CA illegally requires SSN for gun purchases

imported post

With all due respect RJB that reply was to Blackburn who initiated the attack towards me in the first place, with the childish and accusing little shoe licking picture. Blackburn is the poster who started posting off topic of your original post with accusatory comments and childish picturestowards me.



That said, I don't see how you will be able to legally acquire a handgun in California without complying with their state laws.. Sorry that you have to live there..

imported post

My entire point of being here is that even the states must abide by the national Constitution, and if the Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Amendment to that Constitution protects my individual right to keep and bear firearms, then the state cannot act as a federal agency, by demanding that I engage in the privilege of applying for a federally issued and voluntarily obtained number, in order toassert and exercise that basic right.

NO RIGHT CAN REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE AS A PRE-CONDITION OF ITS FREE EXERCISE. IF IT DOES, IT IS NOT A RIGHT AT ALL, BUT A PRIVILEGE, AND THE PRIVILEGE REQUIRED TO GET IT IS NO LONGERVOLUNTARY, BUT COERCIVE, BECAUSE IT DESTROYS THE RIGHT, CONVERTING IT TO A PRIVILEGE.

I understand only too well that being right does not mean that the state will not go right ahead and violateour fundamental rights anyway. It has, it does, and it always will, that is unless resisted and/or stopped from doing so, and on a regular basis.

The point is that the state routinely and willfully goes against the Constitution, and with it, our most basic and cherished rights, as governments always have, and because this is so, the government must always be confronted and resisted in every way possible to stop and prevent it. Just because people say "well, that's just the way it is" does not excuse it or mean we do not have a duty to ourselves and to future generations to do whatever we can NOW to set things straight, or at least slow down the progress of the tyranny long enough to come up with a better plan, and perhapsa brave and principled enough generation to carry it out.

This issue involving the voluntary SSN privilege being linked directly to the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms just highlights the dire situation we are in, where the governmentcourts FINALLY publicly admit that we do indeed have an individualright to firearms, as We the People have ALWAYS asserted for the last 200+ years, but then sets about as if they are completely unaffected by the ruling, by blatantly continuing to do everything it can to increasingly treat it as a privilege anyway.

We are utter and suicidal fools if we allow this total disregard for our rights to go unnoticed and unopposed, if anything, because of where the logical extension of this behavior, projected over time, will predictably lead us, which isn't pretty.

One does not have to be a genius to see where thatdark destination is, but one must at least be consciously awake, lucid, and willing enough to make the effort required to become self educated in these issues, because the government certainly has not and will not spend a dime or a minute to educate us about the very rights they would love and work so hard to take away. They actively cultivate public ignorance, mostly through crimes of omission,because nothing serves them better or is more cost effective toward that end.

So, the first step any American must take toward good Citizenship and true Patriotism is to self-educate about our true history, our founding principles, and the nature of our basic rights. There are far too many good resources out there now, thanks to the internet,for anyone to have any excuses to not know the few basic things that every American ought to know, if we are to survive and prosper with our rights. lives,and liberty intact, and still be able to call ourselves Americans, in the truest sense of the word.

"While men will occasionally stumble over the truth, most will just pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and go on about their business as if nothing important has happened." - Winston Churchill

If Americans are to actually be as "exceptional" as we like to think we are, then we are going to have to stop behaving so unexceptionally, like "most people", and stop ignoring the truth when we stumble over it, and actually allow it to influence and changethe way we act, view, and think about ourselves, our country, its government, and the world we live in.

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

Blackburn wrote:

"this country you call home with out a social security number"

says it all.

Click to expand...

NOT !!

Where's the mention that you're not a citizen without a S.S.N.

Click to expand...

It's disingenuousto try to claim that you weren'ttaking the attitude that "how can you call this country your country without a SSN?" with that line.

Please, continue nom nomming.

imported post

Missouri's purchase application states that S.S.N. is optional.

I tried to download a PDF of Ca. application but couldn't get it to load so I don't know if Ca. states it's optional and someone is just jerking you around or not..



here's some reading and a few links, but after all is said and done I'm pretty sure it's gonna be your attorney debt.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-code



You may find an attorney or representative on this site that can lead you all the way to a victory in the U.S. Supreme court.. Good Luck

imported post

I guess you could get in touch with these folks.

http://www.saf.org/

imported post

The Californiaform also has box for the SSN, and, AS REQUIRED BY LAW,it says it is "optional". No problem there.

BUT..

Then it demands either 1) a California Driver's License number, or 2) A California I.D. Card number, BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE A SSN TO OBTAIN,

Which is the entire point of my being here, which is that this is a thinly veiled end-run around the Constitution, by creating an indirect demand for the SSN, thatitis prohibited from demanding directly, the end result being the denial of your 2nd Amendment Constitutional right, if you do not first provide the state with a SSN, one way, or the other. It hardly matters which form is making the demand, when both come into play.

My position is that if the purchase form of any state cannot legally demand a SSN as a pre-condition of a gun sale, then neither can the California version demand one of only two legally "acceptable" forms of I.D., both of which require a SSN, because it creates a situation where functionally and practically, there is no difference between that, and the direct demand, which is unconstitutional, and therefore prohibited.

The state is obviously and unnecessarily restricting the list of "acceptable" forms of I.D. for no other apparent reason than to continue to tie all firearms purchases to participation in a federal program, Social Security, and forcing the use of the account number that such "voluntary" participation creates, or be unable to exercise your rights.

California politicians ABSOLUTELY HATE the 2nd Amendment, if not the entire Constitution, and this cynical ploy proves it. The courts should be made to force California to broaden the list of identification at least enough to allow those of us who may choose to opt out of Social Security, for whatever reason, since the governmentSAYS it is "voluntary",to fully retain their 2nd Amendment rights if they do so.

I have ample and 100% verifiable I.D. of the highest quality, including a certified birth certificate, a U.S. Passport, and my finger prints, which the state already has on file. It is only reasonable that the state should accept a combination of such forms of identification from those who would choose to give them, and which the government has given me, all with no SSN required.

Unfortunately the state is no longer a creature of reason, leaving only the slim hope that some logic and reason can stillprevail in the courts, which have the muscle to force the state to be "reasonable", which we, as individuals to be held in contempt by our politicians, apparently do not have.

imported post

RJB wrote:

The Californiaform also has box for the SSN, and, AS REQUIRED BY LAW,it says it is "optional". No problem there.

BUT..

Then it demands either 1) a California Driver's License number, or 2) A California I.D. Card number, BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE A SSN TO OBTAIN,

Click to expand...

And there is your weak point to attack - the non-driver ID. There is no federal statute authorizing states to require SSNs for non-driver IDs.

But then again, you run up against Dittman. Good luck!

imported post

RJB wrote:

The Californiaform also has box for the SSN, and, AS REQUIRED BY LAW,it says it is "optional". No problem there.

BUT..

Then it demands either 1) a California Driver's License number, or 2) A California I.D. Card number, BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE A SSN TO OBTAIN,

Click to expand...

When I moved to CA in 2001, I registered the importation of 2 handguns - and refused to supply ANY of the above ID numbers as I did not have a CA Dl/ID and cited Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act to decline to disclose my SSN; the CA DOJ acknowledged my compliance with CA law and that was that. So again, perhaps you can move out of CA, buy some handguns, then move back.

imported post

Social Security Number Not Required

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2682567/Social-Security-Number-Not-Required

imported post

[from above link]

Verify the Applicable Law

It is important to read the applicable laws because these laws often specify something very different from what you are being told. For example, in California most Department of Motor Vehicle clerks believe that the law requires an applicant for a California driver's license or identification card to provide their social security account number because the law reads:


Notice that this code is not requiring an applicant to provide a number … the code simply states that the application (form) shall contain fields for “the following information.” It is very similar to CVC §1653.5:

When we read the actual “requirement” to include a social security number, we discover that it is qualified with a strange phrase: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law …”

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law …” is a strange phrase to find in the law because of what it means, that is:

• Despite any law to the contrary…
• Despite any law that says we can't …
• Regardless of what other laws might say …
• You must obey the law, but we don't have to …

The reason this phase is added to the law is because California’s attempt to require a social security number does violate other provisions of law, such as provided for in Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 which contain a “shall not apply” provision at (B) for “a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975.” All of these new state requirement for a social security number have been adopted after 1975 and therefore were not “in existence and operating before January 1, 1975.”

Public Law 93-579 which contain a “shall not apply” provision at (B) for “a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975.” All of these new state requirement for a social security number have been adopted after 1975 and therefore were not “in existence and operating before January 1, 1975.”

Also, upon closer reading of CVC §1653.5:

This law is necessary because Public Law 93-579 prohibits California from requiring an applicant's social security number, so they additionally attempt to prohibit their employees from processing application that do not include the applicant's social security account number. Of course it still against the law “to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege …because of such individuals refusal to disclose his social security number.”

California, like most other states, also attempts to “require” applicants for various
professional license to provide social security numbers in violation of Public Law 93-579 …and in each case they acknowledge the existence of contrary law.
and It critical to review each applicable law carefully when you are dealing with various state agencies. Most states have drafted laws with similar wording. Read the law carefully because it probably not require you to do anything, but instead is doing one of the following:

• Attempting to restrict the duty of a state employee.
• Defining the appearance or data field to include on a form.
• Despite any other provision of law …trying to trick you into believing you are
required to provide something that they cannot require you to do.

imported post

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/affidavit.identification.htm



Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris

c/o Forwarding Agent at:

11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188

Gold River 95670-4484

CALIFORNIA, USA



In Propria Persona



All Rights Reserved

without Prejudice












[align=center]District Court of the United States[/align]



[align=center]Eastern Judicial District of California[/align]




28 U.S.C. 1746(1);

) P.L. 93-579 (uncodified).

AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff in the above entitled case, Citizen of California, Private Attorney General and Federal Witness, to file this, His AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTIFICATION, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) and Public Law (“P.L.”) 93-579, in recognition of the need for heightened security of the personnel employed in the federal building, of all visitors, and of all properties located there.

Plaintiff is unable to obtain a standard California driver’s license or State-issued identification card, because the State of California currently requires a Social Security Number (“SSN”) on the application for both forms of identification. Said application clearly states that it will be refused, if an SSN is not shown on that form.

Plaintiff is now protesting the Social Security system for religious, economic and legal reasons.

It appears to Plaintiff that the SSN matches most, if not all, of the features characteristic of the “mark of the beast” prohibited by The Revelation –- the last Book in the New Testament. The prohibition made in that Book is absolute and unqualified.

Plaintiff is also privy to certain plans uniquely to identify electronic devices called “subcutaneous transponders,” which can be placed under the skin and energized by an external power source. Once energized by the proper external power source, the transponder emits an electronic signal coded with this unique identification number. Such transponders are already being used uniquely to identify dogs, cats, and other pet animals.

On July 12, 2000 A.D., in an anonymous lead editorial, The Wall Street Journal correctly identified the Social Security system as a “Ponzi Scheme” (or pyramid scheme). As such, the Social Security system violates California State laws prohibiting insurance fraud.

Plaintiff has also studied the original Social Security Act, as amended, and has concluded from His thorough study that said Act has always been municipal in scope and creates no obligation whatsoever for a Citizen of California to participate. See IRC 3121(e).

For the record, Plaintiff also wishes to add that He was unlawfully arrested and incarcerated in central Texas, during the Summer of 1998 A.D., specifically for refusing to provide local police with an SSN and for citing Public Law 93-579 in lieu thereof. Later, Plaintiff sued the parties responsible for that unlawful arrest. The pleadings in that case are now available at Internet URL:




[align=center]http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sanmarco/index.htm[/align]
In summary, Plaintiff argues that He cannot be compelled to violate His sincere religious beliefs, nor can He be compelled to participate in a voluntary government program, nor can He be compelled to violate State laws prohibiting insurance fraud, as a condition of entry into the federal courthouse in Sacramento, California.

Accordingly, Plaintiff now attaches an untouched passport‑type photograph of Himself, taken while He was on sabbatical in Hawaii during the Summer of 2000 A.D., as follows:






[align=center][COLOR PHOTO HERE][/align]






VERIFICATION
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Plaintiff in the above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).



Dated: October 22, 2001 A.D.



Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

___________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):




[align=center]AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTIFICATION:[/align]

[align=center]28 U.S.C. 1746(1);[/align]

[align=center]P.L. 93-579 (uncodified).[/align]


by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:



United States Marshals Clerk of Court

501 “I” Street, Suite 5-600 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento 95814-2322 Sacramento 95814-2322

CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA



Pillsbury Winthrop, LLP Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 1001 Marshall Street

Sacramento 95814-4419 Redwood City 94063

CALIFORNIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA



DeForest & Koscelnik Lonnie G. Schmidt

3000 Koppers Building Settlement Negotiator

436 Seventh Avenue 11230 Gold Express Dr., #310-188

Pittsburgh 15219 Gold River 95670-4484

PENNSYLVANIA, USA CALIFORNIA, USA





Dated: October 22, 2001 A.D.







Signed: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

__________________________________________________

Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Plaintiff In Propria Persona

imported post

The California Department of Justice, Firearms Bureau has written me, communicating their official position, which is that THEY do not require Social Security Numbers for firearms purchases, but that the Department of Motor Vehicles requires them for their ID cards, therefore, the problem is with the DMV.

Their position is basically that the California DMV can indirectly control all firearms purchases!

I just want to know how a government agency, created and organized by the Vehicle Code, has jurisdiction to restrict firearms purchases to only those who will first obtain, use, and provide to them a Social Security Number!Under what perverted legal theory is it even possible for DMV have that kind of jurisdiction and control over the exercise of a fundamental right?

Here is a copy of the email they sent me:

Mr. Brown,


This is in response to your recent correspondence to the Bureau of Firearms, regarding whether or not a social security number is required to purchase a firearm. While the California Office of the Attorney General does not require a social security number in order toapply to purchase a firearm, a California Driver's License or California ID Card is required. You stated in a telephone conversation with me that a social security number is requiredto obtain a California Driver's License, which I believe is accurate. My only advice to you would be to inquire with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as to whether there is a way to acquire a California ID Card without a social security number. Beyond this, your objection falls under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and not the Office of the Attorney General.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need further assistance, please contact the Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263 - 4887, or via e-mail.

Sincerely,

Brent George
Staff Services Analyst
California Department of Justice
Bureau of Firearms
Training, Information, and Compliance Section

(916) 263 - 4868

imported post

There you go, problem solved..

buy an armed personnel carrier, register it with DMV and Shazammm your good to go.. until you run out of ammo that is, then when you pull up to the drive thru at the local national guard armory, they'll probably ask for a social security number:banghead:



Just kiddin!!

Sounds to me they have it figured out, the only loop hole is to go illegal and buy off the street..:uhoh:

imported post

Well, I don't know about all this SS# is proof that the End Times are nigh bit. The government issued me the number, so I don't see anything too sinister in supplying it back to them for ID on a gun form, but that's just my take.

At least the founding fathers can take comfort in the fact that tea is still untaxed, at least in Ohio. The one constant after all these years.

-ljp

imported post

The "problem" is that WE have inalienable rights, and one of those rights is the rights to keep and bear arms for our defense and sustenance.

When every transaction becomes dependent upon using a government issued number, then it is no longer a right, but a privilege. The number becomes the means of converting your rights, which are not subject to their control, into privileges that are subject to their control.

The government is not doing this just because they bored and have nothing better to do! There is a reason why they want to take away your rights and control every facet of your life, with a number. What do you think that reason is? They are after SOMETHING, and that SOMETHING involves taking away all your rights and making you 100% dependent upon them, and their good-will. Is that a good or a bad position for the individual to be in? Is that independence and liberty, or dependence and servitude?

People who say they have no problem with it, do not feel threatened by it,and do not think it is a big deal amaze me. Giving the government that kind of power has never turned out well, not once, not ever in human history. Government cannot and should not be trusted to the extent that we all take their number, voluntarily turn all our rights into government granted and regulated privileges,and simply trust that they will not abuse it. They always will, without exception, and anyone who thinks they won't, has no concept of human history or nature.

If we allow our right to firearms to be converted into a privilege, then we are foolish enough to voluntarily give up the only real means to assert, defend and retain every other right we have. Life, liberty and property can then be taken or held hostage by those who retain that right for themselves, while denying it to you.

We live under a system of government where all power devolves from the people to the government. If the people, who are the source of all government power, do not have the right to keep and bear arms, then from where do the people in government get that power? The answer is that if the people outside of government do not have the right to keep and bear arms, then neither do the people who happen to be in government.

Any system that provides the means and mechanisms to the people government by which rights can be converted to privileges on a widespread basis should at the very least be held suspect, but should more wisely be held in deepest contempt.

imported post

If they can make the keeping and bearing of arms subject to first providing the state with a SSN, then why not do the same with all our other rights?

Can you imagine have to present a SSN to exercise your freedom of speech?

How about having to present an SSN to attend church and exercise your freedom of religion?

How about having to present an SSN to associate with others, and only if they also have and present an SSN, allowing them to associate with you?

Well, if those scenarios sound as ridiculous and outrageous to you as they do to me, they would be no moreridiculous and outrageous than the current requirement to present an SSN to the state, whether directly, or indirectly, to purchase firearm.

If we let them get away with demanding the SSN to obtain "permission" to exercise our 2nd Amendment right, then there is nothing in the world stopping them from making the same demand for any other rights, at which point we will have NO rights at all, and everything will literally require government permission.

Can't anyone see that we are almost there right now?

So, when if comes to our rights and liberty, government demands for SSN's are not a minor issue, they are a HUGE issue, because there are HUGE and far reaching ramifications. Once we allow government todrag usdown that slippery slope, there will be no stopping it, and we will be headed all the way to the bottom. The way things are going in this country at the moment dovetails with and reinforces that reasoning perfectly.

imported post

the ssn in your churchis required if you opt to deduct your tithe offering from your taxes..

imported post

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=255
Do Churches Need 501(c)(3) Status?

Must churches obtain official 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service to be exempt from taxation?
No, churches are automatically exempt from taxation, according to attorney Marcus Owens, Washington, D.C., a former head of the IRS’ tax-exempt division, now defending a California church against the IRS (see related story).

Must churches be 501(c)(3) for their members’ tithes, donations, and gifts to be tax-deductible?

Again, no, according to Owens and to IRS regulations readily accessible to the public.

But even if a church chooses not to be recognized as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, Owens said, provisions of the federal tax laws prohibiting “intervention in a political campaign” still apply to all churches. If the IRS finds that a church has violated this prohibition, the activities that constituted the violation are subject to an excise tax, according to the IRS.

“A church needs no ruling from the IRS to be exempt from taxation,” Owens said. “It is exempt by virtue of being a church. But churches are still bound by provisions of the Internal Revenue Code in regard to intervening in political campaigns.”

The Church’s Free Speech Rights
Regardless of whether a church has 501(c)(3) status, the church always has the right to speak out on the issues of the day, according to Glen Lavy, a constitutional attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Because the question comes up so often, the ADF on its website (www.alliancedefensefund.org) has provided “Guidelines for Political Activities by Churches and Pastors” (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/GuidelinesforChurchesandPastors.pdf).

“In regard to churches getting involved in social issues, the IRS rule against intervention in a political campaign doesn’t apply,” Lavy said.

What does apply, then?

“IRS rules have the force of law,” Lavy said. “The government’s administrative agencies, like the IRS, have the ability to enact regulations which have validity, unless they are changed by the legislature. Congress has the right to change any regulation.”

The ADF’s “Guidelines” specify that churches are not allowed to endorse a particular candidate, contribute either funds or in-kind services to a candidate’s campaign, or distribute literature for a particular candidate

“Issue advocacy, however, may not be limited by government and can be freely engaged in by churches,” the ADF pamphlet says. “As long as one does not use explicit words expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, one is free to praise or criticize officials and candidates — this is called issue advocacy.”

Although churches are often threatened with loss of their tax-exempt status — sometimes by anti-church activists, sometimes by the IRS itself — there is no law that restricts churches from defining moral positions and asking people to vote accordingly, according to the ADF.

Chilling the Church?
Churches were added to section 501(c)(3) of the tax code in 1954. Critics, such as Peter Kershaw, author of The Church and Caesar: A Look at Incorporation and 501(c)(3), charge then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson with using 501(c)(3) status as a way to “eliminate the significant influence the church has always had on public policy” (http://hushmoney.org/articles.htm — radio interviews with Kershaw are available on this site).

“Since they’ve done this, the church has lost much of its ability to influence the culture,” Kershaw said.

This is a controversial claim. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s — whose best-known leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained minister with a church — enjoyed strong support from many churches. Today, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly vote Republican, thus influencing American culture and policy. Nor should we ignore the example of many Roman Catholic bishops in 2004 withholding Communion from politicians who have voted to support abortion and homosexual “marriage.” If the bishops were at all deterred by any potential threat from the IRS, they didn’t show it.

But Kershaw’s claim is not without merit. The churches’ political activity in the 19[suP]th[/suP] century — most notably, the movement to abolish slavery — might not have been possible under today’s tax laws, Marcus Owens said.

“Preaching against slavery would not have been illegal per se,” he said, “but getting involved in the Lincoln-Douglas debates might have been a problem.”

Churches in the 19[suP]th[/suP] century didn’t have to worry about tax exemption, Owens said, “because everybody was exempt — there was no income tax.” But in 1934, Congress enacted laws against “lobbying and propaganda” that applied to churches. The intent of this legislation, he said, was to stop organizations from paying off officials or candidates in return for future political favors.

Why Incorporate? Why Go 501(c)(3)?
When a church incorporates and applies for 501(c)(3) status, critics say, it invites government scrutiny into church finances, activities, and membership. “It lets the government into the church,” Kershaw said, “and gives the IRS access to all kinds of files.”

Why, then, do so many churches incorporate? Kershaw estimates that only 10% of America’s churches are “free” or unincorporated — a figure which is skewed, he added, because the state constitutions of Virginia and West Virginia do not allow churches to incorporate.

“The greatest benefit that being a 501(c)(3) organization brings to your church is the assurance to all your donors that their tithes, offerings, and gifts are fully tax deductible,” says a brochure for a book, How to Make Your Church a 501(c)(3) (www.startchurch.com).

Although this is true, Owens said, it’s not necessary for a church to have 501(c)(3) status in order for donations, tithes, or gifts to be tax deductible.

“It’s desirable because 501(c)(3) status helps major donors — especially in planning their estates, when they want to leave a major gift to the church in their wills,” he said. “Mostly it’s just a matter of extra reassurance.”

Many accountants and attorneys advise churches to incorporate and then seek 501(c)(3) status, Kershaw said. Churches also do it out of ignorance (“We didn’t know any better”) and because of a “bandwagon effect” (“Everybody is doing it”), he said.

In a radio interview, Kershaw said mainline churches didn’t begin to incorporate until early in the 20[suP]th[/suP] century. The Methodist Church was the first denomination to do so, he said, on the advice of steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, who stressed the “efficiency benefits” of organizing the denomination like a business. Most of the major denominations followed suit shortly afterward, Kershaw said.

“The biggest reason not to do it is because it displeases the Lord,” he said. “It makes the church subordinate to the state, and that’s bad theology. Jesus Christ, not the state, is the head of the church.”

Chalcedon’s founder, R.J. Rushdoony, addressed this issue in Christianity and the State, pp. 116–119 (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA: 1986). “[W]hat we know as a corporation is a Biblical doctrine,” he said, with “Israel” as the original corporation created by God, later supplanted by the church as the “new Israel.”

The early church, he said, was a corporation or “body” headed by Jesus Christ, an eternal and supernatural corporation. Later in history, European states co-opted the Biblical concept of the corporation and applied it to themselves in imitation of the church. By modern times, states like Frederick the Great’s Prussia were promoting religious toleration as a means of yoking religion to the service of the state. “The function of religion had returned to the pre-Christian Roman function, to provide social cement and support the state” (p. 119).

“In the United States,” he wrote, “the Internal Revenue Service began to grant or deny corporate status to churches. This status was given upon sufferance of the state and subject to its conditions. The church as a corporation now had only a limited existence, one conditional upon the grant and terms of the state. Limitations began to appear as to the extent of the property which could be held tax-exempt … The modern state has thus made of itself a new Christ and church” (p. 119).

Since the Middle Ages, there have been many changes in the relationship between church and state. Today in America, church construction is subject to local zoning laws, and parking regulations are sometimes invoked by municipalities when neighbors complain about believers meeting at a private home for worship or Bible study. All of these situations are subject to change, as local ordinances are debated and lawsuits are filed.

IRS: Churches Exempt from Tax
Several IRS publications are available from the agency (phone 1-800-TAX-FORM or www.irs.org) that state that churches are automatically tax-exempt, even without 501(c)(3) status.

1. Package 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption, lists churches, church auxiliaries, religious schools, mission societies, and youth groups as automatically exempt.
2. Package 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, p. 3, Section B of instruction booklet, includes churches, church-affiliated organizations, church schools, and mission societies on its tax-exempt list.
3. Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, p. 17.
4. Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations, p. 3, reiterates the tax-exempt status of churches, their auxiliaries, and associations of churches.

Conclusion
Although many church officials and members think a church must be 501(c)(3) to be exempt from taxation, this status is not necessary for a church to carry out any of its functions. There are also theological objections to it, as stated by Rushdoony and others.

The lack of a 501(c)(3) designation does not exempt a church from any legal prohibitions against “politicking,” but not being 501(c)(3) would make any politically motivated investigation of a church more difficult. (The IRS, then, would have to examine church members’ individual tax returns, financial statements, etc.)

A church’s right to speak out on controversial issues, which may cross the line into prohibited political activity, is protected by the First Amendment. No church has ever lost its tax-exempt status as a result of “political speech” by the pastor. Any survey of the national news will turn up many stories of churches and clergy speaking out.

How strictly can the IRS interpret the federal laws against a church “intervening in a political campaign”?

Marcus Owens, defending a church against just such a charge by the IRS, said he has not heard from the IRS since he sent the agency a letter in October rejecting the IRS’ contention that a sermon opposing tax cuts and the war in Iraq constituted “intervention.” “They’ve been quiet,” he said. “Perhaps they’re considering their position.”

It’s true that obtaining 501(c)(3) status unnecessarily gives the government a foot in the door of the church. It’s also true that incorporating a church simply isn’t necessary: churches in Virginia and West Virginia prosper without it.

Given the acknowledged potency of “the Christian vote” in recent elections, it’s doubtful that the IRS would find it politically prudent or practical to launch a campaign to muzzle America’s churches. If nothing else, it would touch off a political firestorm that would consume the IRS commissioner.

Meanwhile, church members and their legal representatives have the right to campaign for changes in the laws and IRS regulations, and lobby for greater independence for the church, not less.

Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for the Chalcedon Report. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and a published novelist.

imported post

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-problems.htm

In Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the following about the government’s intended purpose for the 501c3:


The Court asserts that an exempt organization must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest,” must have a purpose that comports with “the common community conscience,” and must not act in a manner “affirmatively at odds with [the] declared position of the whole Government.”

Taken together, these passages suggest that the primary function of a tax-exempt organization is to act on behalf of the Government in carrying out governmentally approved policies.
...

[continues]

So, you see, this is a much bigger and more pervasiveproblem than most people think. The separation between church and state was NOT meant to protect the government from the church, but to protect the church from being co-opted and harnessed by the government, so that the church could be used to "rubber stamp"government'spolicies and practices, giving even evil acts religious legitimacy, while being forced to remain silent when at odds to government policy.

To become a 501(c)3 corporation, the church must obtain what amounts to a taxpayer identification number, an employer identification number, and the officers of that non-profit corporation must obtain, use,and provide SSN's, so that the government can hold them accountable if they transgress, including by expressing disapproval. In that way, the government controls most churches in America today ans uses them to give it's actiongreater legitimacy.

Once again, the pervasive presence of the SSN as a control mechanism rears its ugly head, and nothing less than every basic freedom in America, be it freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, orreligious freedom, is at stake.

America needs to push back on all these fronts to eliminate this threat to ALL of our basic rights. Inthis case, I have chosen first to push back against California's cynical indirect requirement for SSN's for firearms purchases. Religious freedom in America under threat for much the same reasons that requiring the SSN threatens 2nd Amendment rights.

imported post

I haver contacted the California Department of Motor Vehicles and asked:

"I have found the sections of law that require a Social Security Number be provided to obtain a California Driver's License. What law creates the requirement for a Social Security Number to be provided to obtain a California State Identification Card?"

Their response:

"You are correct Mr. Brown, in that we can find the law sections requiring Social Security Number for driver's licenses, but we cannot find one specifically requiring SSN's for identification cards.My supervisorwill get back to you on that."

[line]

Since then, I found buried deep in the DMV website this page:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl08.htm
Social Security Number Requirements for a Driver License or Identification Card

Why collect SSN?
The California Vehicle Code (VC) requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to collect your Social Security Number (SSN). (VC §§1653.5[a], 12800[a], 12801)

Federal law also allows any state to use a person's SSN for the purpose of establishing his/her identification. (42 U.S.C. §405 [c][2][C])

[line]

First, notice that federal law does not REQUIRE the state to obtain and use a person's Social Security number.

Second, sections 12800 and 12801 only apply to driver's licenses, NOT to identifcation cards.

Which brings us to Vehicle Code section VC §§1653.5[a], which in part reads:

Department Forms: Required Information
1653.5.(a) Every form prescribed by the department for use by an applicant for the issuance or renewal by the department of a driver's license or identification card pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500) shall contain a section for the applicant's social security account number.


(b) Every form prescribed by the department for use by an applicant for the issuance, renewal, or transfer of the registration or certificate of title to a vehicle shall contain a section for the applicant's driver's license or identification card number.

(c) A person who submits to the department a form that, pursuant to subdivision (a), contains a section for the applicant's social security account number, or pursuant to subdivision (b), the applicant's driver's license or identification card number, if any, shall furnish the appropriate number in the space provided.

(d) The department shall not complete an application that does not include the applicant's social security account number or driver's license or identification card number as required under subdivision (c).

...

First, it is WELL established rule of legal construction that TITLES AND INDEXES HAVE NO FORCE OF LAW. "The law" is only what is contained in the actual body of the text, NOT the titles and indexes. That being the case, the government often misrepresents in the bold titles and indexes what the body of the law actually says. Here,the bold headline titleIMPLIES thatthere is a "requirement" to provide a Social Security Number that does not actually exist in the law below it, as you will soon see.

Second, notice that the law only REQUIRES that a space be provided on the form in which to write in a Social Security Number, IF ANY. It does not say anywhere that the number is "required", only the space to put one is.

Third, and most important, noticethe words "if any" in subdivision (c). This means that the number must be provided, only IF you have one to provide!

This is VERY important, as it is the "escape clause" that the governmentMUST put in to avoidviolating the constitution, as it would beunconstitutional to deny a Citizen of California, who, for whatever reason, does not have, and is not required by any law to have, a Social Security Number, or to use it to obtain a validstate identification card.

Subdivision (d) says that the department shall not completean application that does not containany number REQUIRED by subdivision (c). As we can see,subdivision (c) refers to three different numbers, and does not REQUIRE that you provide a Social Security Number, because the words "if any" makes it OPTIONAL.

Therefore, the law does not allow DMVto refuse to complete and process an application for a state ID carddue to lack of a Social Security Number being placed in the box provided for that number. The form, as required by law, simplycontains a place to write in a Social Security Number, "IF ANY", that is, ONLY IFyou have one to provide and wish to provide it!

The bottom line is thatCitizens of CaliforniaARE NOT REQUIRED to provide a Social Security Number to obtain a California State Identification Card,IF you do not have one to provide!

The only two words standing between some laws remaining on the books or being found unconstitutional and struck down are those two small words "IF ANY".

By the way, the same exact wording and legal principle applies in the federal banking regulations, which, contrary to common belief,DO NOT REQUIRE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TO OPEN ACCOUNTS, but say only that banksMAY ask for Social Security Numbers, but that account holders should only supply them, "IF ANY".

Do the research yourself. The titles and indexes often state or imply "requirements" that do not exist in the law, and since the titles and indexes are not actually considered part of the law, they are not subject to being struck down by the courts, and can say whatever thelawmakers want them to say,though to no effect, other than to intentionally mislead the average citizen as to what what the law REALLY requires.

Most people, if they even bother to go that far,will simply take one look at the title of a section and go no further. If they see thattitle says something is "required", even if it actually isn't, then they usually read no further and walk away firmly, but wrongly,believing that the law actually does requires a Social Security Number.

When reading the law, realize that it is a lot like reading a newspaper. The bold headlines are usually just propaganda for the consumption of casual passers-by, while the details in the text below often tell a completely different story to the more dedicated andwary reader who bothers to read the fine print to prove what the headlines appear to say.