One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
State Law & Gun Ownership
Aug 3, 2022 14:18:49   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
My friend in Oregon sent me this email:

This is something I recently sent to a gun rights group that you might like to read. -Bill


This post is not intended to be seen as racist - but instead a post of facts intended to get people to question the propaganda the gov't and self proclaimed constitutional scholars have shoved on them.

In this post, I'm only dealing with free whites because non-whites have always been under a completely different system of law from free whites. It is a system of law of only slightly limited communism.

The courts have clearly stated that they have access to no bill of rights.

For those that have studied the history of our country, they are aware that the Declaration of Independence was a document created by free whites and its intent only incorporated free whites.

Until the 14th amendment was adopted [ verses ratified ] only free whites could gain citizenship in the states. The United States was absolutely forbidden to have any permanent citizens.

Due to this, all citizenship arose from being a citizen of one of the states.

All the state constitutions were created by free whites to secure rights for free whites.

The constitutions were charters that gave state gov't life. In the state constitutions, all the powers that the state gov't could exercise were spelled out in the constitutions that the free whites used to create their gov't, the purpose of which was to serve free whites.

The SCOTUS stated that the United State [ fed gov't ] in regard to the citizens of the states [ free whites ] was limited to only those powers clearly defined in that instrument.

The same applies on the state level with the state constitutions. They only have the powers over free whites that those free whites granted them in the constitution that created their state gov't.

This is where understanding what the 10th amendment actually means is important.

Before I continue, it is important to understand that the fed bill of rights does not apply to free whites. The reason is simple. For free whites, citizenship arises on the state level and until the 14th amendment was adopted, it was the states that naturalized people - not the United States.

The state constitution were ratified to secure and defend the rights of the free whites. Each even has its own bill of rights.

In Oregon, in its bill of rights, in regard to gun ownership, it is much more clear about the right of free whites to own guns than even the 2nd amendment is.

"Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

Two points:
1] This forbids the state to take away the right of an adult [ 18 and up ] to own firearms.
2] No place in the state constitution is Oregon granted the power to impose gun laws on free whites.

Extra note: Search as you may, no place in the constitution for the fed gov't did the states grant the fed gov't [ United States ] the power to come into the states and impose its general laws upon the pre-14th citizens of the states. I call them 'state-only' citizens because they are not citizens of the fed gov't [ United States ]. That status only applies to naturalized whites and non-whites.

Considering what I have stated, and which can be verified, by what presumed authority are the states and the fed gov't claiming the power to impose their gun laws upon free whites in the state or even traveling in the United States?

It gets even better. Many decades ago, all gov't was incorporated and each corporation had to accept a fed TIN. Tax Identification Number.

The STATE OF Oregon is a corporation.
The OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR is a corporation
The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is a corporation.
The LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF OREGON is a corporation
The JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT is a corporation
The DISTRICT ATTORNEYS & THEIR DEPUTIES is a corporation.

Corporations are artificial persons that exist at the pleasure of congress. No constitution grants such persons any police powers over free whites. In fact, I'm doubtful they can even claim any police powers over naturalized whites and non-whites.

The fact that every gov't body is incorporated means we have no constitutional gov't. That means, no constitutional courts, which are the only ones with authority over free whites. An important topic for another day is the fact that all judicial branch trial courts were actually closed around 70 years ago,

Remember, constitutionally, a free white can only be tried in a judicial branch [ common law ] court.

So, you have a state corporation that is bringing a complaint against you for violation of a rule created by another corporation [ legislature ]. The complaint is sent to another corporation [ judicial dept - but that is just a name. It is actually sending it back to the legislative branch which owns the court. ] and you are prosecuted by yet another corporation [ District Attorney ] and if convicted, you are held in jail or prison by another corporation.

Where is the authority for all that? Since corporations have stock holders, some where along the line, it is actually stock holders bringing a complaint against you.

When in court, under the right to discover, you are deemed to have a right to exculpatory evidence. This means every detail related to the law and the claim against you [ nature and cause ].

That means that you have a right to know who the actual plaintiff is. That is a question they will not answer - but if they don't the rules of due process forbid the court to proceed [ unless they can bully you into giving them permission ].

The law and rules are different in many ways for naturalized whites and non-whites. No constitution secures to them the same rights as state-born whites. The court have been very clear about this fact.

This is a lot to digest and once you do, you should be able to easily figure out a way to stop a proceeding for gun ownership without gov't permission.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 20:30:14   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ginny_Dandy wrote:
My friend in Oregon sent me this email:

This is something I recently sent to a gun rights group that you might like to read. -Bill


This post is not intended to be seen as racist - but instead a post of facts intended to get people to question the propaganda the gov't and self proclaimed constitutional scholars have shoved on them.

In this post, I'm only dealing with free whites because non-whites have always been under a completely different system of law from free whites. It is a system of law of only slightly limited communism.

The courts have clearly stated that they have access to no bill of rights.

For those that have studied the history of our country, they are aware that the Declaration of Independence was a document created by free whites and its intent only incorporated free whites.

Until the 14th amendment was adopted [ verses ratified ] only free whites could gain citizenship in the states. The United States was absolutely forbidden to have any permanent citizens.

Due to this, all citizenship arose from being a citizen of one of the states.

All the state constitutions were created by free whites to secure rights for free whites.

The constitutions were charters that gave state gov't life. In the state constitutions, all the powers that the state gov't could exercise were spelled out in the constitutions that the free whites used to create their gov't, the purpose of which was to serve free whites.

The SCOTUS stated that the United State [ fed gov't ] in regard to the citizens of the states [ free whites ] was limited to only those powers clearly defined in that instrument.

The same applies on the state level with the state constitutions. They only have the powers over free whites that those free whites granted them in the constitution that created their state gov't.

This is where understanding what the 10th amendment actually means is important.

Before I continue, it is important to understand that the fed bill of rights does not apply to free whites. The reason is simple. For free whites, citizenship arises on the state level and until the 14th amendment was adopted, it was the states that naturalized people - not the United States.

The state constitution were ratified to secure and defend the rights of the free whites. Each even has its own bill of rights.

In Oregon, in its bill of rights, in regard to gun ownership, it is much more clear about the right of free whites to own guns than even the 2nd amendment is.

"Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]"

Two points:
1] This forbids the state to take away the right of an adult [ 18 and up ] to own firearms.
2] No place in the state constitution is Oregon granted the power to impose gun laws on free whites.

Extra note: Search as you may, no place in the constitution for the fed gov't did the states grant the fed gov't [ United States ] the power to come into the states and impose its general laws upon the pre-14th citizens of the states. I call them 'state-only' citizens because they are not citizens of the fed gov't [ United States ]. That status only applies to naturalized whites and non-whites.

Considering what I have stated, and which can be verified, by what presumed authority are the states and the fed gov't claiming the power to impose their gun laws upon free whites in the state or even traveling in the United States?

It gets even better. Many decades ago, all gov't was incorporated and each corporation had to accept a fed TIN. Tax Identification Number.

The STATE OF Oregon is a corporation.
The OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR is a corporation
The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is a corporation.
The LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF OREGON is a corporation
The JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT is a corporation
The DISTRICT ATTORNEYS & THEIR DEPUTIES is a corporation.

Corporations are artificial persons that exist at the pleasure of congress. No constitution grants such persons any police powers over free whites. In fact, I'm doubtful they can even claim any police powers over naturalized whites and non-whites.

The fact that every gov't body is incorporated means we have no constitutional gov't. That means, no constitutional courts, which are the only ones with authority over free whites. An important topic for another day is the fact that all judicial branch trial courts were actually closed around 70 years ago,

Remember, constitutionally, a free white can only be tried in a judicial branch [ common law ] court.

So, you have a state corporation that is bringing a complaint against you for violation of a rule created by another corporation [ legislature ]. The complaint is sent to another corporation [ judicial dept - but that is just a name. It is actually sending it back to the legislative branch which owns the court. ] and you are prosecuted by yet another corporation [ District Attorney ] and if convicted, you are held in jail or prison by another corporation.

Where is the authority for all that? Since corporations have stock holders, some where along the line, it is actually stock holders bringing a complaint against you.

When in court, under the right to discover, you are deemed to have a right to exculpatory evidence. This means every detail related to the law and the claim against you [ nature and cause ].

That means that you have a right to know who the actual plaintiff is. That is a question they will not answer - but if they don't the rules of due process forbid the court to proceed [ unless they can bully you into giving them permission ].

The law and rules are different in many ways for naturalized whites and non-whites. No constitution secures to them the same rights as state-born whites. The court have been very clear about this fact.

This is a lot to digest and once you do, you should be able to easily figure out a way to stop a proceeding for gun ownership without gov't permission.
My friend in Oregon sent me this email: br br b ... (show quote)


The state of Oregon also doesn't honor any other state's concealed carry permit. One of my daughters lives in Oregon and if I plan on going there, I plan to get an Oregon Non Resident permit.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 20:41:31   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
Peaver Bogart wrote:
The state of Oregon also doesn't honor any other state's concealed carry permit. One of my daughters lives in Oregon and if I plan on going there, I plan to get an Oregon Non Resident permit.


Would that be for 'open carry'?

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 20:49:41   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ginny_Dandy wrote:
Would that be for 'open carry'?


No, concealed carry. I don't know if they have open carry laws or not. I prefer concealed carry myself.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 00:46:02   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
Peaver Bogart wrote:
No, concealed carry. I don't know if they have open carry laws or not. I prefer concealed carry myself.


I would prefer concealed carry, too, if I could get one. When I was trying to get a armed security guard license, the FBI said my fingerprints were obscure, so I never got the license. Now I'm afraid to even try.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 13:19:38   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ginny_Dandy wrote:
I would prefer concealed carry, too, if I could get one. When I was trying to get a armed security guard license, the FBI said my fingerprints were obscure, so I never got the license. Now I'm afraid to even try.


If I were you, I'd try again. Perhaps the person who was taking your prints wasn't experienced enough at it. The last time I had mine renewed, she had to do mine over a few times because that photo fingerprint machine wasn't reading them right. They should go back to the old way with ink and paper.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 13:54:53   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
Peaver Bogart wrote:
If I were you, I'd try again. Perhaps the person who was taking your prints wasn't experienced enough at it. The last time I had mine renewed, she had to do mine over a few times because that photo fingerprint machine wasn't reading them right. They should go back to the old way with ink and paper.


It was in the old days of ink & paper that I had my prints done - 3 times.

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 13:58:47   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ginny_Dandy wrote:
It was in the old days of ink & paper that I had my prints done - 3 times.


You should still do it again.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 14:41:22   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
Peaver Bogart wrote:
You should still do it again.


It may take a cattle prod to get me to try it again. lol

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 15:28:11   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ginny_Dandy wrote:
It may take a cattle prod to get me to try it gain. lol


I got one of those.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 15:34:56   #
Ginny_Dandy Loc: Pacific Northwest
 
Peaver Bogart wrote:
I got one of those.


Thank goodness you're a few hundred miles from me. 😂

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.