Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 599 active visitors Sunday, June 04, 2023
Main Email List:

State Email Lists:
Click Here
» Join/Renew Online
» Join/Renew by Mail
» Make a Donation
» Magazine Subscriptions
» KABA Memorial Fund
» Advertise Here
» Use KABA Free Email

» JOIN/Renew NOW! «



Keep and Bear Arms - Vote In Our Polls
Do you oppose Biden's anti-gun executive orders?

Current results
Earlier poll results
4634 people voted



» U.S. Gun Laws
» AmeriPAC
» NoInternetTax
» Gun Show On The Net
» 2nd Amendment Show
» SEMPER FIrearms
» Colt Collectors Assoc.
» Personal Defense Solutions



Keep and Bear Arms


Archived Information

Top | Last 30 Days | Search | Add to Archives | Newsletter | Featured Item

Gun Control Act of 1968

"The Gun Control Act of 1968"

Public Law 90-618

united States v. United States


Ronald Johnson

(Written 8-30-1999)

(Revised 2-7-2000)

Does this Act pertain to sovereign Citizens within the several States?

As a Life member of the NRA for the past twenty-two years, naturally, I became interested in the history of guns and the laws which govern them. This report then is the culmination of my years of study and research, with which, I intend to show how, particularly over the past 60 years, we have collectively lost sight of what our actual status as Citizens truly is.

To that end then, my argument addresses our misunderstanding of The Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as our individual Constitutional Rights and even the Internal Revenue Service, as well as our individual Constitutional Rights and even the Internal Revenue Service as they relate to our Constitutional guarantees and to our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms as sovereign Citizens of the several States. This report will demonstrate, using case law and the government's own set of codes, that the rules and regulations of the United States Federal Government do not apply to our sovereign Right to own, use, make, carry, transfer, buy or sell guns. The evidence presented here will clearly show the manipulation, coercion and fraud the United States Government has systematically perpetrated on "We the People...", the true and rightful sovereigns, as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Many of us have heard the phrase, "It’s the letter of the law that counts". In general, we are not to draw inferences from the law’s text regarding the meaning of the law. The courts instruct us that the law is what it states verbatim, nothing more and nothing less. Although, as a matter of practice, it is natural to draw meaning from the law and at times, we even refer to the spirit of the law, referring to the founders intent at the time of its writing. However, should questions or conflicts arise with respect to what the law actually says, the final authority in making that determination and defining the meaning of any law, is that of the united States supreme Court. This then is how precedents in law are established and case law comes to govern us in the courtroom. Meaning, that the ultimate law, is the definition of a particular legislative law as defined by the supreme Court. Thus, the only recourse left is that of the Legislature to re-write the law.

One day, while searching for further insight into these laws, which we have come to accept as governing our access and use of arms (and our lives), I made a startling discovery, while rereading portions of the United States Code (USC) pertaining to The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), I noticed for the first time a table of definitions. The table included a definition for the term "interstate or foreign commerce," which in turn describes the geographic boundaries for which the GCA has jurisdiction. The following is the pertinent text: (If you have a FFL, see your Federal Firearms Guidebook)

US Code: Title 18, Section 921(a)(2) - Definitions:

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 the same State but through any place outside of 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).

The geographic boundaries of the United States are clearly described in the Constitution as the District of Columbia, its possessions and territories:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Note: the term, United States, is a noun, a proper name and title, describing the Federal (Central) Government, a separate corporate entity, housed in the District of Columbia and is the offspring of the "We the People...".

However, in the above 921(a)(2) definition, the USC, in effect, has redefined the United States to only include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States. What happened to the "Territories" (Guam, Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the American Samoa, etc.)? By this self-proclaimed-redefinition, the "Territories" have, in effect, become the "any place outside that state" and as such satisfies the term "foreign commerce".

Leaving the term "interstate commerce" to mean the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions.

As we then substitute the definition for the term "State" from the second sentence and the term "Territories", into the first sentence, the passage then reads:

The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) and the Territories of that District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone), 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 the same District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) but through the Territories of that District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]

At first, this seems nonsensical. Nevertheless, note that nowhere is Iowa, Illinois, Indiana or any one of the other several States mentioned (the reason for this overt omission I leave to the reader). However, at this point, it is safe to assume that you are as surprised as I to discover that the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies only to the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, and not to any one of the several States.

Now, let us take a moment to examine the term INCLUDE, since it is often used in USC and CFR code definitions and how it is being used to confuse our understanding of the meaning of a definition.

Includes and Including: Title 26. Subtitle F, Chapter 79, Sec. (7701) (c) - Definitions (IRS)

The term "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The words "includes" and "including" when used in the Tax Code DO NOT mean that other things can be included, but rather the definition is limited to the items specifically listed in the law.

Using Black's Law Dictionary for the legal interpretation:

"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. [Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228]."

In other words, according to Black, when INCLUDE is used, it expands to take in all of the items stipulated or listed, but is then limited to them! Otherwise, the definition would be ambiguous and in legal terms, that would be devastating. Leaving one to wonder what else might be included and therefore, the law as written, would not be definable or definitive.

What I came to realize, during my studies and research, is that the Federal Government, in all of its USC and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), has used this method of redefining common, everyday terms to mean something else entirely and that includes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

For example: Since the BATF gets its taxing authority from the IRS (both are under the Treasury Dept.) and therefore refer to each others respective sections of the CFR's and also share in common definitions as well, let us examine how the IRS defines the term United States. In the IRS 1040 kit, it asks "who is required to file a 1040 form." The IRS's answer states, "all citizens of the United States no matter where they are located." Here then is how the IRS defines the United States:

TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701 (a)(9)

United States: The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701 (a)(10)

State: The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Again, substituting the definition for State into the definition for United States we arrive at what can only be described as a totally different meaning than what you and I have thought all along.

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia. [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]

Further research revealed that The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress indeed knows and understands that the federal laws do not apply within any one of the several states of the Union, but do apply in the Federal States (areas/enclaves) created by The Buck Act.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c)

(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.

"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. [underlines added]

"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.

Again, it appears that these "acts" of Congress don't apply to the several States.

In reviewing The Buck Act of 1940, which creates these Federal States (areas) within the geographic boundaries of the several States, we find:

Title 4 USC Section. 110 (d) and (e)

(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term ''Federal area'' means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

Again, let us do the substitutions:

(e) The term ''Federal area'' means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any Territory or possession of the United States, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such Territory or possession of the United States. [emphasis added to illustrate substitution]

To further demonstrate that the Federal Government, purposely and knowingly redefines ordinary words, consider another definition found in CFR 27. This is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) section on the IMPORTATION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF WAR:

Title 27, Chapter I, Part 47, Section 47.11, Subpart B - Meaning of terms -

United States. When used in the geographical sense, includes the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the insular possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any territory over which the United States exercises any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction. [underline added]

Clearly, the Federal Government recognizes the several States as a separate entity, as it should and as is enumerate in the Constitution. However, in this instance the term United States is being used in a collective sense, because this section of the CFR is talking about the importation of arms from foreign countries, not the use or sale of firearms within the several States.

Notice the use of the term "Arms" in the title of this Chapter of the BATF Code. In other definitions and codes they use the term "Firearm". There is a legal distinction between the term "Arms" as used in the Second Amendment and the term "Firearm" which infers a Federal privilege.

If Congress wanted to apply these various Codes and Acts to all the several States and the People, they need only include the statement "several States and the People." But, this they did not do, because to do so would be in clear violation of the intended restrictions of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Here then is how the united States supreme Court addressed the question of the meaning of the term United States and how it affects our Citizenship (see Black's Law Dictionary) in the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945).

The Court ruled that the term United States has three uses:

  1. "...either as the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, or
  2. " designating the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (Federal government) extends" or
  3. " the collective name for the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

In other words, the term United States may mean:

  1. "'These united States, when traveling abroad, you come under the jurisdiction of the President through his agents in the U.S. State Department, where "U.S." refers to the sovereign nation. You are a "Citizen of the United States" like someone is a Citizen of France, or England. or
  2. "The United States (the District of Columbia, possessions and territories) Here Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. In this sense, the term "United States" is a singular noun. You are a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories or Federal areas (enclaves). Hence, even a person living in the one of the sovereign States could still be a member of the Federal area and a "citizen of the United States." Or
  3. "The several States which is the united States of America." Referring to the 50 sovereign States, which are united under the Constitution of the United States of America. The federal area is not included in this definition because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States within the Union of States. Rights are retained by the States in the 9th and 10th Amendments and you are a "Citizen of these united States."

Because the supreme Court has ruled on this matter, it is now incumbent upon each of us to always remember it and to apply it in all of our dealings with the Federal Government. If not, we lose by default. So, while a sovereign Citizen will want to be the third type of Citizen and on occasion the first, he would never want to be the second.

Sovereign Citizenship is the status fought for and won by our forefathers from the British Empire and has since become the birthright of all Natural Born Americans, and via our Constitution, we extend this status to foreign-born persons as well through our naturalization laws.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition defines "sovereign" as:

"A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy."

At the time of the Revolution, the King of England was the sovereign and the people within the Colonies were his subjects. After the colonies won the war with Britain, the people wanted a different status which did not call for them to serve any man, King or body government.:

The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State." [State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)]

At this point, you might ask, how is it that the Federal Government can claim jurisdiction over me? With respect to firearms, the process was as simple as writing "Yes" when answering the question "are you a citizen of the United States?" when completing form 4473 (9)(L) (the "yellow sheet") when purchasing a firearm from a Federally licensed dealer. Note however, that it is not required to answer "yes" on the 4473 form. You can answer "no" and still purchase the gun. Read the box at the bottom of the front page, it DOES NOT mention item (9)(L) as having to be answered "yes or no" to purchase a firearm.

Citizen v. citizen: Refer to Black's Law Dictionary for a legally acceptable copy of the Constitution.

Note; the capitalization of the term Citizen all the way through the Constitution and the first thirteen Amendments. Thereafter (from the 14th Amendment on), it is shown in lower case only. Why? Because, one is a sovereign Citizen of the several States with Unalienable Rights granted by the Creator and protected by the Constitution, while the other is a Federal citizen of the United States with legislative Immunities and Privileges only.

The Federal Government knows and understands this difference and so should we.

Surely, this is no secret to the legal community.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition also defines the "Fourteenth Amendment":

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secures all "persons" against any state action which results in either deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,…." [emphasis and underlines added]

It appears then that the 14th Amendment has not only created a new status of citizen, that of the United States, it has also retained exclusive legislative authority over such persons by forbidding any one of the several States from enacting any law over such "citizens" that would deprive them of life, liberty or property.

Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights, which relate to state citizenship. [Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)]

If you are like me, you probably are thinking that this all sounds redundant, because, I thought we already had these Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and if that were true then the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Except that, it is not about sovereign Citizens of the several States, it is about a new class of citizen of the United States (the District of Columbia, its possessions and territories). Simply, it is an effort to appear equivalent to the Constitution, for citizens of the United States have no Constitutional guarantees, merely legislative immunities and privileges. This then answers how the Government has been able to pass what appears to be unconstitutional laws, at least to sovereign Citizens, but not to citizens of the United States, which have no Rights or guarantees under the Constitution.

While the United States has no direct authority over a sovereign Citizen neither does a State have authority over a Federal citizen. This in part explains the difference in the term "STATE OF ILLINOIS" with respect to the term Illinois Republic. The former is also a corporate entity created under the Buck Act and is a possession of the United States. While the Illinois Republic is the sovereign State, one amongst the several States.

