Gun Control Laws? Under What Jurisdiction are they enforced in Court?

[The2ndAmendment]

THERE ARE THREE JURISDICTIONS GRANTED TO THE ARTICLE III COURTS, COMMON LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY.

When laws are passed, and someone violates them, that person must go before the Court to face the charges and accusations against them. Let us suppose that a man has been charged for possession of "illegal" firearms.

We need to understand that a Court can only hear a Case if they have Jurisdiction. Any defendant may invoke their Sixth Amendment right to understand the nature and cause of the accusations against them, which includes the Court having to prove its Jurisdiction.

So I ask you all, which Jurisdiction does Gun Control Laws fall under? Common Law, Equity or Admiralty?

Read this sample Case below (I redacted the name and replaced it with a generic name).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Judge asks "Mr. John Smith, do you understand the charges against you?"

Smith - "No your honor, I do not, I am unaware of the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Perhaps you would like an attorney?"

Smith - "No your honor, I just have some questions that need to be answered before this trial can proceed, so that I may understand the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Ok, ask."

Smith - "Your Honor, is this Case Civil or Criminal?"

Judge - "This is not a Civil Case."

Smith - "Let the record show that this Case is not under the Equity Jurisdiction. I assume then that this is a Criminal Case?"

Judge - [Silence]

Smith - "Let the record denote the Judge's silence and has thus acquiesced. Therefore let the record show that this is a Criminal Case."

Smith - "Your Honor, if this is a Criminal Case, does it fall under Common Law Jurisdiction or Admiralty? For if we are under the Common Law, I ask that the injured party come forward and present the Corpus Delicti."

Judge - "This is not criminal Criminal Case under Common Law, therefore the prosecution does not have to establish the Corpus Delicti."

Smith - "Let the record show, that in absence of Corpus Delicti, that this Case is NOT under Common Law Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Then, your Honor, by default, if this Case falls under neither Common Law nor Equity Jurisdictions, then it must be under Admiralty Jurisdiction, correct?"

Judge - "I can assure you that we are on land right in the middle of the State of [Your State]."

Smith - "Let the record show the Judge has not answered the question, and that his answer is irrelevant, since Admiralty and Maritime Laws can only be enforced in a Court, which must exist on land."

Judge - "You must either accept the help of an attorney, or I'm going to hold you in contempt of Court!"

Smith - "Your Honor, one can not be held in contempt of Court for exercising their Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them. I have prepared and brought many excerpts from Case Law proving that exercising one's Constitutional Rights can never be construed as a crime; also, you cannot force anyone to accept the assistance of an attorney, it is my right to defend myself in Court, and as such, I need to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Then what is it that you are confused about?"

Smith - "Your Honor, I simply wish to know under which of the three Jurisdictions, provided under Article III of the Constitution, that this Court will try me under. We have established that is is neither Common Law nor Equity, thus that leaves the question of Admiralty, and Your Honor, you have not yet confirmed or denied whether or not we are under that Jurisdiction, and as such, I have not yet been informed of the NATURE and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "I can guarantee that we are on the land, and that this Court has Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Let the record show that the Judge has implied that we are estranged from Admiralty Jurisdiction because we are on land, even though that would not normally be a determining factor; also, let the record show that the Judge has resorted to hearsay in under to prove that the Court has Jurisdiction over the Case. Since this Case is not under any Jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution of the United States, I demand that this Case be dismissed."

Judge - "I object! This Case is under Statutory Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Thank you, your Honor, let the record show that this Case is under some secret and hidden Jurisdiction known as Statutory Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Your Honor, I have three questions that I must ask you, in order to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against me.

1) I have never heard of Statutory Jurisdiction, can you reveal where such Jurisdiction exists within the Constitution of the United States?

2) I must also know, in general, what types of crimes and situations are brought under this secret Jurisdiction, what are the intrinsic NATURES of these crimes?

