In yet another attempt to confuse and trick us, Federal, State and local laws have been written regulating the use of "firearms". Where are we given the right to own "firearms"?
NEVER admit to owning "firearms". "Firearms" are legally defined and regulatable by the government. The only thing freemen and free women should ever admit to owning are "arms", as mentioned in the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights.
Anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the Federal United States is exempt from any requirement to obtain a Federal Firearms license to conduct intrastate commerce or commerce between any other of the 50 Sovereign states. The only exception would be if someone were to do business with (for example) an individual or Federally licensed dealer in Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia or some other Federal "State" as defined in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The wording of both the NFA '34 and GCA '68 are deliberately deceptive, making thousands of Citizens unwittingly and needlessly subject to a false Federal jurisdiction. Both laws indicate that they are applicable within the United States, unless otherwise excluded by law. Further, these laws define the "United States" to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and possessions of the United States (presumably the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Federal property such as Federal military forts, dockyards, etc.) but not including the Canal Zone. This corresponds to the "exclusive jurisdiction" as defined in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clauses 17-18 of the Constitution.
Please refer to Public Law 99-308, Ch. 44, sec. 921(a) (Definitions) which reads:
(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within that same State but through any place outside that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone.)"
You must understand that the term "includes" restricts rather than expands the definition. This definition was established in a large number of State and Federal cases, such as Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S., 452 at 466, and in Treasury Decision No. 3980 Vol. 29 of 1927. The latter said that "includes" means to "comprise as a member", "to confine", and "to comprise as the whole part." If "includes" meant an incomplete list of examples (as it does in the common vernacular use of the term), then Congress should have used the phrase "including but not limited to..." or something similar. In the strict Federal legal definition of the word (as opposed to common interpretation), if something is not "included", then it is excluded!
Since the term "includes" is strictly defined, when lawmakers wish to temporarily supersede that definition for the purposes of an individual section or paragraph, they often use the word "means." To illustrate this, see Internal Revenue Code section 6103(b)(5)(a) in which Congress temporarily expanded ("for the purposes of this section") the term "State" to encompass the 50 States:
"The term "State" means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa... "
By "possessions" we will assume that NFA '34 and GCA '68 refer to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, as well as certain Federal enclaves within the 50 Sovereign States, such as Federal military forts, dockyards, et cetera. Clearly, the 50 Sovereign States are not "possessions" of the Federal United States. The nature of the possessions of the Federal United States are described in Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 17 and 18 of the Constitution. Federal jurisdiction in no way extends to individual Citizens of the 50 Sovereign States!
You need to understand that the definitions included in a number of Federal regulations concerning firearms (such as Title 27, Part 179.11) amplify the terms "includes" and "including" to "not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof." However, the 50 Sovereign states/Republics/Commonwealths are not by any stretch of the imagination in the same class as Federal "States" such as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or other Federal possessions. They are not the possessions of the U.S. Federal government, but rather have their own distinct sovereignty, and their respective systems of laws and legal jurisdictions.
It is notable that the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska were both originally included in the list of territories included in the Federal United States, but they were removed in the new versions of the U.S. Code that were published after they each became a Sovereign state of the Union. To fully understand this, see: 42 U.S.C. 410 (h) and (I), 42 U.S.C. 405 (c) (I through iv), and 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (b) (5), and 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c), and 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (e) (1), 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a) (9), Omnibus Acts in 86th Congress volume 73, 1959, and volume 74, 1960--in particular Public Laws 86-70 and 86-624, and 26 C.F.R. § 31.3121 (e)-1, and 26 U.S.C. § 865 (g) (1)(A) & (B), and 26 U.S.C. 911 (d) (3), and 26 U.S.C. § 6013 (1) (a) through (C) (I).
Here are some other case citations to support this position:
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers Inc. v. Filardo 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of those 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." Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211.
"Since in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 187.
"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." Brady v. U.S. 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970)
"The words 'People of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty... They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty." Wong Kim Ark p.914, quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 577.
"Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs of that absolute sovereignty which resides in the whole body of the People; like other bodies of the government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts are utterly void." Billings v. Hall 7 Ca. 1.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 176.
The U.S. v. Lopez Supreme Court decision (April 26, 1995), that struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) is another important decision impacting the reach of Federal jurisdiction. This law had prohibited the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of any public school but was overturned by the Supreme Court. This decision could have much broader implications and could mean that large portions of National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are null and void. These laws should be of particular interest if you would like to be a dealer in gun accessories and firearms, you don't have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), and you don't want one!
Here is the background of the Lopez decision according to the NRA-ILA:
"Writing for the majority, chief justice William Rehnquist reviewed the history of the treatment of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. To justify passing firearms laws such as those governing the manufacture, shipping, and sale of firearms, congress has often relied upon its enumerated constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
"Rehnquist pointed out that there are three broad categories of activity Congress may regulate under its interstate commerce power: 1) The use of channels of interstate commerce. 2) the instruments of, or persons or things involved in interstate commerce; and 3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. With respect to the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the first two of these were inapplicable; to sustain the Act, the court would have to find that the mere possession of a firearm substantially affected interstate commerce.
"While noting that, over the years, Congress has assumed greater powers over interstate commerce, the court found no interstate commerce connection to the possession of a firearm that had already completed its travel in interstate commerce. Arguments posed by Clinton administration lawyers were rejected by the chief justice. `If we were to accept the government's arguments,' wrote Rehnquist, `we would be hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.' "
What, then, are the gun law implications of the U.S. v. Lopez decision?
The rational answer to items 1-4 from above is an overwhelming YES!