Federal Gun Law
Click here to download this article,
Federal Gun Law, 4-page, pdf
Click here to download Spanish
translation of this article, LEY
FEDERAL DE ARMAS, 6-pagina, pdf
This paper will focus on the fact that
our Dept. of Justice and B.A.T.F. (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms), are
operating under the "color of law"
and systematically denying We the People of our right to the "Due Process
of the Law". Our prisons are
filled with our citizens to the point that the "land of the free" now
has the highest prisoner per capita rate in the world.
Common Law
crime, which requires a victim with injuries or damages, has not produced enough
business for our criminal justice system. By
using statutory law and hiding the necessity for implementing regulations, this
system has been able to increase it's number of customers by more than eight
times, without there being any increase in crime, as there are no additional
victims. (Other than the persons
being prosecuted under the color of law).
The following
was learned from a true story of an arrest and prosecution under the U.S.
Criminal Code Title 18 §922. We
will use this case as an example, but it is typical of many thousands of cases
involving American Citizens. These
principles apply to all Federal Gun Law cases.
The principle of need for regulation applies to all statutory law,
State or Federal.
The many cases
mentioned above were all prosecuted under Statute 922 of the Gun Control Act.
§922 Unlawful Acts. 922(g)
reads as follows: “It shall be
unlawful for any person
[ who is an ex-convict, drug addict, illegal alien, etc.]... to ship or
transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce,
any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has
been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Words
having universal scope, such as... "every person
who shall monopolize," etc. will be taken, as a matter of course, to
mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the
legislator subsequently may be able to catch.
- American Banana Co. v United
Fruit Co., 213
U.S. 347, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of Our US Supreme Court.
It is an operation of law that
every statute be implemented by regulation.
How do we know that? Let’s
check with the U.S. Supreme Court for their opinion and insight in a 1960
criminal case.
U.S.
vs.
Mersky
The
result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete
without the other, and only together do they have any force.
In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the
construction of the other." US vs. Mersky
(361 US 431, 4 L ed 2nd 423)
We can locate the corresponding
regulation for the statute 922. Then
we can all be assured that the convictions of those many thousands of cases we
mentioned are in order, and that none of those people have had their "life,
liberty, or property seized without the due process of the law".
(See Article 5 of The Bill of Rights).
The law requires
that an Administrative Agency be clear about how the statute will be implemented
and who is subject to regulatory police powers.
That is why the regulation is needed.
The Dept. of Justice and the B.A.T.F. are administrative agencies.
According to the Administrative
Procedures Act found in Title 5 US Code §553, the regulations promulgated by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms must first be published in the
Federal Register for public comment and debate by interested persons.
Once the rulemaking process is lawfully finished, the regulation is
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Looking in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules we found the regulation
for the Statute 922 in the following table.
Excerpt
from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules
Statutes
in Title 18
Regulations in CFRS
U.S. Code Section
Code of Federal Regulations
847
27 Parts 55, 178
921-928
27 Part 178
921
27 Part 72
926
27 Part 200
In the above
table Statutes 921-928 all have one or more implementing regulations.
They have been properly implemented into law and have force and effect of
law. §922(g) would be included in
§921-§928. It's application is at
Title 27, (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), CFR Part 178.
Earlier we said that Regulations will be clear about who the Statute
applies to. Statutes are general in
that they use such terms as "any person" to cover any situation,
leaving to the regulations the specifics. Congress
delegates the authority to the agency to define specifically who the regulations
will apply to, and how it will be implemented.
(i.e.. the administrative procedures to be followed).
Lets look at CFR 27 Part 178, titled Commerce in Firearms and
Ammunition. It’s a
lengthy regulation with 110 sections. (Very
Specific). The first section is:
Sec.
178.1 Scope of regulations.
(a)
General. The regulations
contained in this part relate to commerce in firearms and ammunition and
are promulgated
to implement Title 1, State Firearms Control Assistance (18 U.S.C.
Chapter 44), of the Gun Control Act
of 1968.
(b) Procedural and substantive requirements.
This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements
relative to:
(1) The interstate or foreign commerce in firearms and
ammunition;
(2)
The licensing of manufacturers and importers of
firearms and ammunition, collectors of firearms, and dealers in firearms;
(3)
The conduct of business or activity by licensees;
-
(4)
The importation of firearms and ammunition;
(5)
The records and reports required of licensees;
(6)
Relief from disabilities under this part;
(7)
Exempt interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and ammuntion;
and
(8)
Restrictions on armor piercing ammunition.
[underlines added]
Read all or
part of the remainder of this regulation or any other regulation and you will
see that these are Administrative Procedures that apply to people within the
Agency. To confirm what we are
saying about Administrative Regulation for Government Agencies we offer another
U.S. Supreme Court ruling:
California Bankers Association vs. Schultz
Under the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe
by regulation certain record keeping and reporting requirements for banks
and other financial institutions in this country.
... we think it is important to note that the Acts civil and criminal penalties
attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
if the Secretary were to do nothing the Act itself would impose no
penalties on anyone. 416
US 21, 39L.ed.2d 812
[underlines added]
Do you
see the part that states the Regulation must be violated to incur penalties? How
is that possible if you are not under Regulatory Powers of the Agency?
(Licensed, registered under their authority). Would they apply to you?
The famous Wickard v. Filburn (1942) case, relied
on by Federal prosecuting attorneys and judges to claim jurisdiction
under the interstate commerce clause, actually says quite the opposite:
The
precedent upon which the federal government’s ability to govern interstate
commerce, Wickard v. Filburn, is premised upon the fact that the plaintiff
in that case registered in a federal program.
…the Wickard basis of jurisdiction is inapplicable here.
The
authority to regulate interstate commerce is a limited power granted by We the
People to our U.S. Government by our Constitution. (Article 1 Section 8)
This limited power does not supercede Our Inalienable Rights (in
this case: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”) The 2nd Amendment
was intended to secure this right from possible Government intervention or abuse
of its powers.
Where
rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 491
Lets look at another U.S. Supreme
Court case. Though the issue of
regulations was not raised by either party and the Supreme Court didn't bring it
up either, lest they expose the fraud of Federal Gun Law: leaving us to believe
it has general application to people in the private sector.
U.S.
vs Lopez
514 U.S. 549 (1995)
After respondent, then a
12th grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was
charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which forbids
"any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he]
knows.... is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q) (1)(A). ... the Court of
Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient
congressional findings and legislative his-tory,922(q) is invalid as beyond
Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
[Excerpts from ruling:]
The Act exceeds Congress'
Commerce Clause authority. Section
922(q) is a criminal statute that by it1s terms has nothing to do
with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly
those terms are defined.
Justice
Rehnquist:
[excerpts from his opinion, U.S. vs Lopez]
Under
the theories that the Government presents in support of 922(q), it is
difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as
criminal law enforcement or education where States have historically been
sovereign. Thus, if we were to
accept the Government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by
an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.
And here is an excerpt from
Clarence Thomas concurring opinion, U.S. vs Lopez:
These cases all establish
a simple point from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the
mid-1930s, it was widely understood that the Constitution granted Congress only
limited powers, notwithstanding the Commerce Clause.
When asked at oral
argument if there were any limits to the Commerce Clause, the Government was
at a loss for words. Likewise the
principal dissent insists that there are limits, but it cannot muster even
one example. Indeed the dissent
implicitly concedes that its reading has no limits when it criticizes the
Court for "threaten[ing] legal uncertainty in an area of law that..
.seemed reasonably well settled." The
one advantage of the dissent’s standard is certainty: it is certain that
under its analysis everything may be regulated under the guise of the Commerce
Clause.
At an appropriate
juncture we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today, it is easy
enough to say that the Clause certainly does not empower Congress to ban gun
possession within 1,000 feet of a school. [end of opinion of Judge Clarence Thomas, ,
U.S. vs Lopez]
Notice how the
Government and the Court flounder here trying to determine the extent of
Congress' authority? Notice how
Congress’ authority to regulate Interstate Commerce now includes Intrastate Commerce also?
While trying to define the parameters of lawful regulation what
do they overlook? That’s right,
the Regulations! What would
happen if they applied the due process of law (the application of the
regulation) to determine who has what authority?
How did the
violation of our due process occur? Legislators,
Judges, and Government Agents have all taken oaths to uphold and protect our
Constitution. Under whose authority
was this fraud perpetrated? We feel
it is by authority of WE the People. We
should remember some of the principles this nation was founded on,
like: Our Government exists only by the authority of We the People, or
the sovereignty of the Republic resides in We the People. It sounds like We the
People should take more responsibility and accountability for the actions of our
Government. If we expect positive
changes, isn’t it up to the whole of We the People to bring this change about?
The best course of action that We the People can take is by obtaining
information and wielding it properly, and above all, standing up for our rights.
Have your friends and relatives download this and other CSL updated
articles from our website http://www.commonsenselaw.com/Articles.htm,
printout, make copies and send it to you and other prisoners.
We must remember always that accusation is not proof,
and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not
be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history
and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful
men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to
defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.
– Edward R. Murrow
---
NOTE: To
our knowledge the preceding information is correct and accurate at the time of
this writing. If you find any
errors or omission, or have comments, please contact us.
For mail response include SASE
WITH ENOUGH POSTAGE TO COVER 1 OUNCE for letter, 3 OUNCES for Motion or other
Articles.
Contact: Common
Sense Law, P.O. Box 6528, Santa Rosa, CA 95406
Email: commonsenselaw
@ yahoo.com (remove
spaces for emailer)
This Article and other updated CSL
Articles can be
downloaded at website: www.commonsenselaw.com
All information is provided for educational
purposes only. Common Sense Law does not provide legal advice.
The authors are not attorneys and not officers of a court of law. If
you are seeking legal counsel, contact an attorney and/or do your own due
diligent research.
Color of Law:
Color of Law: The
appearance, without the substance, of a legal right.
An action done with the apparent authority of law but actually in
contravention of law. – Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., Stephen H.
Gifis.
Click here to download this article,
Federal Gun Law, 4-page, pdf
Click here to download Spanish
translation of this article, LEY
FEDERAL DE ARMAS, 6-pagina, pdf