3) Finally, if I have to defend under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you provide me with the location of a copy? "

Judge - "I don't' have time for this, Case Dismissed."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I guess this question stumps the Gun Control Crowd.

Do you even know what Jurisdiction is?

 

[earlycuyler]

THERE ARE THREE JURISDICTIONS GRANTED TO THE ARTICLE III COURTS, COMMON LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY.

When laws are passed, and someone violates them, that person must go before the Court to face the charges and accusations against them. Let us suppose that a man has been charged for possession of "illegal" firearms.

We need to understand that a Court can only hear a Case if they have Jurisdiction. Any defendant may invoke their Sixth Amendment right to understand the nature and cause of the accusations against them, which includes the Court having to prove its Jurisdiction.

So I ask you all, which Jurisdiction does Gun Control Laws fall under? Common Law, Equity or Admiralty?

Read this sample Case below (I redacted the name and replaced it with a generic name).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Judge asks "Mr. John Smith, do you understand the charges against you?"

Smith - "No your honor, I do not, I am unaware of the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Perhaps you would like an attorney?"

Smith - "No your honor, I just have some questions that need to be answered before this trial can proceed, so that I may understand the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Ok, ask."

Smith - "Your Honor, is this Case Civil or Criminal?"

Judge - "This is not a Civil Case."

Smith - "Let the record show that this Case is not under the Equity Jurisdiction. I assume then that this is a Criminal Case?"

Judge - [Silence]

Smith - "Let the record denote the Judge's silence and has thus acquiesced. Therefore let the record show that this is a Criminal Case."

Smith - "Your Honor, if this is a Criminal Case, does it fall under Common Law Jurisdiction or Admiralty? For if we are under the Common Law, I ask that the injured party come forward and present the Corpus Delicti."

Judge - "This is not criminal Criminal Case under Common Law, therefore the prosecution does not have to establish the Corpus Delicti."

Smith - "Let the record show, that in absence of Corpus Delicti, that this Case is NOT under Common Law Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Then, your Honor, by default, if this Case falls under neither Common Law nor Equity Jurisdictions, then it must be under Admiralty Jurisdiction, correct?"

Judge - "I can assure you that we are on land right in the middle of the State of [Your State]."

Smith - "Let the record show the Judge has not answered the question, and that his answer is irrelevant, since Admiralty and Maritime Laws can only be enforced in a Court, which must exist on land."

Judge - "You must either accept the help of an attorney, or I'm going to hold you in contempt of Court!"

Smith - "Your Honor, one can not be held in contempt of Court for exercising their Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them. I have prepared and brought many excerpts from Case Law proving that exercising one's Constitutional Rights can never be construed as a crime; also, you cannot force anyone to accept the assistance of an attorney, it is my right to defend myself in Court, and as such, I need to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "Then what is it that you are confused about?"

Smith - "Your Honor, I simply wish to know under which of the three Jurisdictions, provided under Article III of the Constitution, that this Court will try me under. We have established that is is neither Common Law nor Equity, thus that leaves the question of Admiralty, and Your Honor, you have not yet confirmed or denied whether or not we are under that Jurisdiction, and as such, I have not yet been informed of the NATURE and cause of the accusations against me."

Judge - "I can guarantee that we are on the land, and that this Court has Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Let the record show that the Judge has implied that we are estranged from Admiralty Jurisdiction because we are on land, even though that would not normally be a determining factor; also, let the record show that the Judge has resorted to hearsay in under to prove that the Court has Jurisdiction over the Case. Since this Case is not under any Jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution of the United States, I demand that this Case be dismissed."

Judge - "I object! This Case is under Statutory Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Thank you, your Honor, let the record show that this Case is under some secret and hidden Jurisdiction known as Statutory Jurisdiction."

Smith - "Your Honor, I have three questions that I must ask you, in order to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against me.

1) I have never heard of Statutory Jurisdiction, can you reveal where such Jurisdiction exists within the Constitution of the United States?

2) I must also know, in general, what types of crimes and situations are brought under this secret Jurisdiction, what are the intrinsic NATURES of these crimes?

3) Finally, if I have to defend under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you provide me with the location of a copy? "

Judge - "I don't' have time for this, Case Dismissed."

My old boss got "felon in possession of a fire arm" in Texas. Because Texas has truth in sentencing, he dodged the federal charges, but he stood a chance of getting those to. In the end, he went to Iowa Colony prison farm for three years.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you're seriously going to arguing that the Federal Courts have no power to hear any statute passed by Congress based on jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly creates and empowers Congress to create statutes?

 

[legaleagle_45]

THERE ARE THREE JURISDICTIONS GRANTED TO THE ARTICLE III COURTS, COMMON LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY.

Incorrect... From Article III:

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--

The Constituion does not specify "common law" it specifies "law" and specifically includes "Cases which rise under the Laws of the US".

Cases which at law which arise under "the Laws of the US" include federal criminal law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you're seriously going to arguing that the Federal Courts have no power to hear any statute passed by Congress based on jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly creates and empowers Congress to create statutes?

They only have power if you've signed a contract that places you under their Maritime (Equity) Jurisdiction.

For instance, when you sign your Driver's License, you've agreed to abide by the Statutory (Maritime[Equity]) rules and regulations that govern how once must drive. The Court can easily prove their Maritime Jurisdiction in this case.

How about gun laws, or possession of illegal drugs? Is there anyone "contract" that you've signed that placed you under their Admiralty (Criminal) Jurisdiction?

The short answer, is NO.

The Long answer, is ABSOLUTELY YES.

Avatar, do you know what this international maritime contract is that let's them govern you by Statute (for weapons/drug) charges?

-------------------
Avatar, I have a second question, do you know what a "Statute" is?

 

[Avatar4321]

So according to you, the Founders established a Congress to create statutes and gave the courts absolutely no jurisdiction to enforce them. Now we could either accept your premise that the Founders were complete morons or realize the sovereign citizen movement has absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So according to you, the Founders established a Congress to create statutes and gave the courts absolutely no jurisdiction to enforce them. Now we could either accept your premise that the Founders were complete morons or realize the sovereign citizen movement has absolutely no basis in reality.

Please define "Statute," try Black's Law Dictionary.

Also, this is the definition that the Courts accept:

"A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed."

Hold on to the thought "... by the consent of the governed", because that is a crucial thought.

Are you the Government? No. Therefore you must be 'the governed'.

A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever.

For traffic/moving violations, your driver's license is your Consent, you signed it.

What Consent did I give to be ruled by Gun and Drug Statutes? What contract did I sign? (there actually is a contract that you signed, but do you know what it is? It's also a contract that you can easily escape if you know your rights and reserve them with UCC 1-308)

-----------------------
Congress can create Statutes, but the individual must CONSENT by contract to follow them.

Law and Statute are SEPARATE THINGS.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Constitution is the covenant we've entered into as a people that gives Congress power to create statutes. We gave our consent when we entered into it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Constitution is the covenant we've entered into as a people that gives Congress power to create statutes. We gave our consent when we entered into it.

You must CONSENT to be governed by STATUTE. For instance, SIGNING A DRIVER'S LICENSE, is giving CONSENT. The driver's license is a CONTRACT.

You can only be governed by Statutes if you SIGN A CONTRACT.

What contract did we sign to be governed by Gun Control Statutes?

----------
Also, you are interpreting LAW and STATUTE to mean the same thing. They are different.

---------------------------------
You are governed by Law, whether you like it or not, there is no contract.

You are only governed by Statute if you signed a contract for some benefit (and accept the penalties that come with abusing that benefit)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here's a primer to understand:
Are You a U.S. Citizen?

I really thought that politically interested folks knew this already, the people that go on the forums, that care about this stuff with passion.