Demanding a US or STATE constitutional right is self defeating, never claim residency.
Your big fat mouth can and will be used against you.
DISINFORMATION, INDOCTRINATION, YOUR choice of WORDS, nullify your birth rights.
“US citizens” are people presumed to be acting on USA owned land.
“STATE citizens” are people presumed to be acting on USA owned land.
US or State resident is a person presumed to be residing on US/State governed land.
The police claim of “in the state” is legally defined as US owned land.
Resident defined in the US written law is – “alien resident”.
Aliens (residents) have no birth right to bear arms anywhere the US claims jurisdiction.
Demanding US or State constitutional rights are not God given birth rights.
So if ever found with a gun never:
a. claim US or State citizenship,
b. residency in any state of the US,
c. present a State Drivers License (for that is state citizenship evidence),
d. claim use of a SS number (only a US citizen is allowed to use a SS number)
e. US or State birth certificate, essentially say nothing except I choose to keep the burden of proof on you that I do not have a right to cary this gun at this location. I chose not to provide any info that can be used against me in a criminal court of law.
>>
The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by statute if the statute does not frustrate the guarantee of the constitutional provision. State v. Comeau, 233 Neb. 907, 448 N.W.2d 595 (1989).
You see reasonable regulation is far different from God given rights. Stay off State owned land and the State can not “reasonable regulate” you down to a slingshot.
Pay for counsel time if you need more information.
Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. Counsel time and a vast array of briefs, motions, case law, legal challenges, etc.
They have the burden of proof, and as of late they have been dismissing most of the cases when properly challenged when on the record.
I think I comprehend the no U.S. citizen argument as the 14th, clearly states a U.S. citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and no one wants to be subject to any fictions jurisdiction (to other people who you wronged, then yes subject to their jurisdiction for the wrong). But to state you dont want to be subject to the State’s jurisdiction is dependant on a few things to be a negative or not. The first is what “State” are we talking about because there are numerous versions in each state. The first being the one created prior to the Civil War, with the same rights as each of the other original States (Colonies). Then there is the State created after the Civil War which is a subsidiary of the United States IMHO. So the original colonies who had inhabitants that claimed Citizenship under those States were not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress except by ignorance, there was no income tax, no conscription to Federal military service, etc. From my experience they wont consider peaceful inhabitant as a status and they refuse to hear any jurisdictional challenges. No finding of facts and conclusions of law will ever be given regarding jurisdiction in any current court of law and a refusal to show any factual evidence of jurisdiction is gauranteed.
They are subject to a common law court if they damage you by not proving territorial jurisdiction.