Oh, and I added some notes/thoughts in bold with underline.

Of course, what I've said tonight matters little if we don't come together to protect our most precious resource, our children. It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence, but this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans -- Americans who believe in the Second Amendment -- have come together around commonsense reform, like background checks [read national database on all guns] that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators...

(APPLAUSE)

Senators -- senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war [They are weapons of war, designed for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of innocent people when they are in the hands of citizens.  But in the hands of men in uniforms with tin badges - who often get the full auto versions too - they are magically transformed into personal defense weapons necessary for saving lives.] and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they're tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

Now...

(APPLAUSE)

If you want to vote no, that's your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote, because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. [Make no mistake, these murders weren't committed by criminals.  They were committed by all of us who have allowed regular, lowly civilians to own guns.  We are all to blame and must give up our rights.] More than a thousand. One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette.

She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago [gun-free] park after school, just a mile away from my [well-protected by men with guns] house. Hadiya's parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. [for gun banning]

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve a vote. [for gun control]

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve a vote. [for a national gun database disguised as universal background checks]

(APPLAUSE)

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. [for setting political precedent that the answer to crime is more gun control, more rights surrendered]

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Newtown deserve a vote. [for the idea that all of societies problems are caused by too many freedoms]

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Aurora deserve a vote. [for more power in the hands of the select few to be used against the many]

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote. [to continue the systematic dismantling of gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms in America]

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve -- they deserve a simple vote. Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all of the challenges I've outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect.

We were sent here to make what difference we can -- to secure this nation, expand opportunity, uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government. [self-government works best when you surrender your ability to fight those in power.  Only when they've got you completely outgunned can they be expected to represent your interests]

We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example. We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn't thinking about how her own home was faring. Her mind was on the 20 precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.

We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her, because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read ``I Voted.''

(APPLAUSE)

You know...

(APPLAUSE) There's Desiline.

(APPLAUSE)

We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy. When a gunman [nevermind that witnesses on camera said they saw 4 gunmen.  The official narrative is always the lone wolf] opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, Brian was the first to arrive, and he did not consider his own safety. He fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the fellow Americans worshiping inside, even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds. And when asked how he did that, Brian said, ``That's just the way we're made.'' That's just the way we're made.

We may do different jobs, and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title: We are citizens.

It's a word that doesn't just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we're made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to [the collective errrr I mean] one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others [which is why we have to continually relinquish them and only allow "officials" and "authorities" to exercise them with less restraint than we would, and with far less accountability than would ever be afforded us] ; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/transcript-obama-state-union-speech/

 ABC NEWS LINK HERE - VIDEO :) :) :)

PUBLIC SAFETY

We address the hard issues. Issues like the threat of gun violence.

Last December, our hearts broke along with the parents of the children who died in the horrific massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

And our hearts break every day with families who suffer from violence in Illinois communities…families like the Pendletons, whose daughter Hadiya Pendleton was stolen from us last week.

I spoke with Hadiya’s family on Monday. There are no words in the English language…or any language…to relieve the pain of parents who lose a child.

In the Old Testament, the prophet Jeremiah wept day and night for the slain of his people.
Today, we all weep over the senseless violence in our communities.

But as elected officials, we’re in a position to do something about it. We have life-saving work to do.

We cannot wait for another tragedy to happen before we take action.

We must move forward with a comprehensive plan that includes gun safety legislation, mental health care, and violence prevention strategies.

That’s why today, I ask you to move forward with strong public safety legislation that will safeguard the people of Illinois.

We must prohibit the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in Illinois.

Of course, we must abide with the second amendment. But there is no place in our state for military-style assault weapons designed for rapid fire at human targets at close range.

And I want to thank Orland Park Police Chief and former Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, an American hero who saved the life of President Ronald Reagan, for his help on this issue. Thank you, Tim.

We must ensure that guns are kept out of everyday public places, because guns don’t belong in our schools, shopping malls, or sports stadiums.

And we must make Illinois safer by strengthening background checks and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.

I want to salute Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel for their leadership on this issue.

We also must empower our law enforcement to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. That means we need reliable mental health records.

For years, counties across our state have not been reporting their mental health records to the Illinois State Police. This year, we need every county to step up and do its part to ensure mental health records are updated in real time.

And if there is one thing we can learn from Newtown, it is that we can never rest when it comes to school safety.

Last month, I convened a School Safety Summit with education, public safety, mental health and law enforcement leaders to identify better ways to protect our schools.

Our students and teachers can never be too prepared. That’s why we should pass legislation that will require every school in our state to practice active safety drills that will prepare them for even the worst.

Our Public Safety Agenda is both comprehensive and common sense. Together, we can get it done.
That’s our Illinois.

Quinn calls for ethics reform, assault weapons ban in State of State

By John O'Connor and Sophia Tareen
The Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD —

Illinois needs a tough law prohibiting lawmakers from voting on issues where they have a conflict of interest, Gov. Pat Quinn said Wednesday in his State of the State address.

Quinn also renewed a call for banning military-style assault weapons and urged a 20 percent increase in the hourly minimum wage, to $10.

He only made scattered references to the state's most pressing problem — a stifling public-employee pension deficit, but the "squeeze" it puts on other government spending was an undercurrent throughout Quinn's fifth State of the State. Quinn pointedly named Senate President John Cullerton's latest legislation that provides a fallback plan if the first is declared unconstitutional as "the best vehicle to get the job done."

"Do we want, in the years to come, a prosperous Illinois where working people continue to have good jobs, where business thrive, and where all our children have a world-class education?" Quinn asked. "Or do we want to stop the progress and watch our economic recovery stall?"

There were few other direct challenges in a speech traditionally reserved for a governor to highlight his accomplishments in the past year. He trumpeted job creation, a Medicaid overhaul and the closure of 54 state facilities to save money, workers' compensation reform, clean water and infrastructure improvements. He shared credit with bipartisan shout-outs to a half-dozen lawmakers who have lassoed significant issues, from allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's license to mortgage foreclosure prevention.

by Greg Bishop

So, aside from training for the Lincoln Presidential Half-Marathon, I'm also finishing several big projects and trying to read through Carroll Quigley's 1300 page book Tragedy & Hope.

Who is Carol Quigley you may ask? Well, he's only a very influential historian who mentored people like Bill Clinton, that's all.

 

In his book, which takes the reader through an incredibly complex and multidimensional and interdisciplinary narrative of world and human history, he addresses weapons and the trends of who controls the weapons, controls the power.

I thought that with the conversation of late surrounding firearms in this country and Americans rights to keep and bear arms, it would be important to point out the true understanding of the elite central planners.

In his book, which you can read online here, Quigley says in the section "The Organization of Power:"

    "By the 'organization of power' in a society we mean the ways in which obedience and consent or acquiescence)are obtained. The close relationships between levels can be seen from the fact that there are three basic ways to win obedience: by force, by buying consent with wealth, and by persuasion.

    "When weapons are cheap to get and so easy to use that almost anyone can use them after a short period of training, armies are generally made up of large masses of amateur soldiers. Such weapons we call "amateur weapons," and such armies we might call "mass armies of citizen-soldiers."

So when weapons are readily available the military power lies in the hands of the citizen-soldier. OK.

    "[But when] weapons were expensive and required long training in their use. Such weapons we call 'specialist' weapons. Periods of specialist weapons are generally periods of small armies of professional soldiers (usually mercenaries). In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government."

Right now there is a movement in this country by some people to label semi-automatic rifles "specialist" weapons by using the term "military grade" or even labeling them "assault" weapons.

The guns being targeted by legislators are firearms that takes one trigger-pull per round fired.  They are not high-powered fully automatic machine guns that allow multiple rounds per one trigger pull.  Those types of weapons are already banned.

Also something to note here ... think about the firepower that local police are increasingly being allowed to obtain. They include battering ram truck-tanks and other more sophisticated and truly "specialist" weapons.  Can we say sound weapons like the LRAD?

Say hello to authoritarian government, ladies and gentlemen!

Let's continue, shall we?

    "[A] period of amateur [as compared to the before mentioned 'specialist'] weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise."

That right there is a kill-shot, sniper-bullet right through the temple of tyranny. Let's read that one more time.

    "a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise."

Now, unfortunately, Quigley finishes up this short section of a massively long book on world history by saying the 20th century is the rise of authoritarian government because of things like the atom bomb and such. 

But for a thought exercise, let's imagine this on a much smaller scale.



Think about the government around you in your everyday life ... are they amassing more "specialist" weapons while trying redefine "amateur" weapons and tell you they should be banned?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting and it's not about skeet-shooting. Limiting and defining what arms the commoner can have versus what the state (government) can amass with the serf's tax dollars to use against the commoner to "enforce" law is tyranny.

Wake up and smell the authoritarianism and educate others about the real reason for gun control. It has nothing to do with saving lives.  It is all about control.

‘Drug and gang activity’ suspected in fatal Lake Shore Drive shooting

The shooting death of a woman in a van on Lake Shore Drive early Friday is likely connected to “drug and gang activity,” investigators said.

The woman was found slumped in the driver’s seat of her vehicle — “riddled with bullets” — after she was shot early Friday morning on Lake Shore Drive near the Stevenson Expy. early Friday.

Someone inside a full-sized “brown van” fired shots at the woman’s white van while it was on Lake Shore Drive, Illinois State Police Capt. Luis Gutierrez told reporters.The exact circumstances of what led the shooter to fire off “10 to 14 rounds” remained unclear Friday, and investigators had no one in custody, but Gutierrez said it was likely gang-related.

Police found the woman, believed to be in her 30s, after responding to a call of a car crash. The dead woman was inside her van in the southbound lanes of Lake Shore Drive near I-55, police said.

The woman was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead, Illinois State Police said.

Another female passenger in the van was not injured, police said. The passenger was in police custody for questioning early Friday.

Gutierrez said the victim, shortly before the shooting, had driven from the North Side.

As a result of the fatal shooting, authorities closed off southbound lanes on the Lake Shore Drive ramp leading to I-55 about 4:20 a.m., state police said.

“Expect traffic delays,” state police said in a statement. “It is unknown when the ramp will reopen.”

Guns and gay marriage are at the top of the agenda

Story by 89 WLS reporter Bill Cameron
Guns and gay marriage are at the top of the agenda in Springfield when the legislature comes back next month.

You might think concealed carry is the last thing Democrats would want given their push for an assault weapons ban and a ten bullet limit on magazine clips.

But now that the courts have ruled against the state's concealed carry law, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton says they need to approve concealed carry quickly to prevent violence, "If we don't pass a law, it'll be the wild west! Then people can just walk down the street without any limitation. So, we have the obligation to pass a bill. The NRA would be happy if we passed nothing."

Also at the City Club, Cullerton said the state Senate will move quickly soon to pass gay marriage, which the Democrats now call marriage equality.
© Content Copyright 2013 WLS Radio 890AM and WLSAM.com. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By Rick Pearson Tribune reporter

7:56 p.m. CST, January 27, 2013

Debbie Halvorson found herself alone among leading Democratic candidates Sunday when she indicated she would not support a ban on the semiautomatic firearm used in the Sandy Hook school shooting last month.

The former one-term congresswoman from Crete took that position at a wide-ranging candidate forum in the 2nd Congressional District contest to replace former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

Gun violence, including President Barack Obama’s call for a semiautomatic assault weapons ban and a prohibition on large-capacity magazines, has grown into a major issue in the South Side and south suburban district—particularly given Chicago’s recent history of gun-related murders. Nationally, the debate was fueled by last month’s killing of 20 elementary school students in Newtown, Conn.

But in a crowded and fast-approaching Feb. 26 special primary, Democratic opponents attaching themselves to Obama’s call for more gun laws are trying to isolate Halvorson, who has received past backing by the National Rifle Association.

“We’ve buried far too many of our own children over the years—every day. When are we going to go after the criminals? When are we going to go after the people who buy guns for those who aren’t able to go get their backgrounds checked? We need to strengthen the laws we already have instead of keep talking about new ones,” Halvorson said at the forum at Trinity United Church of Christ, 400 W. 95th St.

“We need to do more about the criminals. Cook County has an assault weapons ban. We have the highest amount of murders in the country. Let’s do more about enforcing the laws we have at the same time doing more about keeping our streets safe,” she said, adding she backs a universal background check and tougher criminal penalties on straw purchasers.

Though she handily lost a primary last March to Jackson, Halvorson is viewed as a leading candidate in the special primary with good name recognition and her status as the only white candidate among 17 Democratic contenders.

Robin Kelly of Matteson, a former state lawmaker, said she not only backed an assault weapons ban and universal background checks but also wanted the state to go no further on legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons. A federal appeals court recently ruled Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms in public unconstitutional. 

But Kelly, who has begun airing radio ads in support of her gun-control stance, made a veiled criticism of Halvorson at the forum when she said, “I got an F (grade) from the NRA, something I’m proud of. I don’t have to go back and take the test and study anymore.”

State Sen. Toi Hutchinson of Olympia Fields, who replaced Halvorson in the state Senate, also has had NRA backing in the past. Hutchinson, who did not attend the forum, has embraced Obama’s call for tougher gun measures and co-sponsored a bill in Springfield to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Chicago Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, noted his role in passing the city’s 2010 ordinance to strictly regulate handguns, saying, “We need to take that leadership to Washington.” Likening the need to curb neighborhood gun crime to the airport safety checks instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Beale said, “The planes are crashing in our community and we must act and act now.”

New state Sen. Napoleon Harris, D-Flossmoor, was more reserved, saying the underlying issues of poverty, joblessness, family unrest and mental health issues need to be addressed first.

Disgraced former U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds, forced to give up the seat after convictions that included having sex with an underage campaign worker, noted he co-sponsored the nation’s previous assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

But for her part, Halvorson was adamant against looking at a gun ban.

“I refuse to take a look at these wide ranging gun bans and pass one more law against a law abiding citizen until there is something done against those who get their guns illegally or criminal,” she said after the forum.

“I’m with the president, first of all, that we must continue this national dialogue. For the first time ever, we’ve got this (gun issue) as something we’re talking about and everybody’s at the table,” she said.

rap30@aol.com

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?

One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist.

Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of "public policy", with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to "flexible" interpretations by "cooperative" judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

18 USC §10:
The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds!

Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

18 USC §921(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 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).
[emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44?

The only distinction we find is in the use of the words "...any place in a State...". Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - or does it? Maybe we should ask what "place within a State" might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore!

Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled "Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction". What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is "State jurisdiction" and there is "federal jurisdiction", and the two are not the same.

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7.

Section 7 defines the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States". Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

18 USC §7(3):
Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal "places" exist within the states of the Union.

One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

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 [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a).

[Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.]

18 USC §13(a):
Whoever within...any places...provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such place is situated...

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the "places" that are referred to in the definition of "interstate or foreign commerce" at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the "places...provided in section 7 of this title", which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State!

Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" (at §921(2)). Our "clarified" version reads like this:

The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.

Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses "States" is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, "interstate or foreign commerce" means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean!

Are you getting the picture? Every "place" being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the "interstate and foreign commerce" being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such "places". For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined "State" as "the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States". In short, it's all territorial.

The definition of "interstate or foreign commerce", at 921(2), is only a "red herring" placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union.

Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of "interstate commerce" provided at §10? Two little words - "any place" - needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

If one reads the "Congressional Findings and Declarations" in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the "exclusive legislative control" clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union.

Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were "omitted" when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word "omit"; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, "Left out". When a section or portion of a statute is "omitted" it is exactly as Webster has stated - it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect - it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more!

[Editor Note - The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large.]

So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of "presumption from possession". While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory "presumptions" tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of "interstate or foreign commerce". Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more!

The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, "receipt with knowledge...that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively." You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of "public policy" law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms.

Let's review what we've covered:

1. Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.
2. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, "Commerce and Trade".
3. In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.
4. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.]
5. Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!
6. The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
7. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.
8. The definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.
9. The "declarations" or "findings" that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.

If you have found this item to be informative, please send this URL to a friend, associate, or family member. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php