Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Background checks have always been illegal...

  1. #1
    Newbie Frdmftr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Star Valley, Arizona
    Posts
    3

    Background checks have always been illegal...

    ...and their purpose in being introduced in the Gun Control Act of 1968 was to set us up for what is happening today with a coterie of very wealthy subversives and enemy agents now finding it an easy job to sucker gun owners into voting for universal background checks. Bloomberg and his cronies have already won their Universal Background Checks initiative in Washington State and I think a similar law has previously been passed in Colorado.

    Background checks as a precondition to receiving government permission to exercise a right -- any right -- are illegal, and here is why:

    THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING A SEARCH OF A CITIZEN'S PERSON, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AS A PRE-CONDITION TO ISSUING OR DENYING "PERMISSION" TO EXERCISE A RIGHT GOVERNMENT HAS NO DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE OR DENY IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A DIRECT, INTENTIONAL, AND EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND AN A PRIORI RESTRAINT ON THE SECOND. –Donald L. Cline

    The Fourth Amendment because a Form 4473 is an interrogation under penalty of perjury, aka a search of the person in the absence of probable cause of any crime having been committed and in the absence of probable cause that the purchaser of a firearm committed the crime.

    Purchasing a firearm is not a crime and is not probable cause of a crime. Do you know of any other Constitutionally-guaranteed right that requires a government-mandated interrogation to determine if you are "worthy" of receiving permission to exercise the right?

    The Fourth Amendment is also violated by the NICS checks subsequent to the aforementioned interrogation, for it is a search of the papers and effects of the purchaser that happen to be on public file, and it, too, is absent any probable cause.

    The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process prior to rights being deprived is also violated: Again, purchasing a firearm is not a crime and is not probable cause of a crime., and compelling an illegal interrogation under threat of criminal sanction and a search of your papers and effects is notdue process.

    The Tenth Amendment is violated because no authority is delegated to the federal government to even license firearm dealers, let alone set up a system of regulations to deny disfavored individuals their rights or to allow favored individuals to exercise a government privilege in lieu of the citizen's God-given rights. And the Tenth Amendment denies to States any power prohibited to them by the Constitution, and the Constitution prohibits State interference in the private individual right to keep and bear arms with the Second Amendment.

    The Gun Control Act of 9168 is wholly without merit and wholly without Constitutional authority and must be repealed, rescinded, or struck down by the Courts, by Congress, or in the last resort by the people by acclamation and in necessary, civil disobedience. An unconstitutional law is null and void not merely from the moment its defect is detected, but from the moment of its inception. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). And any gun owner voting for a subversive voter initiative requiring government permission to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms is supporting the loss of every right we have, for once the above precedents are set, ALL our rights will depend on government's "compelling interest."

    Please see "Gun Owners: I'm calling you out." and "Universal Background Checks" on my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/K7FFN.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You know too much....swat team being sent to re-educate you or send you to re-education camp alpha.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Frdmftr View Post

    Background checks as a precondition to receiving government permission to exercise a right -- any right -- are illegal, and here is why:
    Unfortunately it doesnt matter what the Constitution says. What is advocated around here is submission to the law, whether it is actually law or not. The only acceptable way to deal with is is through already corrupt courts that have already proven themselves to believe they are above the Constitution and can circumvent it and ignore it at will.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Frdmftr View Post

    THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING A SEARCH OF A CITIZEN'S PERSON, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AS A PRE-CONDITION TO ISSUING OR DENYING "PERMISSION" TO EXERCISE A RIGHT GOVERNMENT HAS NO DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE OR DENY IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A DIRECT, INTENTIONAL, AND EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND AN A PRIORI RESTRAINT ON THE SECOND. –Donald L. Cline

    What sort of case law pertains to this issue? I assume there have been legal challenges since background checks were instituted?
    Last edited by PeterNSteinmetz; 12-08-2014 at 09:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    The Commerce Clause trumps everything. If you don't believe me just ask any court.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The Commerce Clause trumps everything. If you don't believe me just ask any court.
    Only where it Constitutionally applies. Countless decisions by lower courts to the contrary have been corrected on appeal.

    What's sad is that it takes an appeal.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Unfortunately it doesnt matter what the Constitution says. What is advocated around here is submission to the law, whether it is actually law or not. The only acceptable way to deal with is is through already corrupt courts that have already proven themselves to believe they are above the Constitution and can circumvent it and ignore it at will.
    http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

    It's constitutional, it's just been misapplied this whole time.

    The Federal Firearms Act (as amended)
    (18 USC, Chapter 44)

    Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

    The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

    Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

    Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

    There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

    18 USC §10:
    The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

    This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds!

    Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

    18 USC §921(2)
    The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
    [emphasis and underlining added]

    You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    FRDMFTR, Let me be the first to welcome you to OCDO, I hope you enjoy your stay here.

    Please do not be a "drive by" as I would like to hear more.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  9. #9
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

    It's constitutional, it's just been misapplied this whole time.
    ummmm..... ok translate that into English instead of legalese :P You're suggesting background checks are legal? How do you get around what Frdmftr said?


    Quote Originally Posted by Frdmftr View Post

    The Fourth Amendment because a Form 4473 is an interrogation under penalty of perjury, aka a search of the person in the absence of probable cause of any crime having been committed and in the absence of probable cause that the purchaser of a firearm committed the crime.......

    The Fourth Amendment is also violated by the NICS checks subsequent to the aforementioned interrogation, for it is a search of the papers and effects of the purchaser that happen to be on public file, and it, too, is absent any probable cause.
    Last edited by rightwinglibertarian; 12-08-2014 at 12:15 PM.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    ummmm..... ok translate that into English instead of legalese :P You're suggesting background checks are legal? How do you get around what Frdmftr said?
    Misapplication of the law. Plain and simple. It does not apply within the 50 states of non-federal territories/places.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189

    Background checks have always been illegal...

    To understand this issue and how to possibly proceed, it is necessary to understand the pertinent case law.
    Last edited by PeterNSteinmetz; 12-08-2014 at 07:44 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Commerce Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    ummmm..... ok translate that into English instead of legalese :P You're suggesting background checks are legal? How do you get around what Frdmftr said?
    I wrote up a bunch of this stuff a few years ago in laymans terms. Following is a link to the document as it is too big to attach.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdhl6kt8se...lause.pdf?dl=0

    Bottom line is the Feds have no jursidiction here. Think.......tribal territories as sovereign nations or Federal installations withing the State.

    ~Whitney
    Last edited by Whitney; 12-08-2014 at 08:10 PM. Reason: ETA installations
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    I wrote up a bunch of this stuff a few years ago in laymans terms. Following is a link to the document as it is too big to attach.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdhl6kt8se...lause.pdf?dl=0

    Bottom line is the Feds have no jursidiction here. Think.......tribal territories as sovereign nations or Federal installations withing the State.

    ~Whitney
    Your reference to section 101 not being in the USC is incorrect. It is set out in a foot note under 18 USC 921. Not uncommon to hide good info. Especially when Title 18 is considered positive law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Frdmftr View Post
    ...and their purpose in being introduced in the Gun Control Act of 1968 was to set us up for what is happening today with a coterie of very wealthy subversives and enemy agents now finding it an easy job to sucker gun owners into voting for universal background checks. Bloomberg and his cronies have already won their Universal Background Checks initiative in Washington State and I think a similar law has previously been passed in Colorado.

    Background checks as a precondition to receiving government permission to exercise a right -- any right -- are illegal, and here is why:

    THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING A SEARCH OF A CITIZEN'S PERSON, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AS A PRE-CONDITION TO ISSUING OR DENYING "PERMISSION" TO EXERCISE A RIGHT GOVERNMENT HAS NO DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE OR DENY IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A DIRECT, INTENTIONAL, AND EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND AN A PRIORI RESTRAINT ON THE SECOND. –Donald L. Cline

    The Fourth Amendment because a Form 4473 is an interrogation under penalty of perjury, aka a search of the person in the absence of probable cause of any crime having been committed and in the absence of probable cause that the purchaser of a firearm committed the crime.

    Purchasing a firearm is not a crime and is not probable cause of a crime. Do you know of any other Constitutionally-guaranteed right that requires a government-mandated interrogation to determine if you are "worthy" of receiving permission to exercise the right?

    The Fourth Amendment is also violated by the NICS checks subsequent to the aforementioned interrogation, for it is a search of the papers and effects of the purchaser that happen to be on public file, and it, too, is absent any probable cause.

    The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process prior to rights being deprived is also violated: Again, purchasing a firearm is not a crime and is not probable cause of a crime., and compelling an illegal interrogation under threat of criminal sanction and a search of your papers and effects is notdue process.

    The Tenth Amendment is violated because no authority is delegated to the federal government to even license firearm dealers, let alone set up a system of regulations to deny disfavored individuals their rights or to allow favored individuals to exercise a government privilege in lieu of the citizen's God-given rights. And the Tenth Amendment denies to States any power prohibited to them by the Constitution, and the Constitution prohibits State interference in the private individual right to keep and bear arms with the Second Amendment.

    The Gun Control Act of 9168 is wholly without merit and wholly without Constitutional authority and must be repealed, rescinded, or struck down by the Courts, by Congress, or in the last resort by the people by acclamation and in necessary, civil disobedience. An unconstitutional law is null and void not merely from the moment its defect is detected, but from the moment of its inception. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). And any gun owner voting for a subversive voter initiative requiring government permission to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms is supporting the loss of every right we have, for once the above precedents are set, ALL our rights will depend on government's "compelling interest."

    Please see "Gun Owners: I'm calling you out." and "Universal Background Checks" on my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/K7FFN.
    Welcome to OCDO, great first post. Looking forward to reading more.
    Regards.
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Welcome aboard from the commonwealth of Virginia. Glad to see another strong Constitutionalist on board.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The Commerce Clause trumps everything. If you don't believe me just ask any court.
    Yes very true, it is hard to over come the "rational Basis" under the commerce clause..

    " Under the commerce clause, congress needs only, a rational basis to a legitimate state interest, not a necessary rational to a compelling interest...

    However, there exist the age old legal maxim, " Any law repugnant to the Federal Constitution is null and void"

    Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803)

    My .02

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 12-11-2014 at 01:38 AM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •