David Johansen
well chris, my point is they provide some kind of evidence and/or proof of the BS which kind of makes the whole thing a negative presumption which is impossible to disprove. this is probably a good thing to create a whole new thread upon for us to talk about, but here it is anyways:
An American consenting to the citizenship created by the 14th Amendment, a "US citizen", (most Americans today) does not have any rights. They are outlaws to the republics as founded in this Union and are treated as such. One's citizenship issue must be addressed first, before one can expect 2nd Amendment protection. Or any unalienable Right protection.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
Printed copy · Anthology Volume 8, page 74
