Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - ARs legal in California once again (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=356779)

gopher29 | 03-09-2009 03:26 PM
ARs legal in California once again Look at this abomination: http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/in...main_page=ar15 Just when you thought the days of thumbhole stocks, 10 round drums, non-folding wire stocks, setscrew muzlebrakes, and other creative ways of circumventing our screwed up legislative system had come to an end; gun manufacturers bring us a whole new form of ugly.

igorthesmall | 03-09-2009 04:05 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again Its been like that for years.

CrufflerJJ | 03-09-2009 05:50 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again OOOGLY (worse than ugly) stocks! And I thought the butthole stock on my MAK90 was bad.....

bwelkk | 03-09-2009 05:58 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again This isn't news.

Unclad Lad | 03-10-2009 03:29 AM
IANAL, but you'd better be Go to calguns.net, and read the 5000+ asterisks that come with it. Jumping into any AR-style receiver without knowing exactly what you are doing is a good way to get free room & board courtesy of the taxpayers.

jetgraphics | 03-10-2009 05:12 AM
Re: ARs legal in California once again As usual, folks mistake laws only applicable to "persons". CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Quote:
# 12277. As used in this chapter, "person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or any other group or entity, regardless of how it was created.
Are "we" all persons liable? "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)). "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) As we should know, the government explicitly recognizes that "people are sovereign". And it also knows that government is not sovereign. "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1 Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever shall...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who shall....". Title 18 USC � 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees (a) In General.-- Whoever-- (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; Contrast with: Title 18 USC � 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations (a) Offense.-- Any person who-- (1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000 If one was unaware of the difference, one might believe that both laws were universally applicable. Of course, if you were unaware that the latter obligation is tied to one's VOLUNTARY participation in National Socialism (a.k.a. Social Security), you might not catch the distinction. Liability for obedience requires consent, otherwise it would be involuntary servitude, and unconstitutional. So write a polite letter to the California Attorney General and ask him if the law is only applicable to persons. If he replies, that it is only applicable to persons, send him a nice thank you. AND GET YOUR STATUS AT LAW RESTORED TO SOVEREIGN AMERICAN!

igorthesmall | 03-10-2009 07:43 AM
Re: ARs legal in California once again Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics (Post 1616823) As usual, folks mistake laws only applicable to "persons". CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Are "we" all persons liable? "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)). "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) As we should know, the government explicitly recognizes that "people are sovereign". And it also knows that government is not sovereign. "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1 Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever shall...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who shall....". Title 18 USC � 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees (a) In General.-- Whoever-- (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; Contrast with: Title 18 USC � 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations (a) Offense.-- Any person who-- (1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000 If one was unaware of the difference, one might believe that both laws were universally applicable. Of course, if you were unaware that the latter obligation is tied to one's VOLUNTARY participation in National Socialism (a.k.a. Social Security), you might not catch the distinction. Liability for obedience requires consent, otherwise it would be involuntary servitude, and unconstitutional. So write a polite letter to the California Attorney General and ask him if the law is only applicable to persons. If he replies, that it is only applicable to persons, send him a nice thank you. AND GET YOUR STATUS AT LAW RESTORED TO SOVEREIGN AMERICAN!
You go first, and tell me how it works out. You can send me a letter about it from the clink.

jetgraphics | 03-10-2009 09:39 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again Quote:
Originally Posted by igorthesmall (Post 1616917) You go first, and tell me how it works out. You can send me a letter about it from the clink.
I did already - but not in relation to automatic weaponry. See: U.S. v. Ganaposki, 930 F.Supp. 1076 (M.D.Pa.1996) I have the dubious honor of a published decision for a case that never went to trial. All charges were dropped - one day before trial. Yet when you read the decision, it leads one to conclude that I lost. My tactic was simple - correct the record. A Writ of Error Coram Nobis (a common law remedy) filed in the STATE court - not the FED court (which I had wasted 60 days by repeatedly filing paper there). I had a letter from the state court officers admitting their authority to compel me was the Social Security Act of 1935. I stated that it was against my religious beliefs to participate in their abomination. I also stated that as a religious man, I was civilly dead. Within 48 hours of the timestamp, Pennsylvania dropped their contempt conviction and charges, and the Feds dropped their charges. So when someone says, "Bwahhhhh! I can't get out." I just tell them to say "NO" to national socialism and to their number (of the beast). Involuntary servitude is still unconstitutional and a violation of Statute No. 1 of the Statutes at Large of the United States of America. (Declaration of Independence) I have copious documentation that supports the conclusion that the government has not violated the constitution, because they never write the law to apply to the sovereign people. Look at your own State constitution, and laws.

Hivemindgammahydra7 | 03-10-2009 10:22 PM
Good GOD! Anyone who "goes to jail" as a result of owning an "illegal" AR had no business owning one in the first place. I mean really, people - what do you think these things are for? Playday trips putting holes in paper at the range... ...or something else?

gangsta99 | 03-10-2009 11:15 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again I would rather buy one that wasn't Cali ok then buy one of these if I lived in Cali. Bugly fugly mugly whatever the hell those are nasty.

simpleworld | 03-11-2009 04:52 PM
Re: ARs legal in California once again Got a Raddlock on my AK.......those monsterman grips look like hell.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:52 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM