:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We generally hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time)
Join us on our next Conference Call and invite your friends.

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Remember: Our Trustee's Holiday Season Break begins at close of business on: December 15, 2017!
Which means he will not be available from then until: January 15, 2018; during which time there will be no conference calls and no support calls to our Trustee. However, the Fulfillment Office will only be closed from: December 22, 2017, until: January 8, 2018.

So, make sure that you take care of any of your end of year needs now, before our offices close.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.


We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Myth 15 and the D.C. Gun Ban

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 12:19 am MST

Myth 15 and the D.C. Gun Ban

Postby Aerochu » Saturday March 10th, 2007 6:22 pm MST

Under Team Law's Patriot Mythology section, it is stated that Team Law has never seen a Supreme Court decision that stated that the 2nd amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean that if such a decision were made at some point, despite the described rules of English language, that Team Law would concede the individual right? Given the view that gun ownership is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments only, does and should a state have the power to ban firearms much like the ban in D.C.?

Also, as some may know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. recently ruled that the 2nd amendment DOES confer an individual right, and does not apply solely to use in a militia. The dissenting opinion declared that the 2nd amendment would not apply to D.C. anyways, because it is not a state. Even if we assume that the 2nd amendment does not apply strictly to militia use, I am inclined to agree with the dissent.

I always interpreted the 2nd amendment to be a protection for the states FROM the federal government, hence "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." Since the District of Columbia is defined in the Constitution as the 10 mile by 10 mile area to serve as the seat of the federal government, should Congress be able to pass a gun ban such as exists in D.C. today. Furthermore, since the ban was actually passed by the D.C. city council, should it be valid? I don't believe the Constitution anywhere grants Congress the power to delegate its law-making authority over to D.C. to anyone else. Finally, do any of these points even matter, given that all this has taken place under Corp U.S. rule, rather than original jurisdiction?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Myth 15 and the D.C. Gun Ban

Postby Admin » Tuesday March 13th, 2007 12:25 pm MDT

:h: Aerochu:
You’ve got it all wrong Aerochu. You asked if “Team Law would concede the individual right” However, we never contested the individual right. Our contest against the erroneous application of the second amendment as a security of personal rights to keep and bear arms is not an allegation that such rights do not exist. As we stated in the Myth busting article:
Team Law wrote:We are not saying that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not constitutionally protected. We are simply stating that Right is not stated in the Second Amendment. That right is constitutionally reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
Thus, the individual rights to keep and bear arms do exist and the Ninth and Tenth amendments constitutionally secure such private rights outside of the potential for governmental control.

Thus, in response to your question regarding a hypothetical Supreme Court decision in the future that alleged such private rights are also protected by that amendment, we would be of the opinion that such a decision would be wrong and would do more to bring the personal right to keep and bear arms under governmental control than anything Corp. U.S. has done to date. We hope no such rule is ever made and hope those that are fighting to eliminate the unlawful government controls (already been imposed on such rights) will awaken to how our Constitution actually protects those rights such that they will remain reserved and we can get back to having those rights properly protected from governmental control.

To answer your question regarding state gun control laws:
Aerochu wrote:does and should a state have the power to ban firearms much like the ban in D.C.?
We note that the states do not have the lawful right to ban firearms but the District of Columbia is different and the Constitution grants Congress the authority to “pass any law” within that district and grants Congress the authority to enforce all such laws. They therefore definitely have the right to pass gun control laws within the district. They also have the obligation to comply with the Second amendment and to so provide a militia that maintains the right to keep and bear arms. That then enters into the necessities of a well organized militia and that is another topic. Again, this uniqueness applies only to the District of Columbia and does not apply to the States. It was ruled early on that the states do have the right to limitedly regulate gun usage as it applies to concealed arms. That is to say, the right to keep and bear arms does not provide the right to conceal arms. Thus, if you want to carry arms, you may want to carry them in the open for all to see.

In District of Columbia the City Council is ruled by Congress and act under their authority to pass any law therein. Thus, the City Counsel there has the same authority under the constitutional grant of power to Congress to pass any law within the District. That power was then conferred to the City Council through the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 et seq., which is the very basis of Corp. U.S. rule; so, to your last question, our answer is: “Yes, it does matter, for just that reason and for the reason the it is imperative that we all study and learn the law for ourselves.”

