon" which can not be crossed.

It is right up above, in

It is right up above, in Brian Frank's post. A "natural person", which is a natural man who carries with him a "person". That definition comes directly from the United States Code (USC). This definition and very similar definitions for "person" can be found littering many titles of the USC.

15 USC § 1602 - Definitions and rules of construction
(e) The term “person” means a natural person or an organization.

28 USC § 3002 - Definitions
10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

This is 2, there are more. The Title 28 definition is for USC : Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE...in other words, when you are in their court.

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

Step back and wrap your lips around a cold one brother :)

Sometimes in this battle, we tend to drift off into never-never land and chase tails that don't belong to us in an attempt to free ourselves from the tail of another dog. We revert back to the definitions of words; what "is" is, and this or that; killing ourselves trying to free the slaves.

We find ourselves coming across some other website out there that has information we either haven't seen before, or have long forgotten and it's like a new revelation, and we once again begin to make things difficult by chasing another dogs tail that has nothing to do with us.

Don't let yourself get caught up in THEIR codes-rules-regulations; they have nothing to do with you. Their definitions of words have nothing to do with you; their meaning of 'person(s)' has nothing to do with you; their UCC Code and US Code has nothing to do with you.

Read my comments in the other thread and clear your mind:


Even if you've checked YES that you are a US citizen; even if you have a drivers license; even if you have a social security card; even if you have a bank account, that does not obligate you to abide by their own internal statutory rules-codes-regulations UNLESS they have an employment contract on file that has your and their signature; has valuable consideration for both parties, and payroll records to prove you are in some way obligated to follow their statutes, because you are getting paid to do so.

Attaching an obligation to your Inherent Rights is not considered valuable consideration, unless you're getting paid to follow those statutes.

Even if you are a gov't employee, those statutes ONLY apply to you while you're on the gov't clock. If you work at Burger King Corp, when you clock out at 10PM and take off your apron, do those internal statutory rules still apply to you?

No they do not, until you clock back in the next day and are receiving a paycheck that would entice you to abide by those internal statutes, like:

Wash your hands after using the restroom, or sweeping the floor at 3PM and 9PM; or wearing your uniform in it's entirety until your shift is up. You are getting paid to follow those rules within that corporation while you're on the clock.

When you clock out and come back an hour later with the wife and kids to get a few burgers, those Burger King Corp. statutes do not apply to you; you're a private citizen; non-employee, who's off the Burger King clock.

Can the manager interrupt your dinner with your wife and kids and tell you to take out the trash if you're not on the Burger King clock? Well, he can I suppose, but if he's not paying you, and you haven't clocked back in, then you're the dumbazz for doing it for free.

Keep this simple; it really is ......... Relax your mind and come back down to ground level and stop chasing the gov't tail, it doesn't belong to you, it's their tail ........ let them chase it :)

No Contract = No Jurisdiction

That means no employment contract with valuable consideration for BOTH parties that shows you're getting paid for your time, is no contract at all ....... it's just a presumption, and if they can presume you're a gov't employee, then you can presume they're paying you for you time.

An un-rebutted presumption stands as law. If they rebut that you are to be paid for your time, then you have a federal lawsuit for a major labor management dispute.

K.I.S.S and don't let the patriots myths and UCC paperwork, and definitions to words keep you up at night. They want you to chase THEIR tail and leave the simplicity of the argument in the basement :)

I've actually got a case cite for that too :)

"It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head." MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

If you don't call these fraudsters out on it however... don't expect them to point this out to you.

Thanks for being here brother :)

See there; that's what I'm talking about :)

Our Rights cannot be given away because we aren't jumping through hoops and filing paperwork to protect them at every turn.

Our Rights can be rented away in the form of payment that would obligate us to give up some of those rights however.

If you make me an offer of $1,000.00 to NOT drive my car to work for a month and I take your money, I better not drive that car to work for a month. You get the satisfaction of watching me walk to work and I got the $1,000.00 ....... valuable consideration for BOTH parties involved.

But, just because you hand me a piece of paper that says I can't drive my car to work for a month, doesn't mean jack chit, unless I'm getting something in return (ie: $1,000.00 USD)

These idiots are trying to attach an obligation to your already Inherent Birth Right, which is nothing more than a breech of Trust.

Remember: Keep it simple ......... No Contract = No Jurisdiction

Forget what THEIR definition of "Is" is, or "person" is ........ those are THEIR definitions that only apply to people who are getting paid to let themselves be categorized as such.

I'll be a dog if you want me to, just pay me to do it. Just because I agreed I'm a dog on some of your silly paperwork, doesn't mean I'm going to act like a dog unless you and I both have signed a contract and I'm getting paid to bark like a dog from 9 to 5.

Keep talking!

I really appreciate being able to come here and read this stuff. I have to get ready to cut the ties. I KNOW it is the right answer, I just have a nice, quiet little life now that keeps me pretty much out of their clutches - till the day it doesn't. I know.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

THINK about this people.

You DOWN-VOTE people who tell you the truth while UP-VOTE people who spread LIES - Don't you want to dig deep and research which one of us is telling the TRUTH?

How long are we going to be led around by these silver tongued DEVILS by our emotions? This is a BIG LIE. I get that. It's HARD to accept that you have been LIED TO by your own "government." You want like crazy to believe that they have your best interests in mind.

I'm telling you now please believe me: THEY DON'T!

jrd3820's picture


I do not think anyone here has a hard time accepting they have been lied to by the government.....

Also, i wouldn't worry for a second about the down votes, post what you want, read what you want, and comment on what you want. Do not even look at the vote thing.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss

Thanks for your help JRD

I see these two posts as a demonstration of if the "Liberty Movement" is truly awake or not. We MUST open our eyes to the TRUTH or forever will we be deceived and led down the dark path of enslavement. This post has made it back from -39 and consider all the "govt" trolls on here - there's gotta be prob 50-100 IDs trying to keep us chasing our tails.

The Daily Paul is hands down the biggest threat to their MONOPOLY on POWER.

I swear to God I am not deceiving you. Research my info... check my references... ask me to clarify. The OP on the other post won't even comment on it! He's just laughing at our stupidity that we can't figure this out.

We meaning "team people."

You stirred the hornets nest.

It only stings for a bit (downvotes).

Don't sweat it but keep up the good work.

Free includes debt-free!

Thank you Paul

The downvotes do not reflect on me at all except for the fact that I'm willing to tell the truth no matter what the consequences are.

The down-votes are a direct insult to everyone here at the Daily Paul and that's what I'm fighting to CHANGE. I really believe these guys are READY for the TRUTH if they will just open their eyes to it and do a little digging.

Don't BELIEVE ME or any of the other law scholars around here... check our references! Your freedom is being fraudulently subverted by DECEPTION. It's the only way to take down this country - from the INSIDE!

There is NOTHING to debate about - the FACTS are widely available online - this is not OPINION this is documented information!

Here's piece Dr. Paul and Tom Woods have read.

Audio or text:

I hope you find it useful, Vince.

Free includes debt-free!

Heavy stuff...

In the year of Uzziah's death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.

What Say You DPers?

Still reading...

I am listening now. I read it before.


Free includes debt-free!

let me clarify something...

The states DO still exist. The 13th Amendment, and the supreme court, established that an American can abandon his freedoms and join the new democracy under the 14th Amendment and social security acts.

13th Amendment

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

only INvoluntary servitude was made unconstitutional by the 13th, and the court had already held:

    That the general principle of such a right of electing, to
    remain under the old or to contract a new allegiance, was
    recognized, is apparent from the case of Com. v. Chapman, 1
    Dal., 53, and other cases cited. Those who adhered to the
    new government and transferred their allegiance thereto,
    became citizens of the same. All who were free, had this right of election, else they were not free. No particular color nor descent was required to confer this right of election. It resulted from freedom, and the necessity resting upon all to make an election. When it was made, and the individual determined to adhere to the new state, he was necessarily a member and a citizen of the same. He sustained the same relation to the new government by choice, which he had sustained to the old by birth.
    [Appleton concurring 44 Maine 528-529 (1859)]

So, as Americans began wanting the benefits of the FEDERAL democracy, they began applying for Social Security. You dont APPLY for mandatory things.

Once you apply for the Social security benefits, you are presumed a "U.S. citizen" (as opposed to a Constitutional Citizen) which is a type of Federal Person, subject ENTIRELY to Congressional rule:

    “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
    [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

Federal persons are its objects.

    [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]
    anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
    a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383