Recall the definition for the United States as examined earlier. Were you born in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any of the Possessions or Territories of the United States? If not, you have just asserted your own United States citizenship by answering "Yes" to the question on form 4473. Now that you have legally declared yourself a citizen of the United States, and have signed the document, you have accepted its "terms and conditions", which includes the entire USC and the CFR and are now subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Were you ever curious about why, as individuals, we can buy and sell firearms between each other without completing a form 4473? Well, the answer is that the 4473 form is a requirement only of the dealer who holds a Federal Firearms License, not the People. The Federal Government has no authority over a sovereign Citizen and must rely on our ignorance and complicity to persuade and trick us to complete the form. Ironically, the dealer is not required to do so either, nor is he required to have a FFL, but has also been misled and influenced by the practice of redefining commonly used words. Once again, the Federal Codes only applies to the United States (the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories) and to the federal citizens thereof (no matter where they are located), not the several States or the People.

While the Constitution does enumerate congressional power and authority to the United States to govern itself [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17], it has no exclusive legislative authority over the several States or the People thereof.

However, the Constitution also states that, "No State shall enter into any…law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…". By asserting United States citizenship on form 4473 and signing it, we enter into a private contract with the Federal Government and agree to the terms and conditions of that contract. A contract being an agreement between two or more people and their signatures, serve both to affirm the contract and to obligate them to the terms, conditions and performances therein.

Article 1, Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. [underlines added]

Most of us grew up thinking we were born citizens of the United States. In reality, we are sovereign Citizens of the State in which we were born, such as the Illinois Republic. The Congress of the United States refers to any one of the several States as one of the freely associated compact States.

So, assuming you were born in one of the 50 freely associated compact States, you are a Citizen of that State and therefore a Citizen of the union of States known as the united States of America. However, you are not now nor have you ever been a "citizen of the United States." If you have an American Passport, please look at it. Notice that it is from the "United States of America" (NOT the "United States"), and that it does not contain a Social Security Number! The following is yet another example that demonstrates the difference:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." [underlines added]

Obviously, the United States and the States, CANNOT be the same thing, or the sentence is redundant. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were writing -- that the powers not designated to the federal government were reserved to the several freely associated compact States and the People!

Hear the words of John Jay as he spoke at the Inauguration of the New York Constitution in 1777:

"… Every member of the state ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, and each the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." - John Jay (1777) [underlines added]

Again it is apparent, that the founders knew and understood that each State, within the several States is a separate entity in its own right and is as sovereign as any other country (nation) upon the Earth. That is why each State has its own militia, its own Governor, Legislature, Secretary of State and most of all, a Constitution. Not to mention the need for extradition proceedings and reciprocal agreements with other States. Do these things not describe and define an independent sovereign Nation?

Remember that the British surrendered to each of the thirteen Colonies (Nation-States) separately and individually. Those States then formed a union of States, committing themselves to each other for the common good. Subsequently, "We the people…" created a Constitution, which in turn created the entity known as the United States. However, never at any time did any of the States surrender their individual sovereignty. When we refer to ourselves in the vernacular as citizens of the United States, we actually think we are saying Citizens of the united States.

Is it not true, that, in the course of natural events, that the created can never be greater than its creator? By this same logic, the United States and the Federal Government can never be greater than the Constitution, the union of the several freely associated compact States or the People.

Therefore, one must surely and reasonably conclude that, the answer is "NO", The Gun Control Act of 1968 DOES NOT pertain to sovereign Citizens within the union of the several freely associated compact States. Nor for that matter, does any other Federal Regulation or United States Code, unless or until we sign up for them.

The mistake proponents of the Constitution and we gun enthusiasts (activists) have been making is that we have been fighting the battle against the wrong adversary: the Federal Law (codes, rules and regulations). That particular battle is lost from the outset, because to recognize the law, is to accept the law and its authority and we lose by default. Our efforts should therefore focus exclusively on the JURISDICTION of the law, by re-claiming our sovereignty as Citizens of the several States.

No law holds power over those who do not fall under its finite jurisdiction.

The United States was created to serve the several States, not to be its master.

Lastly, one must understand that this is all a matter of perspective. Meaning that since the Federal Government has no direct authority over the several States or the People, we then, must be the ones to initiate these contracts. They then, assume we are truly "citizens of the United States," because we answered, "YES" on the 4473 form and also because we DID NOT reserve any of our Rights to the contrary under our Constitutional Rights to Common Law.