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 12:19 am MST

Postby Aerochu » Wednesday March 14th, 2007 6:21 am MDT

However, we never contested the individual right.
Yes, I understand this. I just didn't use due diligence in posing my question precisely.
Thus, the individual rights to keep and bear arms do exist and the Ninth and Tenth amendments constitutionally secure such private rights outside of the potential for governmental control.
Don't the 9th and 10th amendments simply protect such rights from Congressional control? It seems the 10th amendment specifically grants state control (over some things, at least).
we would be of the opinion that such a decision would be wrong and would do more to bring the personal right to keep and bear arms under governmental control than anything Corp. U.S. has done to date.
Given the NFA of '34, GCA of '68, the Assualt Weapons ban of '94, HR 1022 being pushed through Congress right now, and the heavy-handed tactics of BATF, I shudder to think how this could even happen.
We note that the states do not have the lawful right to ban firearms
I'm unclear as to why this is so. If the 10th amendment reserves the power to legislate firearms to the states, and the state's constitution doesn't specifically protect the individual right (Virginia's constitution, like the 2nd amendment, refers to militia use), then why would a ban not be lawful? Ok, the 9th amendment states that the people still retain their rights, and the Virginia constitution likewise states that the rights not enumerated cannot be construed to limit other rights retained by the people. But this seems completely open-ended. Obviously, an exhaustive list of people's rights could never be enshrined thusly, but where do rights end and where do laws start? Raping, stealing, and murdering aren't protected rights, but they're not specifically denied anywhere except by law. (I suppose I'll get an explanation using Foundational Law based on the bible to explain those, but there must be some that aren't covered by this.)

The compact with the federal government has the states giving up certain powers to the federal government, in order to create one nation. But the federal government's powers are strictly limited to those given up (or are supposed to be, at least). What is the people's compact with the states?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Wednesday March 14th, 2007 7:34 am MDT

:h: Aerochu:
Your next question to us was:
Government is a function of the people. Thus, government springs from the people’s intention to live in a civil society. Thus, the people govern the government not the other way around. This is the foundational principle the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America was founded. The contractual control of powers of governance like the Corp. States and their parent Corp. U.S. are limited to the terms of their contractual relations. Thus their ability to ban guns comes from their control over the manufacturers and merchants, not over the people. This was well proven by Sheriff Richard Mack in his case against the Brady bill and the assault rifle bans that stemmed from it. The case went to the Supreme Court where it was ruled that the law could not compel him to enforce it because it had no control over the people; however, the law was recognized as proper in that it did have lawful control over the manufacturers and anyone that entered into licensed control of the BATF.
Aerochu wrote:Don't the 9th and 10th amendments simply protect such rights from Congressional control? It seems the 10th amendment specifically grants state control (over some things, at least).

If the 10th amendment reserves the power to legislate firearms to the states, and the state's constitution doesn't specifically protect the individual right
Actually the Ninth article of amendment has nothing to do with the states. It does however note that rights not granted to the government are retained by the people. This principle is the same for the states and the Corp. U.S 14th amendment secures its effect over the states. Thus, when the states are formed they are also granted all of the privileges of government that they have and anything not specifically granted to them remains secured as the right of the individual people. Thus, if the State is not granted a privilege to govern the people in their State Constitution they do not have the right or privilege exercising that control over the people. The privilege to govern comes from the people not from the State. The State has no other intrinsic power.

The bottom line: the people are individually sovereign; they grant government the privilege of governing as it relates to the necessity for the people to be able to act collectively as a sovereign body in the community of governments. In actuality, the sole purpose for government in the United States of America is the protection of the individual rights of the people especially as they need to trade and defend themselves in the world with other people regardless of their origin, state or country. Conversely, the purpose of the Corp. States and Corp. U.S. is to protect their own interests and increase power and control. Thus, it is no surprise that if you are willing to contract with them for their control over your relationship, they will want to ultimately control your right to defend yourself until no such right exists. Of course Myth 22 still applies and their control is not extended over you rather it is extended only over the agency you exercise over the taxpayer.

The privilege of governing granted to the government includes the sovereign authority to protect your rights, which includes your agreement not to violate the law. The law ultimately comes from God and includes the necessity of respect for one another’s person; thus, the imperative against stealing and killing, etc. Thus, government receives your authority from you to hold you accountable if you ever violate the law. The same goes for the elements of equity in commerce. The courts are granted, by you, your authority to hold you accountable to the terms of equity that apply to whatever situation. Thus, in the final analysis the only authority ever exercised against anyone in the courts is their own sovereign authority, which the sovereign himself offers to the court as the in personam jurisdiction is set in the case.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Aerochu
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 22
Joined: Saturday December 2nd, 2006 12:19 am MST

Postby Aerochu » Thursday March 15th, 2007 10:47 am MDT

The law ultimately comes from God
I think this is the point I was trying to get at. I'm going to assume that this refers to the Christian God of the Bible. If we're talking about simply
the necessity of respect for one another’s person
then I'm sure no one would disagree with God's law. But law as it comes from God includes a number of things that don't affect another person. Does this imply that we agree to have the government hold us accountable for disrepecting our parents, or not keeping the Sabbath holy?
Thus their ability to ban guns comes from their control over the manufacturers and merchants, not over the people.
Hmm...so Corp U.S. prevents/prevented only the manufacture and sale of such weapons, and the importation of them. This makes sense. Also, they have not and cannot confiscate those that already exist. Also, a person is allowed to manufacture his/her own gun so long as it is never sold. So far, everything fits. But I also believe that it is still illegal to build one's own machine gun. Simply drilling a hole in a receiver that can accomodate an auto sear is considered creating a machine gun. Where does this fit in?

In order to own a machine gun, the weapon must have been imported before the 1986 import ban. One must also pay a $200 tax and obtain a tax stamp, register the gun with Corp. U.S., submit fingerprints, report to local chief law enforcement officer, etc. And sales between private individuals are not allowed, I believe. I recognize that the taxing authority comes from the Constitution, but what about the other stuff? Do all these only apply to trustees acting for Social Security trusts, or are they applicable also to sovereign humans?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Thursday March 15th, 2007 12:37 pm MDT

:h: Aerochu:
Perhaps your assumption regarding “the Christian God of the Bible” is misstated. First of all, the presentation of that presumption implies that God is perhaps a different God from any other actual God, when in fact that is the same God as the God of Torah, which is the God of the Hebrew religions, Judaism and Islam; for they all follow Torah. In fact there are those that would argue, that God is the only God and is the same as the God referred to in the Veda, which is the foundation of Buddhism, Hinduism and most of the rest of the –isms not founded on Torah.

Though our personal beliefs and pursuits may benefit us with what we personally know to be blessings, they are irrelevant in this matter of law and thus we prefer to leave all personal religious beliefs out of such discussions and to stick with the facts as they relate to our laws.

Of necessity, we acknowledge the King James Version of the Bible is recognized as the foundation of law in the United States of America. We thus, in this discussion, acknowledge it is merely that—the foundation. Followers of Torah recognize the 10 Commandments as basic commandments from God. They are not considered law except to those that believe those commandments are equivalent to law. Inasmuch as those commandments relate to trespasses against others, they have become the foundation of criminal laws against such trespasses. Those laws can have significant criminal punishments at least as devastating as the crimes themselves.

From the beginning of this Constitutional Republic, it has also been recognized that the principle most sacred in that foundation is the right of ones own Agency. Even God leaves man to his own agency not requiring man’s faithful service of God except as such service is prerequisite to the blessings accordingly promised. God leaves man to his own devices and our Constitutional Republic recognizes this and forbids Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. We agree with that necessity.

The fact that we hold ourselves to the more rigorous standard of Christianity is our choice and we accordingly receive the blessings of that choice and that way of life; that is also reflected in our work. Again, that is our choice, not the demand of, nor the enforceability of, man’s law. You are free to believe what you may and the law will remain the law.

Reasonable people understand this. The Constitution makes it plain in the First Article of Amendment.

Again, government in the United States of America has no right to govern the people. Our Constitutional Republic was created and given the responsibility to govern itself in accord with the laws the people provided for its existence. The balance of that body of law provides government with a portion of the individual sovereign authority from each Citizen such that the people agree to be ‘civil’ and not violate the rights of others and so they grant government the authority to enforce their own sovereign will upon themselves if they violate that agreement to so be ‘civil’. Thus, it is deemed a crime to violate the rights of others and we each grant government our own authority to so hold us accountable for such violations if we have the intent to so violate. That is the basis of lawful government enforcement against criminal activities. Beyond that, the people only granted the government sufficient authority to use the collective sovereignty of the people to (with that privilege) defend the peoples’ rights of life, liberty and property from external encroachment and to that end to govern international treaties and or conflicts and interstate/intrastate commerce. Beyond that, government has little authority to do anything.

Thus, government has no authority to enforce religious beliefs or matters like disrespecting parents or keeping the Sabbath day holy.

Accordingly, are aware of no law that would allow Corp. U.S. or the Corp. State any authority to interfere with the contract of sale of arms that are not within the limited licensed authorities of BATF control. We are aware of no lawful control over private manufacture and or sale of such arms. Though, importation of such easily falls under the lawful potential of such controls.

We would not go so far as to say that they “cannot confiscate”. Like you, they have agency, even to act unlawfully. The question is, do the people have sufficient knowledge of the law to hold them accountable for their unlawful exercise of that agency. We are aware of no law that can lawfully limit anyone from making, bearing or controlling any arms so long as those arms are not used to interfere with any other person’s rights. When you refer to the machine gun controls, you are referring to conditional contracts and agreements that are voluntarily made and followed; not laws. However, even delving this far into this matter is beyond the limits of non-beneficiary support so we can follow this discussion no further than this point.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest