Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
He is referencing rules 8 & 9

We just want to avoid putting another target on our backs by the alphabet soup.
If you have one of the few thousand registered Lightening links, please feel free to post pictures, talk about its performance, and answer all the questions you want to.

DO NOT EXPLAIN HOW TO MAKE THEM, OR PURCHASE THEM THAT IN ANY WAY TO CIRCUMVENTS CURRENT LAWS.
Thank you. I merely was unsure about what was being stated about "use" in post 2, and wished to verify that I wasn't going to break a board rule.

This thing does work as intended, but it can wear pretty fast, depending upon use...especially to the rear ear portion. I would recommend that if someone would obtain one, to immediately purchase what is commonly called a Lightning Link Re-Enforcer to reinforce a weak area of the link, because once the Lightning Link is broken, it cannot be legally repaired.

So much so, the manufacturer of this item has even posted a disclaimer to it's use:

...USING THIS REINFORCEMENT PIECE TO REPLACE ANY PART OF A REGISTERED BROKEN LIGHTNING LINK WOULD CONSTITUTE THE MANUFACTURE OF A NEW UNREGISTERED MACHINE GUN AND WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE NFA. (Ruling #903050:MRC 3311/2005-474).
This isn't to state that one can't make their own Re-enforcer, but I am merely providing this information here to avoid headaches and pitfalls.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
5,402 Posts
NFA - the FRAUD of 1934
How the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic insured its survival.
"Everybody knows" that there is a machine gun ban.
Actually, there isn't. The NFA imposed a hefty tax and stringent rules. But did they apply to the sovereign people in the united States of America?
Excerpt from:
NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934
48 STAT. 1236
( c ) The term “person” includes a partnership, company, association, or corporation as well as a natural person.​
(d) The term “continental United States” means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.​
Sec. 4 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that is the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof.​
( c ) Every person....​
(d) No person shall ....​
Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act.​
Sec. 8 (b) It shall be unlawful for anyone to obliterate, remove, change, or alter such number or other identification mark...​

PERSON EXCLUDES THE SOVEREIGN
A sovereign is not a "person" in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;

a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304

b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

c) "A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
"STATES OF THE UNITED STATES" doesn't always mean the several States.

Pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, the USA and US are two different entities.

“[Congress] shall be ... chosen ... by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature...”
- - - Article 1, Section 2, Constitution of the United States,
(for the United States of America - the several States)

50 USC Sec. 466. Definitions
(b) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, shall be deemed to mean the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

{No tricky "includes" here - just deemed to mean}

7 U.S.C. Sec. 390b
As used in sections 390a to 390j, inclusive, of this title -
(1) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States;

12 U.S.C. Sec. 2277a (6) State
The term `State' means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, any Territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Virgin Islands.

20 U.S.C. Sec. 3005 (b) Special rule
(2) the term `States' includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

STATES NOT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
“The States” is not equivalent to “The SEVERAL STATES” nor the "50 STATES."
26 USC Section 3306(j) State, United States, and American Employer.-
(1) State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(2) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the States, The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

{Very redundant, wouldn't you say? States = D.C. and the territories, not the several States / 50 States.}

SSA 1935
TITLE XI, SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act-
(1) The term "State" (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia .
(2) The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense means the States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia .

STATE = the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, DC
the STATES = the same thing

The last citation refers to ANYONE, not just a person. However, the venue and jurisdiction of this act does not appear to extend into the several States. And there is no delegation of power to do so.

Of course, this is post-bankruptcy and under an "emergency" wherein the government has just stolen all the people's gold money. So it makes sense to disarm the muggles - if only denying them fully automatic weapons that would impede enforcement of other collectivist policies.

HAIL HYDRA . . . uh, no. . . Hail to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America.

P.S. - write polite questionnaires to your government officials and ask if said law extends into the several States, and by what authority does the federal government violate the endowed rights of the sovereign people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Thank you. I merely was unsure about what was being stated about "use" in post 2, and wished to verify that I wasn't going to break a board rule.

This thing does work as intended, but it can wear pretty fast, depending upon use...especially to the rear ear portion. I would recommend that if someone would obtain one, to immediately purchase what is commonly called a Lightning Link Re-Enforcer to reinforce a weak area of the link, because once the Lightning Link is broken, it cannot be legally repaired.

So much so, the manufacturer of this item has even posted a disclaimer to it's use:



This isn't to state that one can't make their own Re-enforcer, but I am merely providing this information here to avoid headaches and pitfalls.
Imagine paying 20,000 dollars and then having that thin piece of sheet metal snap. And then ATF makes an arbitrary rule that one can not fix it. i wonder if they always work since below that there are variations for the internal dimensions of AR ;owers. Many years ago and this was for a registered link of some sort that cost 2,000 dollars in the lates 90's. I arrived just after the fellow had tried to use what ever it was. On his gun at that time it would not give him full auto fire, but another AR that was supposed be semi auto was doubling for him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
NFA - the FRAUD of 1934
How the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic insured its survival.
"Everybody knows" that there is a machine gun ban.
Actually, there isn't. The NFA imposed a hefty tax and stringent rules. But did they apply to the sovereign people in the united States of America?
Excerpt from:
NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934
48 STAT. 1236
( c ) The term “person” includes a partnership, company, association, or corporation as well as a natural person.​
(d) The term “continental United States” means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.​
Sec. 4 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that is the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof.​
( c ) Every person....​
(d) No person shall ....​
Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act.​
Sec. 8 (b) It shall be unlawful for anyone to obliterate, remove, change, or alter such number or other identification mark...​

PERSON EXCLUDES THE SOVEREIGN
A sovereign is not a "person" in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;

a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304

b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

c) "A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
"STATES OF THE UNITED STATES" doesn't always mean the several States.

Pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, the USA and US are two different entities.

“[Congress] shall be ... chosen ... by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature...”
- - - Article 1, Section 2, Constitution of the United States,
(for the United States of America - the several States)

50 USC Sec. 466. Definitions
(b) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, shall be deemed to mean the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

{No tricky "includes" here - just deemed to mean}

7 U.S.C. Sec. 390b
As used in sections 390a to 390j, inclusive, of this title -
(1) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States;

12 U.S.C. Sec. 2277a (6) State
The term `State' means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, any Territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Virgin Islands.

20 U.S.C. Sec. 3005 (b) Special rule
(2) the term `States' includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

STATES NOT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
“The States” is not equivalent to “The SEVERAL STATES” nor the "50 STATES."
26 USC Section 3306(j) State, United States, and American Employer.-
(1) State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(2) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the States, The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

{Very redundant, wouldn't you say? States = D.C. and the territories, not the several States / 50 States.}

SSA 1935
TITLE XI, SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act-
(1) The term "State" (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia .
(2) The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense means the States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia .

STATE = the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, DC
the STATES = the same thing

The last citation refers to ANYONE, not just a person. However, the venue and jurisdiction of this act does not appear to extend into the several States. And there is no delegation of power to do so.

Of course, this is post-bankruptcy and under an "emergency" wherein the government has just stolen all the people's gold money. So it makes sense to disarm the muggles - if only denying them fully automatic weapons that would impede enforcement of other collectivist policies.

HAIL HYDRA . . . uh, no. . . Hail to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America.

P.S. - write polite questionnaires to your government officials and ask if said law extends into the several States, and by what authority does the federal government violate the endowed rights of the sovereign people?
The moment someone in office reads 'sovereign people ' it will not be well regarded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
..and then you have the 'wild cards' that slip right thru thier stupid-sieve, ie:
..but 'braces' are a "Problem".. :rolleyes:

ATF: "Abolish This Fail"... :poop:

.02
jd
What you are showing there was meant as I understand It a ruling to allow the police to have short barreled shotguns as personal weapons without the need to do NFA paper work. Putting the brace on it is what upset ATF.
 