According to the Ashwander v. T.V.A. case, here is what the court has stated happens to us when we sign-up for any Federal Program (benefit or privilege).

"anyone who partakes of the benefits or privileges of a given statute, or anyone who even places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts against the given statute." [Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S. Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688, (1938)][underlines added]

Since the 4473 is a contract, it is governed, in part, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is statute law regulating contracts dealing in commerce (remember, the Federal Government gets what little authority it does have over the several States from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3]). Now that all the courts are Admiralty Courts and under Federal Jurisdiction, Common Law has been placed "in harmony with" the UCC.

In the ANDERSON version of the Uniform Commercial Code (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.), it states the following:

"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, WHICH REMAINS IN FORCE, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." [UCC 1-103.6]

Here then is what one should do in order to reserve their Rights under the Constitution and the 7th Amendment.

Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207:

Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights

"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient." [underlines added]

The "without prejudice" clause is the means which enables one to assert his 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law and the Constitution.

          Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Further, the UCC states:

"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." [UCC 1-207.9] [underlines added]

What this all means is this, whenever you sign any legal document, whether it is dealing with the Federal Government, State Government, BATF, IRS, Social Security, Drivers License Bureau, Voter Registration or anything to do with Federal Reserve Notes, etc. ( in any way, shape or manner), over your signature you must write: "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" and never again answer "YES" to, "are you a citizen of the United States".

By the way, a true sovereign Citizen of any one of the several States is actually a non-resident alien to the United States. So, guess who isn't required to file an IRS 1040 Income Tax Return? You, guessed it, a non-resident alien. Why? Because, we are foreign to the United States. We were not born in the District of Columbia and we are not residents of the District of Columbia.

Volume 20 of "Corpus Juris Secundum" at 1758 states:

"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." [N.Y. v. re Merriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073; 41 L. Ed. 287] [underlines added]

However, there are certain conditions and circumstances where upon a non-resident alien might be required to file a 1040-NR tax return. Generally, compensation for one's labor, which is not INCOME, is simply a fair trade for his Life. It is unconstitutional to tax a man's Life but, it is not unconstitutional to tax a Federal citizen's life, for such a person has no Constitutional Protection. Rather, income is profit or gain of principle, as in an investment were one would be required to pay capital gains taxes.

For those who have already come to decide, through their own research and understanding of the limits the Constitution imposes of the Federal Government, it is at this point we hear about them getting into trouble with the Federal Government, particularly the IRS. Of course this then leads to the fear we all have and our reluctance to pursue the matter ourselves.

It is absolutely crucial, to know and understand that one must rescind and revoke ALL signatures and powers of attorney that one might have EVER committed to with the Federal Government in their LIFE TIME. For example, if the first IRS 1040 tax return you ever filed was in 1960, then you must notify the IRS that you are revoking your signature on ALL 1040 tax returns starting in 1960 to the present. The same then would be true in regards to the BATF and all of those 4473 forms you've signed since 1968.

In this way ONLY, can one deal with any level of Government and still retain access to the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and to Common Law as sovereign Citizens of the united States.

It is my hope and my wish, that everyone who reads this report, will take the time to verify the information presented in it, as I have, and will then use it to untangle themselves from the greed and corruption of our Federal Government who has chosen to usurp our Constitution for their notions of a NEW WORLD ORDER and then use it to help inform others.

This report is not copyrighted, so please, feel free to pass it along to fellow gun enthusiast and FREEDOM lovers everywhere . I only ask that it not be altered in any way and if an error is found or you wish to make a comment, please contact me via e-mail:

Additional copies and/or updates (as this is a work in progress - based on your feedback) may be downloaded from my web-site at:

Make no mistake about it, if the truth of the matter is not sufficient, then all we have left is the battle cry...

 "Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is."  Winston Churchill 


Printer Version

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. — JAMES MADISON

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks., Inc. © 1999-2023, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy