From the February 2007 Idaho Observer:

The National Brotherhood/Sisterhood of Legal Liars

As a gun designer, builder and manufacturer (and an avid enthusiast), I see any form of government-required firearms registration, regulation, restriction, or taxation as an infringement on the Second Amendment’s enumerated Right to keep and bear arms. There is also no question in my mind that the Founders memorialized their intent that individuals preserve the right to keep and bear arms individually, not secure a collective right to keep and bear arms that would be held by the state.

Positive law: Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by a proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.

Negative law: There is no definition though "negative statute" is defined as "A statute expressed in negative terms; a statute which prohibits a thing from being done, or declares what shall not be done."

Jural: Pertaining to natural or positive right, or to the doctrines of rights and obligations; as "jural relations." ...Recognized or sanctioned by positive law; embraced within, or covered by, the rules and enactments of positive law. Founded in law; organized upon the basis of fundamental law, and existing for the recognition and protection of rights...The term "jural society" is used as the synonym of "state" or "organized political entity."

Statutes at large: "An official compilation of the acts and resolutions of each session of Congress published by the Office of the Federal Register in the National Archives and Records Service. It consists of two parts, the first comprising public acts and joint resolutions, the second, private acts and joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, treatises, proposed and ratified amendments to Constitution, and Presidential proclamations. The arrangement is currently by Public Law number, and by chapter number in pre-1951 volumes. This is the official print of the law for citation purposes where titles of the United States Code have not been enacted into positive law. [emphasis added]

(Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th edition, 1990)

If you can tax something, you can destroy it. So, if the laws that "control" firearms possession are unconstitutional, then why don’t the courts support the Second Amendment?

Well, that argument did not fly and I was found guilty of gun laws violations and sent to prison.

Then, while researching Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 922 in particular, I find reference to the fact that the titles of the U.S. Codes have not been enacted into "positive law."

If true, it would mean bliss for over 87 million registered gun owners in this country. It would also mean that we the people could actually keep and bear arms, like our beloved Constitution enumerates as a Right that shall NOT be infringed, by anyone, or any agency, or any government be it state or federal.

Take a look at the first 10 amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. You will see that these first 10 amendments are not "granting" anything to the people; they are specific prohibitions against the state infringing on rights that are self-evident and exist as gifts from God.

If the gun laws were, in fact, NOT enacted by Congress, pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the Constitution, then they are NOT laws at all, they would have no legal, lawful authority, because it is only Congress that has the constitutional powers to enact legislation. That goes for the federal government and each state government.

So, when I came across Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, 8^th printing (1994) page 1411, under the definition of Statutes at Large, I find that "...titles of the United States Code have not been enacted into positive law." [see definition atop page]

That, was the beginning of an all-out search for the truth of things pertaining to the "gun laws"-those 20,000+ "gun laws."

That information is also found in Black’s 5^th Edition, pp. 1265-66. But, and not surprisingly, Black’s 7^th Edition (1999) CHANGED the definition by omitting the statement "..titles of the United States Code have not been enacted into positive law." That was printed in 1999.

Black’s 8^th Edition does NOT have that U.S. Code status either.

And now we know why. It is because patriots have been challenging government gun laws (and a lot of other laws) for over 75 years, and more intensely in the last decade. So, to make it more difficult for the patriots to continue exposing the ongoing fraud of enforcing U.S. Code as if it were positive law, the definitions of key words and phrases are being altered. An example of that is found in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 54c defines an ACT of Congress:

"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 insular possession."

That definition of terms has been recently "transferred" to Rule 1 and it is buried, changed so that it does not define an act of Congress anymore. WHY?

Is it because people are beginning to figure things out? Is it because the people are waking up to the fraud and injustice inherent with the enforcement of invalid U.S. Code?

During the last nine months, I have concentrated on locating evidence to support the belief that our criminal justice system is almost completely unconstitutional, due to the apparent fact that none of the U.S. Codes have been enacted into law by an ACT of Congress, thus, they are all null and void of any authority or legitimacy whatsoever, which means that virtually all federal indictments using the U.S. Code for citation purposes, are a nullity, ab initio (from the beginning).

This would be the greatest news for all of the gun owners of this country. It would be great news for every federal prisoner, felon and ex-felon in America. It would lead up to massive civil rights violation law suits against every law enforcement agency, criminal courts, federal mostly, but some state courts as well. Without a valid law, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction; without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has no authority to adjudicate. Exposing the truth about the invalidity of the United States Code would undermine the entire U.S. Department of Justice. It would be the most spectacular news event in federal criminal justice system history.

So, from a humble layman’s point of view, invalidity of the U.S. Codes does have merit, and there is prima facie evidence in support of this issue, and we can expose the truth.

Now, even if Congress decided to "enact" the Titles to the U.S. Code, it would then only be applicable to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories and properties of the Federal Government. The United States Constitution is very clear on this matter. We do have a separation of powers, federal and state. Chief Justice Thomas said, in 1995, in the U.S. v. Lopez case, that, "The United States has nothing approaching a police power..."

The Constitution does not give Congress the power to punish common law crimes! That is strictly a State power! Today’s federal courts operate far beyond their jurisdiction. The Constitution DOES NOT enumerate a dual police state anywhere. But, what do you call the FBI, ATF, DEA, IRS and other agencies which violate our due process rights?

Dual government! Nobody can define the line of demarcation between state and federal powers, much less find it anymore.

I have copied The IO with copies of five letters sent to government entities requesting info on Title 18, U.S.Code status. I will keep The IO apprised of responses as they are received. Per a letter to Charles Degan dated June 28, 2000, from Jeff Trandahl of the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Title 18 of U.S. Code (federal criminal code) was not enacted into law in 1948 or, presumably, at any time since.