Joined
·
15,564 Posts
Imagine paying 20,000 dollars and then having that thin piece of sheet metal snap. And then ATF makes an arbitrary rule that one can not fix it.
I didn't pay $20K, but I see your point.

i wonder if they always work since below that there are variations for the internal dimensions of AR ;owers.
Every AR rifle that I've used such within, has worked. Then again, I haven't used it within any lower quality lowers.

Many years ago and this was for a registered link of some sort that cost 2,000 dollars in the lates 90's. I arrived just after the fellow had tried to use what ever it was. On his gun at that time it would not give him full auto fire, but another AR that was supposed be semi auto was doubling for him.
Do you remember David Olofson?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 · (Edited)
I didn't pay $20K, but I see your point.



Every AR rifle that I've used such within, has worked. Then again, I haven't used it within any lower quality lowers.



Do you remember David Olofson?
They are going now days for up to 20 K.

David Olofson I never got really detailed explanation. I am not sure what parts were in that gun or not. It is not uncommon for a semiauto rifle to double, particularly if some springs are less then full strength.
For example I put in a tapco trigger on a MAK 90 AK. It was a lighter trigger and with full length tapco folder there was never a problem. I switched the plastic TAPCO folder for a Romanian folder that was shorter the rifle became to double when I fired it, but the instructor at a class I was attended had no problem. He was very stout with short arms and it not have happen when he fired it. I concluded the gun was bump firing. I changed that unit out for another TAPCO trigger-disconnector-hammer unit that was a heavier pull and no more doubling. I finished the class with a WASR that I have brought along as backup.
On July 13, 2006, US Army Reservist David Olofson of Berlin, Wisconsin, lent an AR-15 rifle to Robert Kiernicki, who took the gun to a local shooting range.[5][6] The firing selector switch on the rifle had three positions: "Fire," "Safety," and a third, unmarked position.[6] While at the range Kiernicki switched the AR-15's firing selector to the third position and pulled the trigger.[5] The gun discharged three or four rounds and then jammed; Kiernicki did this several times with the rifle jamming each time.[5][6] Following a telephone complaint of automatic gunfire, Berlin police showed up at the range, and after questioning Kiernicki, confiscated Olofson's AR-15 and contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) about the incident.[5][6]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,937 Posts
This is not a thread on sovereign citizens. There are already several threads on it. Go to one of those I'd you wish to discuss it.
 

·
read more, post less
Joined
·
559 Posts
I used to prepare Tax returns and represent folks before the I.R.S. I learned forty years ago that you have a few different 'levels' for application of the law(s). You have the U.S. Code, then the CFR's (Code of Federal Regulations) and then the I.R.S. publications (rulings). As you can guess, the CFR's 'water down' the Code and the publications 'water down' the CFR's, all in the .gov favor. At the end of the day, the US Code rules, not the CFR's and/or rulings. I never lost a case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATF seems to be charging a lot of folks based upon their CFR's and rulings. Does anyone ever fight it by going to the underlying US code?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,764 Posts
You know the NRA used that exact argument to oppose DC vs Heller, which single handedly overturned bans on handgun ownership and concealed carry across the country. Had the NRA gotten it's way then, you'd be without many of the victories we've had then, and since.
The NRA did not "oppose" DC vs Heller. The NRA attorneys opinion at the time they were approached about taking on the case was that the current SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled in our favor. That judgement call turned out to be wrong, by one vote. If the NRA had taken it and lost, you'd be here attacking them for that Heller decision that took away the 2nd amendment.

The NRA filed an amicus brief in Heller supporting it.

The NRA has gone on to file several successful lawsuits based on Heller.

So justify your saving 25 bucks a year some other way, and don't lie about them.

.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top