Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.880 --> 00:07.600] Welcome to the show. Let me make a statement that may shock you. That statement is this. [00:08.880 --> 00:15.280] Federal firearms laws have no force or effect in the states of the union. Your immediate knee-jerk [00:15.280 --> 00:20.560] response may be, that's nuts. Of course they apply in the states. If that's your response, [00:21.280 --> 00:27.280] I get it. Not only have you been told your whole adult life that they do have force and effect in [00:27.280 --> 00:32.320] the states, you've seen people convicted whose actions took place within a state. [00:33.200 --> 00:38.160] I'm going to clear up all of that for you right now and show you precisely why federal firearms [00:38.160 --> 00:46.320] laws are constitutionally inapplicable within the states of the union and why now is the exact [00:46.400 --> 00:48.960] right time to challenge them. [01:05.360 --> 01:10.080] Let's start with this. Many of you know I preach that Americans should learn the truth that Congress [01:10.080 --> 01:15.200] has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans. Those who oppose the truth [01:15.200 --> 01:19.440] often make snide remarks about people who've been convicted of not paying income tax. [01:19.440 --> 01:25.920] Yet not one of the people making a snide remark ever asks why those particular people were [01:25.920 --> 01:31.200] prosecuted. Roughly nine months ago I released a presentation explaining why some, such as Wesley [01:31.200 --> 01:36.080] Snipes and Erwin Schiff, get prosecuted. But I don't, even though I haven't filed a return or [01:36.080 --> 01:41.440] paid a penny of income tax in 30 years, and have written the nation's best-selling book that educates [01:41.440 --> 01:46.160] Americans on the truth that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans. [01:46.720 --> 01:52.480] The reason that some people are prosecuted while others are not is pretty damn important, [01:52.480 --> 01:57.360] wouldn't you say? I'll put the link to that presentation in the notes. One of the people [01:57.360 --> 02:02.080] often mentioned in those snide comments is Willie Nelson. In the presentation I just mentioned, [02:02.080 --> 02:08.560] I point out that Willie believed he owed income tax but just didn't pay it. How do you defend [02:08.560 --> 02:13.760] yourself from an allegation of wrongdoing if you think you really did have an obligation [02:13.760 --> 02:20.160] and really did violate the law? Obviously you can't. Likewise, if a person living within a [02:20.160 --> 02:25.120] state of the union is charged with violating a federal firearm statute, believes the statute is [02:25.120 --> 02:29.680] constitutional when applied to his actions within a state of the union, why would he think to [02:29.680 --> 02:36.160] challenge the statute's jurisdiction? Obviously he wouldn't. Some of you may be thinking that his [02:36.160 --> 02:42.960] attorney would think to challenge the statute's jurisdiction. Sorry, no. The firearms laws we're [02:42.960 --> 02:50.560] discussing were first enacted in 1938, 85 years ago as I'm recording this. In that time, thousands [02:50.560 --> 02:56.560] of Americans in the states of the union have been tried and convicted under those laws. So after 85 [02:56.560 --> 03:01.200] years and thousands of successful prosecutions of defendants who committed their alleged illegal act [03:01.200 --> 03:05.680] within a state of the union, what would cause an attorney to consider that the law is inapplicable [03:05.680 --> 03:12.400] in a state of the union? Answer, it would never cross the attorney's mind. Before we jump into [03:12.400 --> 03:16.560] discussing why federal firearms laws don't have applicability in the states of the union, [03:16.560 --> 03:21.280] let me draw another parallel to the income tax issue. Over the past 30 years, I've spoken to [03:21.280 --> 03:25.360] quite a number of criminal defense attorneys and tax attorneys concerning the truth of the income [03:25.360 --> 03:32.480] tax. And guess what? Not one of them have been informed about or even had a passing familiarity [03:32.480 --> 03:37.520] with the facts I presented to them. But more importantly, in terms of today's discussion, [03:37.520 --> 03:45.680] they also had no interest in the discussion. Why? Because there's no money for them in the truth. [03:45.680 --> 03:50.000] The vast majority of tax attorneys would need to find a new line of work if the American people [03:50.000 --> 03:56.240] knew the truth. Attorneys are very clear about how disadvantageous the truth is for them. Most [03:56.240 --> 04:01.120] criminal defense attorneys who handle tax cases specialize in that field. What would happen to [04:01.120 --> 04:05.920] their income if the truth was recognized and people stopped being prosecuted for income tax crimes? [04:07.120 --> 04:11.520] Everyone knows that highly processed foods are a major contributor to the explosion of [04:11.520 --> 04:17.120] chronic disease in America and people die from chronic diseases. Have you ever heard [04:17.120 --> 04:21.040] a company that produces processed foods acknowledge its products are killing people? [04:21.920 --> 04:28.320] Of course not. Why? Because they want the money and they don't give a shit if people are dying [04:28.320 --> 04:34.480] as a consequence of what they put on the market. Similarly, whether it's income tax law or the [04:34.480 --> 04:39.840] limited jurisdiction of federal firearms laws, for attorneys to get on board with the truth means the [04:39.840 --> 04:46.720] end of their gravy train. Let me go a step further. Probably almost two decades ago, I wrote a treatise [04:46.720 --> 04:50.320] on the limited jurisdiction of federal firearms laws containing much of what you're going to hear [04:50.320 --> 04:56.080] today. Over the years, that treatise has been provided to a number of so-called gun rights [04:56.080 --> 05:03.360] attorneys. What has been their response? Silence. Has even one of them offered a refutation of the [05:03.360 --> 05:11.120] legal facts in the treatise? No. Instead, they remain silent. Now think about this. What would [05:11.120 --> 05:14.960] happen to the income of an attorney who specializes in defending people who've been accused of [05:14.960 --> 05:21.600] violating gun laws if those gun laws were declared unconstitutional within the states of the union? [05:22.240 --> 05:27.600] Right. That attorney's income would plummet. He'd probably have to find another area in which to [05:27.600 --> 05:32.800] specialize. If an attorney has spent years building a practice in a particular specialty, [05:32.800 --> 05:37.760] the last thing he wants is to have to start all over. In other words, whether it's criminal defense [05:37.760 --> 05:41.920] attorneys specializing in tax law or those specializing in firearms laws, they refuse to [05:41.920 --> 05:48.480] even look at what the law really says because the truth is injurious to them. It will cripple their [05:48.480 --> 05:53.360] incomes. Understanding that defendants never think to challenge the statute's jurisdictional [05:53.360 --> 05:58.960] boundaries and attorneys refuse to even look at the jurisdictional issue. Now, let's get into the [05:58.960 --> 06:04.240] law. When considering federal law, one must understand that the federal government has no [06:04.960 --> 06:09.760] general authority as do state governments. The federal government is a government of limited [06:09.760 --> 06:16.640] jurisdiction, those limits being circumscribed by the constitution. A well-settled principle of law [06:16.640 --> 06:21.920] concerning the federal government is its jurisdiction falls into just two categories, [06:21.920 --> 06:28.080] geographic and subject matter. Congress's geographic subject matter is limited to places [06:28.080 --> 06:35.600] over which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which does not include the states [06:35.600 --> 06:40.400] of the union. Let's take a look at the constitutional provision that grants Congress that authority. [06:40.480 --> 06:47.680] That's found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and reads, quote, to exercise exclusive [06:47.680 --> 06:54.400] legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, [06:54.400 --> 07:00.400] as may by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government [07:00.400 --> 07:08.720] of the United States and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the [07:08.720 --> 07:13.360] legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, [07:13.360 --> 07:19.200] arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings and to make all laws which shall be necessary [07:19.200 --> 07:23.680] and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested [07:23.680 --> 07:28.960] by the constitution and the government of the United States or in any department or office thereof. [07:31.120 --> 07:35.440] According to the U.S. Supreme Court, what that provision means is that Congress has what is [07:35.440 --> 07:41.280] called municipal authority in Washington, D.C., U.S. possessions and territories, [07:41.280 --> 07:46.240] and emplaces upon land a state of the union has turned over to the federal government. [07:46.240 --> 07:51.040] Municipal authority means the authority to create laws of general applicability, such as laws against [07:51.040 --> 07:57.600] murder, robbery, rape, battery, fraud, etc. The federal government does not have municipal authority [07:57.600 --> 08:02.800] within the states of the union. When a state gives part of its land to the federal government, [08:02.800 --> 08:07.840] it's called ceding. In order for a state to constitutionally cede land to the federal [08:07.840 --> 08:13.600] government, the state legislature must vote to cede a specific area of land to the federal government [08:13.600 --> 08:20.960] and Congress must vote to accept it. Both steps are constitutionally required. Once both steps [08:20.960 --> 08:27.280] occur, that area of land within the state ceases to be a part of the state. It becomes part of the [08:27.920 --> 08:34.480] federal government. When the Constitution says, quote, and to exercise like authority over all [08:34.480 --> 08:40.800] places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the states, close quote, it is referring to [08:40.800 --> 08:48.480] those places within the states that are no longer constitutionally part of a state. Let's quickly [08:48.480 --> 08:53.760] examine a Supreme Court decision that will validate for you that Congress has no lawmaking authority [08:53.760 --> 08:58.880] in the states of the union. In Pollard v. Hagan, the Supreme Court addressed the limits of federal [08:58.880 --> 09:05.760] lawmaking within a state. Here's what the court said, quote, the United States, that by the way [09:05.760 --> 09:12.960] means Congress, never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the [09:12.960 --> 09:18.640] territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed because the United States has [09:19.440 --> 09:26.880] no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain [09:26.880 --> 09:32.720] within the limits of a state or elsewhere except in the cases in which it is expressly granted, [09:33.280 --> 09:38.320] close quote. Expressly granted means by the Constitution. The second area of jurisdiction [09:38.320 --> 09:43.760] for the federal government is subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdiction arises from the [09:43.760 --> 09:48.880] Constitution stating specific authorities the states gave the federal government when the states [09:48.880 --> 09:54.240] created Congress. Most of those authorities are found in Article 1, Section 8. Examples of subject [09:54.240 --> 09:59.200] matter jurisdiction are the Constitution authorizing Congress to establish a post office, [09:59.200 --> 10:04.160] to provide and maintain a navy, and to establish uniform laws for bankruptcy. Because those [10:04.160 --> 10:09.440] authorities are based on subject matter rather than geography, the government has jurisdiction [10:09.440 --> 10:14.880] for those matters not only in its own geographic territory but also in every state of the Union. [10:14.880 --> 10:21.520] To summarize, Congress has only two forms of jurisdiction. Its geographic jurisdiction, [10:21.520 --> 10:26.720] which does not extend into the states, and its subject matter jurisdiction, which does. [10:27.600 --> 10:31.920] With that under our belts, let's get on with the firearms laws the U.S. government wants you to [10:31.920 --> 10:36.800] believe apply within the states. The bulk of the federal firearms laws that concern Americans who [10:36.800 --> 10:43.760] support the right to heat and bear arms are found in Title 18, Chapter 44, entitled succinctly, Firearms. [10:44.320 --> 10:49.760] Chapter 44 is essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, significantly amended over the years, [10:49.760 --> 10:55.760] most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before we jump into Chapter 44 in earnest, [10:55.760 --> 10:59.760] let's go up to the 35,000 foot level and acknowledge that the Constitution does not grant [10:59.760 --> 11:04.800] the federal government any authority over firearms ownership, firearm sales, or firearms [11:04.800 --> 11:10.080] manufacturing within the Union states. If you've not already done so, I encourage you to read the [11:10.080 --> 11:16.560] Constitution front to back every word. You won't find a single word about Congress having jurisdiction [11:16.560 --> 11:21.440] over firearms. We know Congress can't make laws for those of us living in the states of the Union, [11:21.440 --> 11:25.760] and the Constitution doesn't provide Congress with any subject matter authority concerning firearms. [11:26.400 --> 11:32.240] So then, in the absence of geographic authority and no mention of arms in the enumerated subject [11:32.240 --> 11:36.800] matter authorities, where would Congress get authority over firearms within the states of the [11:36.800 --> 11:43.600] Union? As you're about to see, Congress shoehorned its control of firearms into its subject matter [11:43.600 --> 11:50.320] jurisdiction over goods moving in interstate commerce. Let's quickly consider four aspects of [11:50.320 --> 11:55.760] Congress's interstate commerce authority. First, the founders never intended it to be used, as it [11:55.760 --> 12:01.600] has been during the 20th and 21st centuries. In terms of commerce among the states, the founders [12:01.600 --> 12:06.240] merely intended to give Congress the authority to prevent one state from erecting physical and or [12:06.240 --> 12:12.960] financial barriers against goods produced in other states. A modern way to phrase it is that Congress [12:12.960 --> 12:18.880] was given interstate commerce authority to assure all the states of the Union remained a free trade [12:18.880 --> 12:25.040] zone. Second, there is a definition of interstate commerce in Title 18 that applies to the entire [12:25.120 --> 12:33.680] title, except Chapter 44. Isn't that odd? Third, the original Act of 1938 had a definition of [12:33.680 --> 12:39.520] interstate commerce that didn't define interstate commerce accurately, and that was not a mistake. [12:39.520 --> 12:46.320] Fourth, the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, while reenacting [12:46.320 --> 12:52.320] many of its provisions, including a new definition of interstate commerce. To do a quick recap, [12:52.320 --> 12:58.480] Chapter 44 relies for its authority entirely on Congress's interstate commerce jurisdiction. [12:59.040 --> 13:03.440] The 1938 Act had a bizarrely inaccurate definition of interstate commerce. [13:04.000 --> 13:10.720] The 1968 Act completely changed that definition, yet the authors of both Acts felt the definition [13:10.720 --> 13:18.640] provided for the entire rest of Title 18 could not be used for Chapter 44. So, in summary, [13:18.640 --> 13:22.000] one definition of interstate commerce is good enough for all of Title 18, [13:22.720 --> 13:29.280] but both pieces of legislation that wound up in Chapter 44 had to craft their own special [13:29.280 --> 13:35.680] definitions. Are you smelling a rat? The definition that applies to all of Title 18, [13:35.680 --> 13:41.680] except Chapter 44, is at Section 10 and reads, quote, the term interstate commerce as used in [13:41.680 --> 13:48.480] this title includes commerce between one state, territory, possession, or the District of Columbia, [13:48.480 --> 13:53.520] and another state, territory, possession, or the District of Columbia, close quote. [13:54.320 --> 13:58.880] Just a quick note, in this presentation, I have excluded any mention of Congress's authority over [13:58.880 --> 14:03.600] foreign commerce because it's irrelevant to today's discussion. The definition of interstate commerce [14:03.600 --> 14:09.920] for the entirety of Title 18, except Chapter 44, is 100% straightforward and comports itself with [14:09.920 --> 14:15.760] the power granted to Congress by the Constitution. Now, let's compare that straightforward [14:15.760 --> 14:22.560] definition with the special definitions provided in 1938 and 1968. The definition of interstate [14:22.560 --> 14:29.040] commerce in the 38 Act reads as follows, quote, the term interstate or foreign commerce means [14:29.040 --> 14:34.160] commerce between any state, territory, or possession, and any place outside thereof, [14:34.160 --> 14:40.320] or between points within the same state, territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, [14:40.320 --> 14:45.040] but through any place outside thereof, or within any territory, or possession, [14:45.040 --> 14:50.720] or the District of Columbia, close quote. This brings us to the matter of how federal statutes [14:50.720 --> 14:55.920] use the word state. I think it's fair to say Americans believe that when congressional [14:55.920 --> 15:01.840] legislation uses the word state, it means the states of the union. And sometimes it does. [15:02.640 --> 15:08.320] Most of the time, it doesn't. Anyone who's read my book, Income Tax Shattering the Mist, [15:08.320 --> 15:12.720] is aware that Congress takes words of which we all know the meaning in plain English [15:12.720 --> 15:18.080] and redefines those words to mean whatever Congress wants them to mean. As an example [15:18.080 --> 15:22.720] from the tax code, the word employee, concerning which we all know the ordinary meaning, [15:22.720 --> 15:28.480] has seven different definitions in various parts of the code. In the most egregious case [15:28.480 --> 15:34.000] of redefining employee, virtually everyone believes payroll withholding is to be affected upon [15:34.720 --> 15:39.360] employees, yet no one is aware that Congress altered the meaning of that word, so the definition [15:39.360 --> 15:44.080] does not include Americans earning their own domestic income in the private sector. [15:44.080 --> 15:49.680] Nevertheless, because it says withholding is to be affected upon employees, and no one bothers to [15:49.680 --> 15:55.600] study or read law, nearly the entire U.S. population thinks they know what employee means concerning [15:55.600 --> 15:59.520] payroll withholding, the exception being those who've read Income Tax Shattering the Mist. [16:00.240 --> 16:04.960] Defining words for the purpose of one part of the law and then redefining the same word differently [16:04.960 --> 16:10.160] in various other parts of the law borders on fraud in my view, but the Supreme Court has said it's a [16:10.160 --> 16:17.200] completely acceptable practice. Years ago, I looked up the word resident in the law book entitled [16:17.200 --> 16:23.600] Words and Phrases and found that resident has something like 46 distinct meanings in law. [16:24.640 --> 16:29.040] The point here is that the surest way to misunderstand law, especially federal law, [16:29.040 --> 16:36.480] is to assume words mean what they mean in the English dictionary. State is a perfect example [16:36.480 --> 16:43.520] of that. With rare exception, state does not mean the 50 states. It means federal states, [16:43.520 --> 16:49.680] not states of the union. What are federal states, you ask? Federal states are jurisdictions that [16:49.680 --> 16:54.880] engage in local self-governance but are under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. [16:54.880 --> 17:00.400] Examples of those federal states are Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, [17:00.400 --> 17:04.800] and the Northern Mariana Islands. Let's quickly look at some statutes in which Congress has [17:04.800 --> 17:13.440] distinguished between the different meanings of state. In 26 U.S.C. 3121E1 dealing with FICA [17:13.440 --> 17:18.400] that most Americans incorrectly believe is social security tax, the definition reads as follows. [17:19.200 --> 17:25.200] The term state includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin [17:25.200 --> 17:35.120] Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Then in Title 26 6103B5AI addressing disclosure of information [17:35.120 --> 17:43.440] contained in tax returns, the definition of state reads the term state means any of the 50 states, [17:43.440 --> 17:46.880] the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and so on. [17:47.520 --> 17:52.560] You'll notice that when Congress wants the meaning of state to include the states of the union, [17:53.440 --> 17:59.920] Congress makes that clear. When Congress does not make that intention clear, state means only [17:59.920 --> 18:05.280] federal states. Because federal states are Congress's default geographic jurisdiction, [18:05.280 --> 18:11.600] Congress must clearly indicate in a statute when its intention is to include the 50 states. Now, [18:11.600 --> 18:16.800] let's look at the 1968 definition of interstate commerce that replaced the 39 definition. [18:16.960 --> 18:22.320] I should mention that the 68 definition is currently operative in Chapter 44. [18:22.320 --> 18:29.680] That definition is found at 18 U.S.C. 92182 and read, quote, the term interstate or foreign [18:29.680 --> 18:35.200] commerce includes commerce between any place in a state and any place outside that state [18:35.200 --> 18:40.560] or within any possession of the United States or the District of Columbia. But such term does [18:40.560 --> 18:45.200] not include commerce between places within the same state, but through any place outside of that [18:45.200 --> 18:52.000] state. The term state includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, [18:52.000 --> 18:58.240] and the possessions of the United States. Close quote. I presume you caught that definition of [18:58.240 --> 19:04.160] state. Clearly there was zero intent expressed by Congress that state is any location other [19:04.160 --> 19:09.360] than those over which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. I want to draw your [19:09.360 --> 19:16.320] attention to a particular distinction between the 39 definition and the 68 definition. The 39 [19:16.320 --> 19:23.600] definition began with these words. The term interstate or foreign commerce means. While the [19:23.600 --> 19:31.360] 68 version began with the term interstate or foreign commerce includes. Is there a difference [19:31.360 --> 19:38.640] between means and includes? Of course there is. When a statutory definition uses means, [19:38.640 --> 19:44.800] it signifies that what follows the word means is the totality of the meaning. The meaning is fixed [19:44.800 --> 19:52.000] by what is listed in the statute. Includes is different. When includes is used, it means [19:52.000 --> 19:58.240] certain things that do not appear in the definition can still be part of the definition. Let me explain [19:58.240 --> 20:05.440] how includes works in a statute. Whatever items appear after the word includes create a class or [20:05.440 --> 20:10.720] category and things that can reasonably fit into that class are considered part of the definition [20:10.720 --> 20:16.160] despite not appearing there. Understanding how includes operates, let's take another look at the [20:16.160 --> 20:24.400] 68 definition and read the definition of state again. Quote. The term state includes the District [20:24.400 --> 20:31.120] of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States. Close quote. [20:31.840 --> 20:38.640] What is the class established by the listed items? If you said places over which Congress has [20:38.640 --> 20:44.720] exclusive legislative jurisdiction, you nailed it. Accordingly, what locations can be considered a [20:44.720 --> 20:51.200] part of the definition though not enumerated? How about American Samoa? Yep. Northern Mariana [20:51.200 --> 20:57.200] Islands? Of course. But let's move a little bit closer to home. Remember earlier we discussed [20:57.200 --> 21:01.840] places within a State of the Union that have been ceded to the U.S. government and are therefore [21:01.840 --> 21:08.800] no longer part of a state even though the place is located within a state. Is Congress's exclusive [21:08.800 --> 21:13.680] legislative jurisdiction operative there? Of course. Those places are essentially a little [21:13.680 --> 21:18.880] piece of Washington D.C. located within a State of the Union. Let's revisit Article 1, Section 8, [21:18.880 --> 21:26.320] Clause 17 again just to be sure. Quote. To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over [21:26.320 --> 21:32.720] all cases whatsoever over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may by secession [21:32.720 --> 21:36.960] of particular states and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government of the United [21:36.960 --> 21:45.600] States and, here we go, to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the [21:45.600 --> 21:51.440] legislature of the state. There you have it. Federal places within a State of the Union are [21:51.440 --> 21:58.400] within Congress's exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Are you beginning to understand that the phrase [21:58.400 --> 22:03.760] any place within a state, as used in the Chapter 44 definition of interstate and foreign commerce, [22:04.320 --> 22:08.880] has nothing to do with land under the jurisdiction of a State of the Union? [22:09.680 --> 22:16.320] Now let's revisit the appearance of the word places in the 1968 definition of interstate commerce. [22:16.320 --> 22:22.640] Quote. The term interstate or foreign commerce includes commerce between any place in a state [22:22.640 --> 22:28.400] and any place outside of that state or within any possession of the United States or the District [22:28.400 --> 22:34.640] of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same state [22:34.640 --> 22:41.120] through any place outside of that state. Close quote. Well, I'm not going to get into it today [22:41.120 --> 22:46.240] because it would make an already long presentation even longer. The language you just heard was used [22:46.240 --> 22:50.880] in the definition as a pre-planned backup argument to make in court if the act is challenged because [22:50.880 --> 22:57.600] the authors of the Gun Control Act of 1968 knew Congress has no authority over firearms in the [22:57.600 --> 23:02.400] States of the Union. All they were trying to do with that language is preserve a superficial [23:02.400 --> 23:07.680] appearance of constitutional compliance. Let me add that since the word place used in the [23:07.680 --> 23:12.080] definition of interstate commerce is not congressionally defined for Chapter 44, [23:12.640 --> 23:18.080] we have to use the normal dictionary definition. And in Webster's New International Dictionary, [23:18.080 --> 23:25.600] second edition, place is defined as, quote, a portion of space set aside for a special purpose, [23:26.240 --> 23:31.840] which of course perfectly describes the places ceded to the United States by a state. I want [23:31.840 --> 23:36.080] to take a quick moment to encourage you to subscribe to the channel or page and hit the [23:36.080 --> 23:41.280] like button. By doing so, you tell the algorithms to show this content to more people. Thank you [23:41.280 --> 23:46.880] for taking that very simple step to get more people informed. At this point, let me make a [23:46.880 --> 23:52.080] declaratory statement. By the inclusion of the interstate commerce in the Constitution, [23:52.080 --> 23:57.520] the Founding Fathers did not grant Congress the authority to criminalize objects over which [23:57.520 --> 24:02.880] Congress was not otherwise granted authority in the Constitution. In light of the Second Amendment, [24:03.440 --> 24:07.280] as you might imagine, the Founders would never have given the federal government the authority [24:07.280 --> 24:12.320] to regulate firearms, including firearms moving in interstate commerce. I point that out because [24:12.320 --> 24:17.120] our current Supreme Court is the perfect Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the firearms laws [24:17.120 --> 24:24.240] contained in Chapter 44 using the constitutional and statutory realities you just heard. But to be [24:24.240 --> 24:30.080] clear, I only mean that Chapter 44 should be challenged in terms of its being misapplied [24:30.080 --> 24:34.800] within the states of the Union. This is a concept in law referred to as, quote, [24:35.440 --> 24:43.200] unconstitutional as applied. What that means is the statutes in Chapter 44 are unconstitutional [24:43.200 --> 24:48.640] if applied, as an example, to me, a citizen of Nevada, but would not be unconstitutional if [24:48.640 --> 24:53.600] applied to a citizen or a resident of any place Congress exercises exclusive legislative [24:53.600 --> 24:59.520] jurisdiction. I've spoken here before about the significance of the Court's Bruin decision and [24:59.520 --> 25:05.120] the Bruin test that decision created. I'll put a link to that video in the notes. I believe the [25:05.120 --> 25:09.920] facts you've learned today would result in the current Supreme Court striking down Chapter 44's [25:09.920 --> 25:16.960] applicability within the states of the Union, even without Bruin. But when we place the facts [25:16.960 --> 25:22.000] you learned today within the context of the Bruin test, I see zero chance Chapter 44 would [25:22.000 --> 25:28.160] survive a constitutional challenge. If there is ever a time to challenge the laws in Chapter 44, [25:28.720 --> 25:34.240] this is it. I've mentioned the truth of the income tax a couple of times and offered definitions from [25:34.240 --> 25:39.440] the tax code as examples of how Congress writes statutes that apply only to federal states and [25:39.440 --> 25:45.120] how it writes statutes it intends to apply to the 50 states. The statutes in Chapter 44 and the [25:45.120 --> 25:51.520] income tax are extremely similar in that Congress passed schemes that are 100% constitutional and [25:51.520 --> 25:55.520] then turned around and engaged in massive propaganda and disinformation to convince the [25:55.520 --> 26:01.040] American people they operate against those who are, in fact, outside Congress's jurisdiction. [26:01.840 --> 26:08.560] Chapter 44 and the income tax are dissimilar in that Congress does have subject matter authority [26:08.560 --> 26:14.480] to impose taxes. That said, Congress has no more authority to tax your labor or the fruits thereof [26:14.560 --> 26:21.040] than it does to tax your right to vote, your right to speak your mind, freely assemble or worship. [26:21.040 --> 26:25.760] You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, right? Would anyone in [26:25.760 --> 26:30.320] their right mind imagine Congress could impose an annual tax on you to possess that, right? [26:30.960 --> 26:36.880] Since we know Congress is incredibly greedy, why have we never seen such a tax? The answer is the [26:36.880 --> 26:42.240] Supreme Court has repeatedly held that unalienable rights cannot be taxed. The Supreme Court has also [26:42.240 --> 26:47.280] repeatedly held your right to exchange your labor for compensation is an unalienable right. [26:48.000 --> 26:52.560] In McCullough v. Maryland, the court enunciated the universal truth that, quote, [26:52.560 --> 26:58.400] the power to tax is the power to destroy. In other words, if Congress had the authority to [26:58.400 --> 27:05.840] tax your labor, Congress would have the authority to destroy your ability to survive. As Justice [27:05.840 --> 27:10.720] Story said in his famous commentaries on the Constitution, quote, what is personal liberty [27:10.720 --> 27:15.040] if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of your own industry? [27:15.040 --> 27:20.720] What is political liberty if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity? [27:20.720 --> 27:24.720] Close quote. The reason I share all of that with you is the Supreme Court has held that the income [27:24.720 --> 27:31.840] tax is a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege. And of course, a privilege is the exact [27:31.840 --> 27:38.160] opposite of a right. Since you employing your labor to your own benefit is a right and contracting [27:38.160 --> 27:43.280] with others to be compensated for your labor is a right, and receiving compensation for your labor [27:43.280 --> 27:48.640] is also a right, why do you believe a tax the Supreme Court has said only applies to income [27:48.640 --> 27:54.400] from a government-granted privilege applies to you? The seminal difference between Chapter 44 and [27:54.400 --> 28:00.160] the income tax issue is while the jurisdictional issue concerning Chapter 44 we've discussed today [28:00.160 --> 28:05.280] has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court, that Congress has never imposed the income tax [28:05.360 --> 28:10.560] on ordinary working Americans has been very clearly decided by the Supreme Court in a series [28:10.560 --> 28:15.680] of holdings. Not only that, but internal IRS documents the service thought would never get [28:15.680 --> 28:20.640] out to the public, but I got my hands on them, confirm that the IRS knows and has always known [28:20.640 --> 28:25.760] the income tax has not been imposed on ordinary working Americans. We've talked a bit about the [28:25.760 --> 28:31.600] definition game statutory draftsmen play so laws can be enacted that are technically constitutional [28:31.600 --> 28:35.840] because of their limited jurisdiction while politicians and the executive branch that does [28:35.840 --> 28:41.200] the enforcement fool the American people into believing the law applies to them. That definition [28:41.200 --> 28:47.440] game is the primary tool used in the tax code to bamboozle the American public. I mentioned earlier [28:47.440 --> 28:52.640] that employee as defined for payroll withholding does not include American citizens working in the [28:52.640 --> 28:59.200] private sector. That legal reality is explained with crystal clarity in income tax shattering [28:59.200 --> 29:05.440] the myths. Another example that applies to those who work for themselves is Form W-9. The regulations [29:05.440 --> 29:12.720] say Form W-9 is only to be used by a U.S. person. Remember when I said earlier that the best way to [29:12.720 --> 29:17.840] misunderstand federal laws to read it as if the words mean what you think they mean because you're [29:17.840 --> 29:25.520] applying the dictionary definition? U.S. person is a perfect example. I imagine pretty much every [29:25.520 --> 29:31.920] American would consider him or herself a U.S. person. Hell, I bet some people read U.S. person [29:31.920 --> 29:37.840] in the W-9 instructions and proudly think hell yeah that's me I'm a U.S. person. That guy or gal [29:37.840 --> 29:44.480] would probably be surprised and I hope angry to learn that the legal term U.S. person was introduced [29:44.480 --> 29:50.720] into the tax code in 1962 and in the 61 years since its introduction it only appears in the context [29:50.720 --> 29:56.960] of U.S. citizens or domestic corporations that receive U.S. source income belonging to a foreign [29:56.960 --> 30:03.840] person. In the 61 years since its introduction into the code there is not a single instance [30:03.840 --> 30:11.920] where U.S. person has been used in any other context. Not one in 61 years. If you've been [30:11.920 --> 30:16.720] signing and handing out W-9s for years how does it make you feel to know that the true purpose of a [30:16.720 --> 30:22.960] W-9 is to declare the payments you're receiving don't belong to you but are paid to you on behalf [30:22.960 --> 30:28.160] of a foreign owner? I might further ask how it makes you feel that the government knows exactly [30:28.160 --> 30:32.240] what you're certifying under penalty of perjury when you sign a W-9. It has been knowingly, [30:32.240 --> 30:38.320] willfully and intentionally concealing it from you for decades so they can manipulate you into [30:38.320 --> 30:46.080] paying a tax that doesn't apply to you. I might add that regulations define a W-9 as a withholding [30:46.080 --> 30:51.760] certificate that can only be submitted to a withholding agent and guess what the definition [30:51.760 --> 30:57.600] is of withholding agent? It's a person who withholds U.S. income tax from U.S. source income [30:58.240 --> 31:06.080] before paying over the balance to its foreign owner. Then we have the fact that the secretary [31:06.080 --> 31:13.760] of the treasury has issued nine treasury decisions stating who is to file a form 1040. All nine of [31:13.760 --> 31:22.480] them say a non-resident alien or his U.S. agent is to file a 1040 on the non-resident alien's U.S. [31:22.480 --> 31:28.560] source income. At this point you may be wondering how many treasury decisions instruct anyone other [31:28.560 --> 31:36.080] than a non-resident alien or his U.S. agent to file a 1040. That would be zero. The secretary [31:36.080 --> 31:42.240] of the treasury is the nation's top official concerning the income tax and he has never stated [31:42.240 --> 31:47.680] that ordinary working Americans are to file a 1040 but has said in nine different official [31:47.680 --> 31:52.720] documents that the 1040 is to be used by non-resident aliens or the non-resident alien's [31:52.720 --> 31:59.840] U.S. agent. Why do you think the secretary of the treasury has never directed ordinary working [31:59.840 --> 32:08.000] Americans to file a 1040? The answer is because he can't. He can't because congress has never [32:08.000 --> 32:13.680] imposed the income tax on you. The only reason you think the income tax applies to you is because [32:13.680 --> 32:20.320] someone told you it does but you never actually looked to see if that was true. You just went [32:20.320 --> 32:27.920] along with the narrative. After 2020, 2021, and 2022 haven't you had enough of just going along [32:27.920 --> 32:34.960] with false narratives? Fortunately the mountain of facts and evidence that fully educate you [32:34.960 --> 32:41.600] and allow you to decide whether you want to safely walk away from the income tax scam are laid out for [32:41.600 --> 32:47.920] you in income tax shattering the miss in a way every single American can understand. When I say [32:47.920 --> 32:52.240] income tax shattering the miss will fully educate you. I don't want you to see that as something [32:52.240 --> 32:57.680] arduous. It's not. Some people have read income tax shattering the miss four or five times not [32:57.680 --> 33:04.320] because they had to but because they want to because it's that enjoyable. Because of how income [33:04.320 --> 33:10.080] tax shattering the miss is written, a book that destroys the government's false income tax narrative [33:10.640 --> 33:17.280] is also a joy to read. You can get 15% off the price of income tax shattering the miss. [33:17.280 --> 33:21.680] Stay with me for just a moment and I'll tell you how to do that. I also want to encourage you to [33:21.680 --> 33:28.160] have a look at body science. Body science reveals the establishment's lies and deceits that has led [33:28.160 --> 33:35.440] to the United States being the most diseased society in all of human history. As you hear my [33:35.440 --> 33:41.280] voice today, America is the most ill society in history and getting sicker every day and America [33:41.280 --> 33:49.680] being the most ill society in history is not happenstance. It was, is, and continues to be [33:50.240 --> 33:57.120] by design so trillion-dollar industries can keep the money rolling in. Body science is essentially [33:57.120 --> 34:02.160] a physiology book that presents the truth about human physiology in a way everyone can understand. [34:02.160 --> 34:09.680] But because the truth is so different from the widely accepted false narratives, in body science [34:09.680 --> 34:15.920] I had to deal the corruption and industry payoffs so readers understand how we got here so they [34:15.920 --> 34:22.400] realize it isn't happenstance. Once readers understand how egregiously they've been lied to [34:22.400 --> 34:28.080] by the establishment, then they have a thirst to know the truth the lies have been concealing and [34:28.080 --> 34:34.000] body science lays that out for you like no other book in the world. Not only is the truth going to [34:34.000 --> 34:39.840] blow your mind but the best part is once you know the truth, if you act on it, you will become one [34:39.840 --> 34:47.600] of the healthiest people in the country. Imagine being phenomenally healthy in a nation of diseased [34:47.600 --> 34:51.920] people. Obviously I'd like to see everyone get healthy but that's not going to happen because [34:51.920 --> 34:59.120] most people reject truth even if rejecting it kills them, literally, kills them. I can't change [34:59.120 --> 35:04.000] human nature but I can give people who seek the truth the keys to becoming the healthiest people [35:04.000 --> 35:12.560] on the planet. Right now, for a limited time, income tax shattering the miss is on sale. Here's how [35:12.560 --> 35:20.080] it works. You can save 15% buying income tax shattering the miss alone or you can get 15% [35:20.080 --> 35:25.040] off income tax shattering the miss and free shipping on your order by purchasing body science [35:25.040 --> 35:31.360] and income tax shattering the miss together. To get 15% off income tax shattering the miss when [35:31.360 --> 35:39.360] purchasing it alone, use the coupon code OWNIT. I'll put the link and the code in the notes. To [35:39.360 --> 35:45.920] get 15% off income tax shattering the miss and free shipping on your order by purchasing the bundle [35:45.920 --> 35:51.200] including both body science and income tax shattering the miss, use the coupon code [35:51.200 --> 35:57.440] FREEBEE. I'll put the link to that bundle in the notes along with the code. Also purchasing income [35:57.440 --> 36:02.560] tax shattering the miss and or body science supports me being here for you with these [36:02.560 --> 36:07.840] thought-provoking presentations. I hope you'll share this vodcast everywhere. Thank you for being [36:07.840 --> 36:15.760] here. Take care.