Best argument AGAINST "Carrying" Firearms.


Status
Not open for further replies.
N

noduty2submit

Banned
Hello Guys,

This is my first post here.

So let me start off by saying that I am a 110% supporter of the Constitution and the people's right to "keep and bear Arms."

But... I am also a strong opponent of "carrying firearms." How could this be? well think about it...

What does a nurse do? ... she nurses.
What does a plumber do? ...he plumbs.
What does a sailor do? ...he sails.
What does an accountant do? ...he accounts.
What does an attorney do? ...he attorns.
What does a driver do? ...he drives.
So, what does a carrier do? ...he CARRIES.

Do you see how each of the above is a commercial or professional activity? And what do these activities have in common? ---> LICENSING and REGULATION!

You want to "carry a firearm?" Then the Constitution doesn't protect you. You are in contract and bound by the private rules of the Law Merchant (UCC).

So now you know why you shouldn't be "carrying firearms" if you wish to retain your Second Amendment Rights:
(15 min)

Yours in liberty,

[email protected]
 

Do you not even realize that if your desire that no one carry (as in *bear* arms) that the very name of this site would render it irrelevant?

Anyone who's first post advocates for circumstances that would put this site out of business should be banned forthwith.

Blues
 
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the 1st Amendment! When the Left takes the 2nd Amendment we lose the 1st Amendment automatically. It's a two-for deal.
 
OK, if you don't want to be called a carrier (sounds like someone with a disease?), then a person who bears arms would be a bearer--does that sound better to you? :lol:

Seriously, you carefully selected your list of occupations for comparison. (BTW, it must be an old list because who nowadays would refer to nurses as "she" and all the other professionals as "he"?) What about occupations that don't require licenses?

Besides, bearing arms is a right, not an occupation (unless you're getting paid to do it). So . . .

What does a voter do? . . . votes.
What does a assembler do? . . . assembles.
What does a speaker do? . . . speaks.
What does a publisher do? . . . publishes.
What does a religious person do? . . . practices a religion.

Those ^^^ are relevant comparisons.
 
Everyone, watch the video in the OP before commenting on the text in the OP. The argument in the video is different from the argument in the text. The text is poorly worded. Both arguments are wrong, by the way.

As for the text in the OP, carrying a firearm is, by itself, not a commercial activity. The listed comparisons are nonsense and display a lack of knowledge in basic law. Using the argument of any activity being a commercial activity, the government can regulate and license pretty much any private activity. As I said, the text in the OP is poorly worded.

As for the video in the OP, a carry permit is not a commercial contract. If this argument would be used in a court of law, it would just argue that a constitutional right has been taken away from you and sold back to you with a commercial contract. Good luck with that argument. Relying on the idea of a carry permit being a commercial contract and then using an exclusion clause (such as, "UCC 1-308 - All rights reserved") to protect your constitutional rights simply won't work. You can't have it both ways, a court acknowledging that a constitutional right has been taken away from you and then sold back to you with a commercial contract that had an exclusion clause that protects that constitutional right.

Read up on the concept of using UCC 1-308 at: UCC 1-308 -- Our Legal Protection against all Un-Constitutional Demands of Public officials and their agents.
 
Good thing we don't know who Noduty2submit is be cause we wouldn't want to save your life if you were in peril. If you were being accosted, I know the last thing you would want was to be save by a guy or girl with a concealed carry permit and a gun.
 
Hi,

You Wrote:
"...a carry permit is not a commercial contract. If this argument would be used in a court of law, it would just argue that a constitutional right has been taken away from you and sold back to you with a commercial contract. Good luck with that argument. "

A "License to Carry" is a commercial contract, just like your "License to Drive," or "License to get Married." And YES! They did steal those rights from you and sell them back to you as a commercial contract. "Carry" is a commercial activity, even if you don't believe it is. In any case, it is legally different from the act of Bearing Arms, for which there is no license! Just like there is no license to travel (but you need a "drivers" license) and there is no license to start a family, but you "need" a "Marriage License." There is no license to feed yourself, but you need a "fishing" license ... etc

Of course they don't want you to know or understand these things, that way you would continue to erroneously demand your "right to carry" while forgetting your right to Life and the right to Defend it!

This government trick is subtle, but real and pervasive... Have you ever heard:

"it is easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled!"

Here's Proof:

Gun Licenses are not Law, they are Commercial Contracts (30 min):






 
FYI: There is a way to reply to a post and quoting it. Quoting the original post is not only good etiquette, but also makes sure that you have a record of that post that can't be edited by the other poster.

noduty2submit said:
Hi,

You Wrote:
"...a carry permit is not a commercial contract. If this argument would be used in a court of law, it would just argue that a constitutional right has been taken away from you and sold back to you with a commercial contract. Good luck with that argument. "

A "License to Carry" is a commercial contract, just like your "License to Drive," or "License to get Married." And YES! They did steal those rights from you and sell them back to you as a commercial contract. "Carry" is a commercial activity, even if you don't believe it is. In any case, it is legally different from the act of Bearing Arms, for which there is no license! Just like there is no license to travel (but you need a "drivers" license) and there is no license to start a family, but you "need" a "Marriage License." There is no license to feed yourself, but you need a "fishing" license ... etc

Of course they don't want you to know or understand these things, that way you would continue to erroneously demand your "right to carry" while forgetting your right to Life and the right to Defend it!
Click to expand...

Please cite any specific court cases that back up your argument that a firearm carry permit is a commercial contract and that carrying a firearm is a commercial activity. It is not a matter of what you believe in, but a matter of what the courts decide. That was the whole point of my post. You can stand all day in a court and argue that a firearm carry permit is a commercial contract. At the end, the court will rule that it is not. Using UCC 1-308 on a contract that a court doesn't acknowledge simply won't work.

noduty2submit said:
This government trick is subtle, but real and pervasive... Have you ever heard:

"it is easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled!"

Here's Proof:

Gun Licenses are not Law, they are Commercial Contracts (30 min):

Click to expand...

I watched that video before my earlier post. I agree, you have fooled yourself in thinking that you can beat the system by using it. I assume that your quest is to get to a court case that declares a firearm carry permit is a commercial contract. Again, good luck with that. What's your goal here, other than looking like a fool in court and losing money on the court fees?
 
noduty2submit said:
Hello Guys,

This is my first post here.

So let me start off by saying that I am a 110% supporter of the Constitution and the people's right to "keep and bear Arms."

But...
Click to expand...


And right there, with the interjection of a single word, you have lost all credibility in my eyes as a "2A kinda guy"

There is no "But" in the second amendment, I've looked. You either are for it or against it. There is no longer any middle ground.
 
So... since here in the Peoples' Republic of Washington we are not required to have a permit to open carry, but we are required to have a permit to carry concealed, we shouldn't get concealed carry permits because that somehow negates our Second Amendment rights?

This is just silliness. But if my carry permit is a "Commercial Contract," I had better start receiving paychecks for all the time I spend carrying.
 
We can hardly get to the truth by making self proclaimed statements. It is only through critically questioning the present paradigm that we might arrive at the truth.

To ask the courts, a judge or officer of government about whether and how you can "carry" is in itself asking for a permission. That's not the intend of our 2nd Amendment, for what it protects is a RIGHT, and a right can not be licensed or regulated: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

So, the very fact you had to apply for and pay for your "license to carry," you signed a contract granting you a privilege, in exchange for your rights. When you are engaged in a privilege, you are subject to rules and regulations (including Prison). Does your Constitution apply when you sign any other contract, like a lease or for employment? -- of course not, so why would you expect the Constitution to apply to your "License to Carry?" Of course, it does not.

Now if you are still uncertain that the "License to Carry" regulates a commercial activity. Simply ask yourself the following critical questions:

1. How can my State make rules to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment Rights, isn't the Constitution "supreme Law of the Land?" Article VI, paragraph 2.
2. How can my State defy the Supreme Court (Murdock v. Pennsylvania and Miranda v. Arizona...among many others) and make me pay a fee for my LTC?
3. Why isn't my State's LTC honored by Massachusetts, New York, California or some other states...? as they should, according to Article 4 section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State..."
5. Why don't I enjoy the same right to "carry" as citizens of Vermont or Alaska? under Article 4 section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
6. If my state is in "violation" of numbers 1-5, then who am I contracting with? ...surely it isn't my State, operating as a lawful and constitutional government, is it?

Answer:

Your "State" isn't infringing your "right to keep and bear Arms," it's contracting you for a "license to carry." And the legal definition of "Carry" means the removal of persons or property by a carrier for a fee, for hire. The Constitution, Murdock v. Pennsylvania and other Supreme Court rulings don't apply, because you are contracting for a PRIVILEGE, not claiming a RIGHT.

Remember the courts have ruled: "The claim and exercise of a right can not be converted into a crime." Miller v United States, and "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona. So the ONLY way that states can get around those legal barriers is to contract you for a regulable activity, in other words commerce.

When states do this - they are acting as a juristic person (legal person) or a CORPORATION, just like any other corporation - Walmart, McDonalds...Nike...etc. (Don't believe me? Look up your State's name and address at Dunn & Bradstreet .com, and you'll find a CORPORATION listed with your state's name. Also see UNITED STATES, a Corporation, defined at 28 U.S. Code § 3002). So, when you get a State LTC, that's just contract between you and your state (corporation), and like any 2 persons doing business, that contract is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code --- that's why even you have recommended signing "UCC 1-308 all rights reserved."

Now, the UCC is NOT itself the Law, it is a product of PRIVATE parties. (look that up!) Which means your "License to Carry" is NOT law -- it is a commercial contract, just like I said. Here are 2 Supreme Court Ruling that sums it up for you:

Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 904: "As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation than are expressly given by the incorporating act. ... The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter." and American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347: "Sovereignty means that the decree of the sovereign makes law."

So, if your State is acting as a corporation and contracting you as a corporator, it has laid "down its sovereignty" and since only Sovereigns can make Law, your state acting as a Corporation and Contracting with you is NOT making law. It's merely a set of rules to which you have consented to trade your "right to bear Arms" for the privilege to "carry." And of course if you break those rules, then you go to jail as a consequence of your signed CONTRACT.

Think this through man...I've been fighting for our Second Amendment since I first read it in 5th grade, and I'm willing to bet you a bitcoin I'm right!

thanks,
NoDuty2Submit
 
The word "But" doesn't refer to my support for the 2A; it is in reference and objection to how our community has fought to defend the 2A from the tyrants without a clear legal understanding of how they have used WORDS and our Collective Ignorance to convert our RIGHTS into a Privileges. See Post #12 and watch the videos.
 
noduty2submit said:
The word "But" doesn't refer to my support for the 2A; it is in reference and objection to how our community has fought to defend the 2A from the tyrants without a clear legal understanding of how they have used WORDS and our Collective Ignorance to convert our RIGHTS into a Privileges. See Post #12 and watch the videos.
Click to expand...

As I said, your OP was poorly worded. I assume most people that replied didn't even watch the video. Your post #12 should have been your OP.

I still think that your arguments are wishful thinking and simply will not hold up in court. You are greatly mistaken if you think that any court will acknowledge that a right has been converted to a privilege, as that would just mean that the governing law that did that is unconstitutional. You are also greatly mistaken if you think that any court will acknowledge that a "license to carry" is a commercial contract with the government acting as a corporation, as this would have a significant impact on other licensing and registration requirements. Am I entering a contract by registering to vote?

Again, what is your goal with this? Asking a court to rule that a right has been converted to a privilege and that a "license to carry" is a commercial contract, so that you can assert your constitutional right on that contract to convert it back from a privilege to a right? That sounds rather silly. Good luck with that.

We have a lot of unconstitutional and contradicting laws on the books. There is a reason for it. The majority in this country is either happy with that or simply doesn't care. Also, many cases never make it to the Supreme Court due to the fear of solidifying unconstitutional laws with Supreme Court decisions. Otherwise, carry permits would have already been declared unconstitutional.

Learn to use the "Reply With Quote" button below each post you reply to.
 
noduty2submit said:
Hello Guys,

This is my first post here.

So let me start off by saying that I am a 110% supporter of the Constitution and the people's right to "keep and bear Arms."

But... I am also a strong opponent of "carrying firearms." How could this be? well think about it...

What does a nurse do? ... she nurses.
What does a plumber do? ...he plumbs.
What does a sailor do? ...he sails.
What does an accountant do? ...he accounts.
What does an attorney do? ...he attorns.
What does a driver do? ...he drives.
So, what does a carrier do? ...he CARRIES.

Do you see how each of the above is a commercial or professional activity? And what do these activities have in common? ---> LICENSING and REGULATION!

You want to "carry a firearm?" Then the Constitution doesn't protect you. You are in contract and bound by the private rules of the Law Merchant (UCC).

So now you know why you shouldn't be "carrying firearms" if you wish to retain your Second Amendment Rights:
(15 min)

Yours in liberty,

[email protected]
Click to expand...
What does an speaker do? ...he speaks.
What does an publisher do? ...he publishes.
What does an traveler do? ...he travels.
.
Guess it's time to license and regulate your speech, your writings and your travel. Makes perfect sense.
.
Why is it that some people think the logic of a seven year old is somehow genius material?
 
The government requiring "the people" to seek permission from the government in order to exercise the right of the people to bear arms in a concealed manner (The right to bear arms includes any and all methods of bearing including concealed) is the exact kind of restriction upon the right itself that "shall not be infringed" was intended to prevent.

Now that infringement of government control through threatening imprisonment if one dares to exercise their right to bear an arm in a concealed manner without the government's permission can be called a "concealed carry permit" or "commercial contract" or it can be called a "tax" but whatever it is called it is still an obvious infringement upon the right to bear arms.

A restriction upon your right to bear arms imposed by a government that makes you pay for it's permission to comply with that restriction and has the power to imprison you if you don't is still an infringement upon that right regardless of what the government, or you, decides to call that restriction.
 
Rhino said:
Guess it's time to license and regulate your speech, your writings and your travel. Makes perfect sense.

Why is it that some people think the logic of a seven year old is somehow genius material?
Click to expand...

Hi Rhino,

they have not yet regulated your speech -- but they have controlled the dissemination of knowledge: It's called mass media!

As far as your "right to travel" they have definitely ALREADY become regulated.

Don't believe me? Turn on those7-year old powers of logic for a second...

Think..., hard... real hard...

You have a "right to travel," but you need a "License to Drive." Is that not regulation infringing on a basic right of nature -- that of removal from one location to another according to your free will? How can they make you get a license to drive?

Answer: Because "drive" is a commercial activity of a "Driver." Of course you need to open the law dictionary (an old one, try Black's Law 3rd ed.) and read: "One employed in conducting or operating a coach, a carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car though not a street railroad car." So if you claim you're driving, then you NEED a license! (just like if you claimed to "carry" you NEED a LTC! -- a commercial contract!)

Or how's this: you have a right to ownership of property, don't you? So why MUST you register your "motor vehicle?" Doesn't that infringe on your right to private property?

Well, it depends on what you consent. If you consent that what you have is a motor vehicle, then you NEED to register it with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, a branch of the Dept. of Transportation! And you guessed it -- that's because you've unwittingly declared yourself to be operating in COMMERCE -- and you Need a Commercial Contract if you want to operate in your state.

Want proof? Look up Title 18 US Code 31(6) "The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." what's Transportation? (TRANSPORTATION, Title 49 U.S. Code § 5102 - Definitions: "commerce" means trade or transportation in the jurisdiction of the United States; (13) "transports" or "transportation" means the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement. TRANSPORTATION, (Black's Law Dictionary): The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. (Where CARRIER is defined as: "One undertaking to transport persons or property...or one employed in or engaged in the business of carrying goods for others for hire..." (internal citations omitted).

So, now ask yourself: do I have a "MOTOR VEHICLE?" and Do I "DRIVE?" Do I engage in "TRANSPORTATION?" Do I "CARRY?"

... maybe you do, but I don't. So why should I get the commercial contract known as a "license to carry?"

If you don't know the words, then even a 7 year old will make a mistake in his logic.


"Are you beginning to see the cage into which you were born? A cage for the mind..."
 
noduty2submit said:
We can hardly get to the truth by making self proclaimed statements. It is only through critically questioning the present paradigm that we might arrive at the truth.

To ask the courts, a judge or officer of government about whether and how you can "carry" is in itself asking for a permission. That's not the intend of our 2nd Amendment, for what it protects is a RIGHT, and a right can not be licensed or regulated: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

So, the very fact you had to apply for and pay for your "license to carry," you signed a contract granting you a privilege, in exchange for your rights. When you are engaged in a privilege, you are subject to rules and regulations (including Prison). Does your Constitution apply when you sign any other contract, like a lease or for employment? -- of course not, so why would you expect the Constitution to apply to your "License to Carry?" Of course, it does not.

Now if you are still uncertain that the "License to Carry" regulates a commercial activity. Simply ask yourself the following critical questions:

1. How can my State make rules to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment Rights, isn't the Constitution "supreme Law of the Land?" Article VI, paragraph 2.
2. How can my State defy the Supreme Court (Murdock v. Pennsylvania and Miranda v. Arizona...among many others) and make me pay a fee for my LTC?
3. Why isn't my State's LTC honored by Massachusetts, New York, California or some other states...? as they should, according to Article 4 section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State..."
5. Why don't I enjoy the same right to "carry" as citizens of Vermont or Alaska? under Article 4 section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
6. If my state is in "violation" of numbers 1-5, then who am I contracting with? ...surely it isn't my State, operating as a lawful and constitutional government, is it?

Answer:

Your "State" isn't infringing your "right to keep and bear Arms," it's contracting you for a "license to carry." And the legal definition of "Carry" means the removal of persons or property by a carrier for a fee, for hire. The Constitution, Murdock v. Pennsylvania and other Supreme Court rulings don't apply, because you are contracting for a PRIVILEGE, not claiming a RIGHT.

Remember the courts have ruled: "The claim and exercise of a right can not be converted into a crime." Miller v United States, and "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona. So the ONLY way that states can get around those legal barriers is to contract you for a regulable activity, in other words commerce.

When states do this - they are acting as a juristic person (legal person) or a CORPORATION, just like any other corporation - Walmart, McDonalds...Nike...etc. (Don't believe me? Look up your State's name and address at Dunn & Bradstreet .com, and you'll find a CORPORATION listed with your state's name. Also see UNITED STATES, a Corporation, defined at 28 U.S. Code § 3002). So, when you get a State LTC, that's just contract between you and your state (corporation), and like any 2 persons doing business, that contract is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code --- that's why even you have recommended signing "UCC 1-308 all rights reserved."

Now, the UCC is NOT itself the Law, it is a product of PRIVATE parties. (look that up!) Which means your "License to Carry" is NOT law -- it is a commercial contract, just like I said. Here are 2 Supreme Court Ruling that sums it up for you:

Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 904: "As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation than are expressly given by the incorporating act. ... The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter." and American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347: "Sovereignty means that the decree of the sovereign makes law."

So, if your State is acting as a corporation and contracting you as a corporator, it has laid "down its sovereignty" and since only Sovereigns can make Law, your state acting as a Corporation and Contracting with you is NOT making law. It's merely a set of rules to which you have consented to trade your "right to bear Arms" for the privilege to "carry." And of course if you break those rules, then you go to jail as a consequence of your signed CONTRACT.

Think this through man...I've been fighting for our Second Amendment since I first read it in 5th grade, and I'm willing to bet you a bitcoin I'm right!

thanks,
NoDuty2Submit
Click to expand...

d3fca2765aa090c91e6b94c9e0e2dbb0.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 178 (members: 0, guests: 178)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top