That is a good read franklin, but I would have to say that the ATF is correct on this issue when they speak to their franchisees. By accpeting the FFL and giving up the protections of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the licensed dealers have agreed to play by the BATF's rules. If the BATF finds that it is against their regulations for an FFL to carry intrastate manufactured firearms which are not manufactured according to the BATF specifications, then the BATF is within its power as licensing authority to revoke and/or sanction the licensee.

I don't really see much use to these laws on the part of the state. They are not applicable to the licensed dealers, nor to an operation owned by a national which has preserved itself from licenses and government franchise. For in the first case, they can only cause hardship for the dealer, and their applicability if brought to the SC by an FFL will be found null. In the latter case, the law permitting that which is already permitted is a nullity and for the state to license rights, i.e. freedom of contract and association, and the right to bear arms (how can arms be bared if they are not first manufactured), has been found to be an illegitimate act.

I can see this issue play out in two directions.

1) The feds clamp down and the states accept a docile and subservient position. This does nothing towards the advancement of liberty and the education of the sovereigns about their contractual subservience. Probably some “bad” case law is created as some FFLs attempt to fight the BATF under this protection. The case law will be bad, but not really damaging in that it would be limited to those who are government franchisees.

2) Some enterprising nationals start to distribute intrastate produced firearms to intrastate customers who are also nationals. As the numbers of those who are eligible for this situation are quite small, I doubt that it would occur with a large enough impact to gain major attention. Only by performing transfers which are “high profile prohibited” by the present code would warrant BATF attention (think class3 alike manufacturing and transfers). As the internal bureau has authority over government employees and their authority covers manufacturing through sale, for the nationals at the store front to maintain a business, they would have to find a manufacturer to whom, the BATF rules do not apply. Perhaps we would see an enterprising national who manufactures and sells all from his gun shop (think full auto AKs or G3s or FALS).

There is potential for much education of the sleeping masses if a lawful operation were to exist. One drawback that I foresee is the media spinning the event of a US citizen (statutory) being mauled by the BATF for mistakenly thinking that he could buy the firearms from the nationals. I could see the BATF attempting to take down the national(s) who sold the gun, but the lawsuit would probably end similarly to the lawsuit against C. Hansen involving famguardian.org and purportedly sedm.org. That is, the government would default by being unable to answer the challenge brought by the counterargument of the national(s). It would probably cost the national(s) a large amount of time and they would have to bring a civil suit against the government to try to get their illegally seized firearms back. One pitfall for nationals who would undertake this endeavor would be to avoid crossing the substantial presence threshold and have their sovereign immunity removed. Is there a reasonable belief heuristic for vetting potential customers to determine if servicing them would constitute engaging in the forum?

Although I can understand the sentiment of the states in wanting to fight the feds, this is a half hearted attempt where they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have sovereignty, but would maintain their own franchise and licensing system, denying the true sovereign their rights. I don't foresee it as having a lasting effect. It really is a case of the states wanting to have the autonomy of states of the union, but desiring to maintain the cash flow of being federal enclaves. If they were serious about putting the fed back into place, they would first have to get their own houses into order, and then educate their state nationals as to their current status in order to reclaim them from the feds. I do not foresee this happening.

republic

P.S. I see a similar supply chain issue should nationals attempt to create a lawful healthcare system in contravention to the current licensing and DEA scheme (and Obamacare if it passes).

Bing and Admin,

Pete's most recent rant is at first glance unhelpful, but also childish and un-sound. He provided no court cites, nor did he provide any relevant sections of code which buttress his claims. There is a vast and immediately recognizable difference between the research which has been and is conducted at Family Guardian and SEDM and the most recent tantrums from Lost Horizons. As the law must be consistent with itself, and since domicile is a voluntary choice, I have yet to find a way to disprove that the act of maintaining a nexus with the social security number/trust is prima facia evidence of claiming statutory U.S. citizenship, or at the least residency (as an individual). Since jurisdiction is given to the tax court by maintaining a public office and providing an admission of D.C. residency via a 1040, I don't know how Pete could escape the clutches of the tax court. At the very least, Pete should alert his readers to fill out 1040-NR if they are indeed domiciled outside of D.C. It does not make sense to give the enemy every indication that one is a taxpayer, while asserting that this is not the case; providing them with evidence that one is incapable of understanding the law, and opening one's self up to accusations of frivolous argument.

The Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid article discusses the basis of Pete's downfall in section 7.14 Misapplication of the Non-Resident Alien Position

As influential as Pete is within the tax honesty movement, I am all the more disappointed by his stubborn refusal to give this aspect of tax law application the serious consideration it deserves. His excuse boils down to the fact that it is inconvenient to live without a SSN. Instead of harnessing his readers for the education of those businesses and employers who illegally request/demand SSNs, he resorts to an argument that is equivalent to a child saying, “everybody else is doing it, so it can't be wrong.” No justification in fact or law, merely opinion and un-based conjecture.

republic

In order to make the health care plan work, not only will private insurance have to be eliminated (and there is wording in the bill to make this occur via attrition), but private payment must be eliminated completely. Ignorant or duplicitous people may call it a right, but it clearly is national socialism. I hadn't thought about health care too much (thank the Lord), but this is clearly part of the systematic enslavement of all Americans. Could a national have STANDING to sue the state for infringing on his 1st amendment right to contract for health care if all doctors (AMA) are part of the fascist system and can not accept private payment? Could he have standing for violation of his most basic liberty of life by converting this right into a privilege via state healthcare franchise?

I have a feeling that the court would say that there is no standing and that in cyptic court talk, they would say that nationals not engaging in franchise are free to provide medical care to each other as they always could. The fact that there are no (or extremely few) doctors operating outside of the licensing racket is of no concern to the court. However this opens up a whole can of worms. How can a national/franchise-free doctor prescribe medicines? Don't they need a parallel system of hospitals (or clinics), apothecaries, and pharmaceutical supply chain? Is this a case where attrition will whittle down the resisters of government enslavement? Even if a doctor were to try to equip his clinic via foreign pharmacies, congress claims to have jurisdiction over imports (i guess the relevant code would have to be examined for applicability).

Perhaps this is an adequate reason for asserting the right to throw off tyrannical oppressors and institute a new government if only for a small portion of those who care. I have much to learn. I don't have the answers to these questions, but the noose is tightening and too many of those who i regret to call my countrymen are all to eager to lick the hand that binds them. Their chain may rest lightly on them, but to me, it chafes something awful. Unfortunately, many are upset when I tell them that they are shackled; to the happy slave, ignorance is bliss.

republic

PS A similar line of reasoning makes me angry about the indirect restrictions on exercising the 2nd amendment.

BOBT12,

Any guess as to under what authority the CDC can enforce a mandatory vaccination? Thanks for collecting this important news.

republic

This wasteful policy has been overturned, but not before it affected manufacturers and the ammunition market. It amazes me how hoplophobia can lead to careless disregard for fiscal responsibility among the policy makers in Washington. Not only does hatred for the second amendment overrule fiscal common sense, but in this case it would have been counterproductive to other public policies such as promoting recycling and reducing greenhouse gases. I am not involved in the ammunition industry, or familiar with the efficiencies of brass foundries, but it seems to me that performing some minor sizing operations on gently used military brass is a heck of a lot more economical than smelting and casting cartridge blanks de novo. Any way to usurp natural rights and reduce the ability to exercise them is the MO of the denizens of Mordor.

republic