State #7 tells the Feds to keep their hands to themselves.

[SemiAutoSam]

Will California or Mass join the group ?

I wont hold my breath!!!

A sixth state – Arizona – now has declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations in a surging movement among states that one supporter describes as a direct challenge to "a government monopoly on the supply of firearms."

Gov. Jan Brewer this week signed the state's version of a "Firearms Freedom Act," which originated in Montana and now has been adopted by six states, with several dozen more in various stages of their own plans.

Brewer issued a statement that the law is intended to give Washington the message that they should not try to "get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights."

Arizona joins Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Tennessee as well as Montana, where Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association was a key proponent.

Marbut has warned that under the current system of federal approval for gun purchases, federal registration requirements, federal restrictions and federal limits, the U.S. essentially has established a monopoly on guns.

The "Firearms Freedom Act" measures being adopted around the nation now, he said, are supported by the Ninth and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and are needed to break down that monopoly.

In an analysis posted on the ProGunLeaders website, he wrote:

"The current federal scheme of regulating the supply system for new firearms in the U.S. is so complete it might actually constitute a government monopoly on the supply of firearms. Under current federal regulation, no firearm may be made and sold to another person without federal government permission – not one firearm," he wrote.

With the natural right of self-defense, people must also be allowed access to firearms made and sold outside the government-controlled supply chain," he said.

To submit to a government gun monopoly, he said, would be to believe "that the Constitution is an old, dead, obsolete and meaningless piece of paper, the Ninth Amendment is as worthless as the rest, and has no relevance to the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act]," he wrote.

"If the observer believes that the Constitution actually means something, and that those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments had authority to do so, that they understood meaningful terms precisely as used and applied in their time, and that they knew what they were doing, then import of the Ninth Amendment begins to come into focus."

Derek Sheriff reported at the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center that Arizona's bill asserts "Arizona's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people's unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States."

Kurt Hofmann of the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner said the surging movement across the states is "a challenge to the federal government's grotesquely expansive use of the interstate commerce to regulate – well … everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce or not."

"Liberty doesn't just happen – it needs to be worked for," he said. "Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it."

Marbut, who has described himself as the godfather of the Firearms Freedom Act movement, has reported previously that while Constitution's Commerce Clause can be viewed as regulating interstate commerce, it also can be viewed as having been modified when the later Second Amendment assuring citizens of the right to own weapons was adopted.

No less significant, he suggests, is the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In the Western world, he said, "Individuals voluntarily surrender some portion of their political power to the community of their state in order to empower the state to do some selected things for them in common that they cannot do well or effectively as individuals. The political state of individuals, in turn, surrenders a specific portion of its collected political power to the United States under our federated system, and for the same reasons.

"However, it is important to note two important points. First, this grant of power from sovereign individuals to state, and secondarily from state to federal, is a limited transfer of power. Under this system, people do not sell themselves into slavery to unlimited governments, nor do they fail to delineate limits to this grant of political power to governments. Second, this grant of power from individuals to government is for a very specific purpose."

The Declaration of Independence states "governments are instituted among men" "to secure" the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," he writes.

Throughout the founding of the U.S., he explains, individuals always have granted "carefully specified powers" to a central government, not an authoritarian right to control everything.

Specific rights were retained in the Bill of Rights, which was never intended to be an exhaustive list. Hence, the Ninth Amendment, he said.

"Some of those most interested in instituting a federal government 'to secure these rights' understood that it would be impossible to provide an exhaustive catalog of rights inherent in people as a part of their humanity, 'natural rights' or 'liberty rights,'" he wrote.

He said there are powers and rights that cannot be particularly enumerated, and if a list of rights is specific, it could be interpreted that no other rights exist.

"The Ninth and Tenth Amendments [reserving other rights to the people and states] were added to protect all rights not listed in the first eight amendments," he said.

"Examples are the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, the right of freedom of conscience, and the right to choose in one's own affairs, all considered to be important individual rights but none mentioned under the list of protected rights in the Bill of Rights," he said.

Applying it to the present case, he said, the right to self-defense strongly implies the right to keep and bear arms.

"Of what value are any or all of the other protected rights if a person may not defend the person from threat to life or limb? How could a newspaperman exercise his freedom of the press if he could be killed with impunity? How could any person effectively exercise his freedom of speech if he could be summarily killed because he exercised that freedom?" he asked.

When South Dakota's law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator there noted it addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades."

Marbut has told WND the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he told WND earlier. "When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws."

WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of actually including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm."

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

But the bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

In demanding the dismissal of the case, the government claimed the authority to regulate even "intrastate" commerce if it chooses.

In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," said the analysis.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'noneffective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens."

 

[SemiAutoSam]

2nd part

REBELLION IN AMERICA
States exempting guns from rules now total 7
Idaho governor signs law based on 9th, 10th amendments
Posted: April 08, 2010
11:30 pm Eastern

Joining a nationwide effort to challenge Washington's authority, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter today made his state the seventh to exempt guns made and kept in the state from any federal regulations.

House Bill 589 was listed today on Otter's website among legislation that had been signed into law. The governor added Idaho to the list of states that have adopted what has become known as "Firearm Freedom Acts."

The movement began in Montana, where a court case was filed seeking affirmation that the state – and not bureaucrats in the nation's capital – has the right to manage in-state issues and actions.

Idaho's legislation cites the Second, Ninth and 10th Amendments as justification for its exemption, as well as the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

"The Tenth Amendment … guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Idaho certain powers as they were understood at the time that Idaho was admitted to statehood in 1890," the law says.

The Ninth Amendment also provides the state authority for its own rules for guns made and kept in the state, and the Second Amendment "reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Idaho as admitted to statehood," it states.

The focal point of the new law is a "Prohibition of Federal Regulation of Certain Firearms."

According to the Firearms Freedom Act website, such laws are "primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the 'commerce clause,' with firearms as the object – it is a state's rights exercise."

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association has been called the godfather of the movement for his work on the original plan that took effect last year in Montana.

Since then, Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Arizona joined in the effort before today's result in Idaho. Marbut told WND today that officials are reporting that at least another 24 states are considering similar legislation.

WND reported yesterday Arizona became state No. 6 in the fight.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued a statement that the law is intended to give Washington the message that federal agents should not try to "get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights."

Marbut has warned that under the current system of federal approval for gun purchases, federal registration requirements, federal restrictions and federal limits, the U.S. essentially has established a monopoly on guns.

All the information you'll ever need about guns, ammo and a special video on how to make them, found in the "Firearms Multimedia Guide."

The "Firearms Freedom Act" measures being adopted now, he said, are needed to break down that monopoly.

In an analysis posted on the ProGunLeaders website, he wrote: "The current federal scheme of regulating the supply system for new firearms in the U.S. is so complete it might actually constitute a government monopoly on the supply of firearms. Under current federal regulation, no firearm may be made and sold to another person without federal government permission – not one firearm.

"With the natural right of self-defense, people must also be allowed access to firearms made and sold outside the government-controlled supply chain," he said.

To submit to a government gun monopoly, he said, would be to believe "that the Constitution is an old, dead, obsolete and meaningless piece of paper, the Ninth Amendment is as worthless as the rest, and has no relevance to the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act].

"If the observer believes that the Constitution actually means something, and that those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments had authority to do so, that they understood meaningful terms precisely as used and applied in their time, and that they knew what they were doing, then import of the Ninth Amendment begins to come into focus."

Derek Sheriff reported at the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center that Arizona's bill asserts "Arizona's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people's unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States."

Kurt Hofmann of the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner said the surging movement across the states is "a challenge to the federal government's grotesquely expansive use of the interstate commerce to regulate – well … everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce or not."

"Liberty doesn't just happen – it needs to be worked for," he said. "Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it."

When South Dakota's law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator there noted it addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades."

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he told WND earlier. "When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws."

WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of actually including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm."

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

But the bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

The next date for that legal contest will involve various other groups with an interest in the outcome seeking to be allowed to join the state groups that brought the case.

 

[Twigg]

That's good to hear.

I hope New Hampshire gets offa their butt on this and votes it through this time 'round.

 

[dgoalie]

Great to see a green strip right through the country. Congrats to AZ on this. I hear UT is getting worried that AZ will be ranked higher in next year's Brady rankings of the state's with the "worst" gun laws.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

The folks at BATFE must be having a cow!

 

[Lamina]

I'm pledging this right now... The second NH passes such a law, I'll be incorporating an LLC that day, and I'll be hitting up my VC contacts for some capital... I swear to god, I'll start a company to produce everything the NH law legally allows me to.

Hell, I may incorporate now, just to get the ball rolling.

 

[terraformer]

I'm pledging this right now... The second NH passes such a law, I'll be incorporating an LLC that day, and I'll be hitting up my VC contacts for some capital... I swear to god, I'll start a company to produce everything the NH law legally allows me to.

Hell, I may incorporate now, just to get the ball rolling.

FYI: The feds have vowed to prosecute anyone not following their rules and not a single state has pledged to actually protect one of it's citizens. You know, by standing up to the feds with force from coming in to arrest their target.

 

[Titan]

FYI: The feds have vowed to prosecute anyone not following their rules and not a single state has pledged to actually protect one of it's citizens. You know, by standing up to the feds with force from coming in to arrest their target.

These are all great gestures and I applaud the effort, but my understanding, is that based on the CA 'medical marijuana' laws, that the courts will rule that federal law always superseds local law on the same subject.

 

[ChangeTheGame]

FYI: The feds have vowed to prosecute anyone not following their rules and not a single state has pledged to actually protect one of it's citizens. You know, by standing up to the feds with force from coming in to arrest their target.

NH's version of the law is different from the others. HB 1285 departs from the Montana model in that it sets criminal penalties for any person attempting to enforce federal criminal laws against the maker of a New Hampshire-made and retained firearm.

 

[terraformer]

NH's version of the law is different from the others. HB 1285 departs from the Montana model in that it sets criminal penalties for any person attempting to enforce federal criminal laws against the maker of a New Hampshire-made and retained firearm.

Yeah, so? There is a thing called federal preemption. Unless the governor says, I will have the national guard stand outside your place of business and the homes of your customers, this whole thing is a farce. Similar to the CA, WA et al pot laws that the feds have ruined people's lives over.

 

[Lamina]

Yup, I'm aware of the feds position on the matter. It's gonna take a little thing called balls.

Oh, and there is an inherent difference between a grower of marijuana telling the feds to stuff it and a manufacturer of arms. See if y'all can guess what it is.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

HB 1285 departs from the Montana model in that it sets criminal penalties for any person attempting to enforce federal criminal laws against the maker of a New Hampshire-made and retained firearm.

The federal courts have already determined that a federal court can cancel a state level indictment of a federal LEO for an action taken in performance of his.her duties. This was done after Lon Horuchi was indicted by Idaho for the Ruby Ridge shooting - the feds said "Nope, he's our man, he cannot be indicted by a state without our permission" - and the federal courts concurred.

 

[terraformer]

Yup, I'm aware of the feds position on the matter. It's gonna take a little thing called balls.

Oh, and there is an inherent difference between a grower of marijuana telling the feds to stuff it and a manufacturer of arms. See if y'all can guess what it is.

And I doubt that difference will amount to a hill of beans because of the "reasonable restrictions" escape clause.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Maybe this would be a good time to shed ones Federal citizenship and regain ones State Citizenship ?

FYI: The feds have vowed to prosecute anyone not following their rules and not a single state has pledged to actually protect one of it's citizens. You know, by standing up to the feds with force from coming in to arrest their target.

 

[firestorm]

Maybe this would be a good time to shed ones Federal citizenship and regain ones State Citizenship ?

Indeed, because the federal government is going to just say "Oh, im sorry. Of course we won't prosecute because you are only a state citizen. Our fault, go on your way sir"

 

[exo]

Gotta start somewhere.

 

[Twigg]

Gotta start somewhere.

This.

No revolution ever began by a full frontal assault with thousands of [STRIKE]militia[/STRIKE] citizens.
Its more like a few "isolated incidents" then some minor bloodletting and a massacre or two before things jump into full swing.

Frankly I'm gonna hope for change come November.

 

[MassMark]

He'll have business partners who want to be free men and not hide behind obscure pre-emption clauses, too.

This.

Gotta start somewhere.

This.

Maybe this would be a good time to shed ones Federal citizenship and regain ones State Citizenship ?

This.

This.

No revolution ever began by a full frontal assault with thousands of [STRIKE]militia[/STRIKE] citizens.
Its more like a few "isolated incidents" then some minor bloodletting and a massacre or two before things jump into full swing.

Frankly I'm gonna hope for change come November.

And This.

Thank you - it's refreshing to be reminded from time to time that there are still folks who are not: "But the Federal Government is big and bad and will hurt meee" types among us.... Folks who put freedom, liberty and rights before big screen TV's and 9-5. Who still hold a principle set forth long ago by free men and since bastardized by those who see their position in life as beholden to the government, their jobs, their useless firearms collection - "all show no go" and a glass of liberty that remains half empty.

Cheers gentlemen...

 

[dgoalie]

I know this is a gun forum and we like to focus on the gun piece of this legislation, but the heart of these laws challenge interstate commerce. They are meant to get that issue before SCOTUS. Montana has already filed a lawsuit and the more states that pass this the greater chance the suit has of making it to SCOTUS. It is the belief of each of these states that past decisions were incorrect and they believe the Supreme Court as currently constituted would agree and return intrastate commerce decisions back to the states where it belongs. Guns may be the vehicle, but they really aren't the finish line on this one. I don't think anyone will have to actually attempt to use this law if enough states pass it. That in itself will be enough to force SCOTUS to consider it.

 

[strangenh]

That's good to hear.

I hope New Hampshire gets offa their butt on this and votes it through this time 'round.

I'd much rather see the bill reiterating the state's support for the 10th Amendment pass than this empty gesture.

 

[drgrant]

These are all great gestures and I applaud the effort, but my understanding, is that based on the CA 'medical marijuana' laws, that the courts will rule that federal law always superseds local law on the same subject.

Yes, this case sort of established that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

That said, it's often been opined that Raich is pretty far over-reaching... and the chances are that it will get challenged again are very high. This is why the feds have backed off (for the most part) of the weed operations in CA, because they don't want a precedent setting lawsuit to occur. The argument that the government can regulate a plant grown completely within the confines of the state falls on its face as being something regulate-able by the commerce clause.

The gun thing is far worse, IMHO... and that's mainly because there is zero precedent of anyone
getting away with defying the feds, but on the other hand, resistance has been minimal. (outside of a few
notorious incidents, none of which involve gun manufacturers).

The only thing that would have a chance in hell of working is a good old fashioned mexican standoff of sorts. If the local sheriff or whoever sets up a blockade, etc.. then things could get interesting... anyone really think the feds have the balls to open up on a local LE agency?

Even if this is a pipe dream, such laws get people closer to actually being able to do something
that looks legitimate. I doubt this will be the first or the last type of law for many states.... next
thing you know these states all have a bunch of political piss and vinegar against the federal
government... and things get interesting.

-Mike

 

[SemiAutoSam]

I found this interesting and relavant to the topic even if just a slight bit.

It has to do with the Federal citizen verses the State Citizen.

"MINE' OKUBO: Citizen 13660"
"I am not bitter. I hope that things can be learned from
this tragic episode, for I believe it could happen again."


Dear Lori Fogarty, Executive Director, and Karen Tsujimoto, Senior Curator
of Art:

Congratulations on the long awaited, and richly orchestrated, reopening
of the Oakland Museum of California. I was present for the first several
hours on Saturday, and fortunately had the opportunity to meet briefly
with Ms. Tsujimoto, Curator of the moving exhibit, "MINE' OKUBO: Citizen
13660". More about that, hereinafter.

At the opening ceremonies, I heard - to my dismay - Mayor Ron Dellums
using a deprecating term for the people of Oakland... Whereas your
Chairman of the Board, Lance Gyorfi, respectfully referred to the assembly
as "citizens of Oakland", Mr. Dellums (who should know better), referred
to the crowd before him as "residents of Oakland". Therefore (as one who
understands the jeopardizing, political meaning of that legal term), I
soon thereafter confronted the mayor, saying: 'Mr. Dellums: An American
Citizen is NOT a "resident"; that means a mere "U.S. citizen", with only
"civil rights"!' (I was then bumped out of the way by one of the
bodyguards that accompany the former "Representative of Congress".)

You may consider this little incident a digression... but, it is not.
"MINE' OKUBO" was such a mere "U.S. citizen". [1.] Indeed, the unwitting
way in which that (originally) proper name/noun was spelled in your
exhibit (in all CAPITAL LETTERS), is known in Law as a "CAPITIS DIMINUTIO
MAXIMA"; or, "The highest or most comprehensive loss of status." I.e.;
from Freedom to Slavery. [2.]

The Problem:
I do realize that the title of your exhibit was taken from the title of
the book, "MINE' OKUBO: Citizen 13660". And, that is the unrealized
Problem with the exhibit. Your exhibit (one of many such which evoke
concern and commiseration for such Japanese-American victims of what
purports to be "U.S. law"), merely works to compound the ongoing tragedy
that results from ignorance of American Law, and of your own "unalienable
Rights". The information that I have shared with the you, has finally
revealed the perfidy of a historically revered President. [3.]
Specifically, an early example of "plausible deniability", now become all
too typical.

Unless You, and your Museum, seek to correct the misimpressions that
the people still harbor regarding the LIMITS of federal jurisdiction (see
Notes B.-F., below), the unwitting "public" will have learned nothing
useful from the life of Mine' Okubo. She was one of too many unfortunate
victims of General John L. DeWitt's own unwitting ignorance of the LIMITS
of federal law, to which Executive Orders are constitutionally bound. Are
you satisfied that - absent taking that opportunity - the exhibit will
only help to ensure that such episodes "could happen again."? I trust that
is not the case.

There continue to be books and exhibits produced about the internment
of Japanese-Americans during World War II., yet the people learn NOTHING
about the all-important matter of Venue, it being absent from the actual
text of "Executive Order No. 9066". Indeed, the Order itself was absent
from the recent exhibit! Therefore, readers and museum visitors are
effectively cowed into future submission to presumed "authority"; shorn of
their Independence, just as sheep - unresisting - yield up their wool.
Now, however, "OMCA" has no excuse. [4.]

An Opportunity:
You, the Principals of the Museum of California and its capable staff,
now have the Opportunity to reveal to the People of these United States of
America the LIMITS of Federal Jurisdiction, and how the plight of those
Japanese-Americans of an earlier era could have been lawfully resisted -
as such a plight may have to be resisted tomorrow! The odious elements
of "plausible deniability", "color of law" and "legal fictions" as in
"E.O. 9066" and in much of contemporary legislation can and should be laid
bare, by appropriate exhibits. You owe it (at least), to the "citizens of
Oakland".And, to yourselves.

An Offer:
In conclusion, I would be happy to work with you and your staff toward
the development of a far more Educational Exhibit [5.], wherein the Truth
of such matters can be made manifest, in the spirit of Walt Whitman's
"ultimate vivification to facts". [6.]

Sincerely,
Arthur Stopes, III.

Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.)
Berkeley, California state.*
Telephone: (510) 548-5238.

*Not "CA".


Notes:
[1.] (Re: "U.S. citizen" or "citizen of the United States", per the so-
called (i.e., unratified) "14th Amendment".) -
Thomas Jefferson was not a "U.S. citizen", or "citizen of the United
States". The Supreme Court has clearly stated the following about the
status of a "citizen of the United States":

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first
eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers
of the Federal Government."
- (MAXWELL v. DOW. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. No. 384
Argued December 4, 1899. Decided February 26, 1900.)

Comment: While this would entail a major and "controversial" exhibit in
itself, this is for your own information. Legal citations available. Note
[2.], below, illustrates an everyday consequence of the above - in Oakland
and elsewhere.

[2.] (Re: "Freedom to Slavery".) -
Do you know that (even when one specifically, verbally spells one's
Name (U/l case) to a "Police Officer"), they insist on spelling your Name
in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (stramineous homo, or "straw man"), thus creating
the legal "rebuttable presumption" that you are a statutory "person",
rather than one of the people (man or woman), with "unalienable Rights"?

[3.] (Re: "the perfidy of a generally revered President".) -
"16. Military necessity ... admits of deception, but disclaims acts
of perfidy;" - The Lieber Code, 1863; and,

[4.] (Re: "Now, however, "OMCA" has no excuse".) -
A. "22. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the
unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as
the exigencies of war will admit." - The Lieber Code, GENERAL ORDERS No.
100., WAR DEPT., Washington, April 24, 1863.

B. "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone
entering into an agreement with the Government takes the risk of having
accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government
stays within the bounds of his authority ... and this is so even though,
as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon
his authority." [General J.L. DeWitt?]
- Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 @ 384 (1947).

(Notes C., D., E. and F., below, prove that U.S. regulations apply only
within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.)

C. Caha v. US, 152 U.S. 211 (1894). - "The laws of Congress in
respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do
not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only
in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

D. Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949). - "It is a
well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary
intent appears."

E. U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222 (1949). - "There is a canon of
legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary
intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States."

And finally:
F. [An] "Act of Congress" includes* any act of Congress locally
applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in
a territory or in an insular possession."
(*includes: "A term of limitation." - Ex parte Martinez.)

Question: Do you find any of the Union states, such as California or
Virginia, in the short list above?

Comment: Because this is so important, this official definition of
an "Act of Congress" is no longer published in the latest edition of the
United States Codes. (Formerly found in "Title" 18, Appendix; Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 54(c).) This is one of several examples of George
Orwell's "1984" at work - but begun in the "U.S.", in 1862;

And: The three (3) "Acts" (referred to at the end of the first
paragraph of "Executive Order No. 9066"), of April 20, 1918, November 30,
1940, and August 21, 1941, were such "Acts of Congress". Hence; LIMITED to
Federal Areas.

[5.] (Re: "Educational Exhibit".) -
By virtue of my studies of the above - and my unique educational and
professional background - I would be most able to assist you and your
museum staff with an Educational Exhibit that - for once - would address
the Problem described above. Strange as it may seem to you, I have known
but one (1) American Citizen in my life, statutorily speaking. (See Note
[1.].) As I mentioned to Mr. Gyorfi, I was a young Apprentice to Mr. Frank
Lloyd Wright, Architect, and worked with him (for instance), on the model
and drawings of the Marin County Civic Center. I state the above, because
of Mr. Wright's "vintage"; he was born in 1867, before the FRAUD of the so-
called (unratified) "14th Amendment", declared "Approved" on July 28, 1868.

Because he was conscious of his Birthright of "unalienable Rights",
and as a member of the American sovereignty, here is how he introduced
himself to young King Faisel II. of Iraq, in 1957 (when he was 90), when
seeking an appropriate site for the proposed "Opera House" for the city of
Baghdad that he had been commissioned to design.

This was the interchange:
A royal aide announced, "Mr. Wright, His Majesty, the King of Iraq." Then,
Mr. Wright said as he bowed, "And here is His Majesty, the American
Citizen." No mere federal "resident", or servile "U.S. citizen", he! Nor I.

[6.] (Re: "ultimate vivification to facts".) -
From Walt Whitman's "A Backward Glance O'er Travel'd Roads' (Preface
to November Boughs, 1888).
"Whatever may have been the case in years gone by, the true use for
the imaginative faculty of modern times is to give ultimate vivification
to facts, to science, and to common lives, endowing them with the glows
and glories and final illustriousness which belong to every real thing,
and to real things only. Without that ultimate vivification, which the
poet or other artist alone can give, reality would seem incomplete, and
science, democracy, and life itself, finally in vain."

In the instant case, "ultimate vivification" might translate to the
necessity to clarify for the people ("democracy") that which has been (and
continues to be), obfuscated (vernacular: "screwed up"). Thus, they are
unable to decipher the "laws", and so, large segments of society, or the
entire population, can suffer thereby. May the World War II. internments
serve as a forewarning...

Thank you for your attention. - A.S., III.




"Fear them not therefore; for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed: and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the housetops" (Jesus, in Matthew 10:26, 27)