Tuesday Night Radio: Federal Gun Control Laws; more.

20 Jan

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

The primary subject matter of tonight’s program can be seen in the following Word file:  150117 Gun Control Laws


Tags: , , ,

31 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Federal Gun Control Laws; more.

  1. Frank Moorman

    January 20, 2015 at 5:37 PM

    He don’t reply to his E-mails. Has to talk to his handler.for atty. Joel Adrago

  2. russ

    January 20, 2015 at 11:54 PM

    Interesting photos of “firearms” as defined in National Firearms Act of 1934 (and 26 USC):

    Question for Alfred:
    Al, in the Gun Control Act of 1968, read the Section 921 definition of “firearm” in Number (3) specifically where it states “any weapon including a starter gun”. In your opinion, under the rules of statutory construction, is that definition in (3) limited ONLY to “starter guns” because Congress used the legal term “including” as a limiter? Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

    • pop de adam

      January 21, 2015 at 2:18 AM

      What is the difference between “arms” and “firearms”, they may nest these statutes about “firearms”,. but then they manifested it that way. If they use the term “arms” it becomes a constitutional issue. On a different tangent other than them pointing “arms” at you, do you agree with them? Maybe you agree, maybe not, do you choose? Do you agree to be governed, controlled?

      If you say no, perhaps nothing changes. If you say yes any manner of supreme control maybe applied.

      • pop de adam

        January 21, 2015 at 2:43 AM

        An addendum:

        If you build it and do not intend to sell it, good.

        put a serial number upon it and sell it, a firearm (wickard v filburn, interstate commerce)

        Register and insure as a firearm manufacturer, owned by them. A lot of manufacturers attempt an circumvention of this by using the term “arms” in their name, but then register this business, idiots.

      • Adask

        January 21, 2015 at 3:17 AM

        I’ll probably “agree” to be controlled whenever someone is pointing a gun at me. But when that gun is gone, I might still agree–or I might disagree.

        To be a “sovereign” does not mean that you are not subject to any governmental control whatsoever. “Sovereigns” within States of the Union are always subject to God’s law, always subject to the “people’s law” (their State and Federal constitutions), and always subject to those laws written by the federal government that are consistent with the LIMITS imposed by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United State.

        In the venue/plane/jurisdiction of the Federal constitution, the “sovereign” (within a State of the Union) is subject to whatever LIMITED powers were granted to the federal government by the people/sovereigns by means of the Constitution of the United States and other Organic Law of The United States of America. I absolutely agree that, so long as I’m within the borders of a State of the Union, I am always subject to the LIMITED powers found in Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

        However, it appears to me that the federal government is acting under the presumption that you and I are acting in a territory or administrative district of the singular United States. Under Article 4, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, anyone acting in the “plane” or “venue,” of a territory, administrative district (but not within a State of the Union) is subject to the virtually UNLIMITED powers of the federal government.

        Two different “planes” (States of the Union (“The United States of America”) and “territories” of the United States). Two different sets of federal powers: 1) LIMITED for application within the States of the Union (of “The United States of America); and 2) UNLIMITED for application within any territories, administrative districts or other “jurisdictions” of the singular “United States” but not within the borders of a State of the Union (again, of “The United States of America”).

    • Adask

      January 21, 2015 at 2:57 AM

      A lot of people seem to think that the word “includes” has only one legal definition. They might be right.

      But, so far as I can tell, the word “includes” has more than one definition. Sometimes the word “includes” means “includes ONLY” whatever subject(s) are being expressly listed. Sometimes the word “includes” means “includes ADDITIONALLY”–which means it not only “includes” the generic class of things (like “animals”) but also “includes” some surprising additions like “men”.

      Like any other word used in codes or statutes, the word “includes” can be defined one way in one Title or even section of the code, and defined differently in another Title or Section of the code. When you see the word “includes,” I believe you’ll have to look around for whatever definition “officially” applies to the specific case law, statute or code section you’re looking at.

      • russ

        January 21, 2015 at 12:27 PM


        According to the rules of statutory construction, if “includes/including” is to be used as an enlargement, the word “and” will preceed it, as in “and includes” or “and including”. If the word “and” is absent, then Congress is using “includes/including” as a limiter, unless they expressly state it is not a limiter. We are not to guess or assume what Congress specifies, only what Congress writes in black and white.

        So I read that as a “starter gun” is also a type of “firearm”. I do not read that definition in Sect 921(3) as “any weapon that shoots a projectile by action of an explosive” is a firearm, which redefines an off the shelf rifle, shotgun, and pistol are “firearms”. Congress was careful not to define a rifle, shotgun, and pistol “firearms” in section 921. Congress also did not define those as “firearms” in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

      • russ

        January 21, 2015 at 12:50 PM


        In the annoted version of 18 USC 921-Defintions, look in the Notes section on Page 11. The Notes are part of the code as well. It tells you do not construe the definitions in 18 USC 921 as modifying the National Firearms Act definitions and the Title 26 definitions.

        Modification of Other Laws

        Section 104 of title I of Pub. L. 90–618, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: “Nothing in this title or the amendment made thereby [amending this chapter] shall be construed as modifying or affecting any provision of—
        “(a) the National Firearms Act (chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) [section 5801 et seq. of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code];
        “(b) section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C. 1934), as amended, relating to munitions control; or
        “(c) section 1715 of title 18, United States Code, relating to nonmailable firearms.”

  3. pop de adam

    January 21, 2015 at 3:18 AM

    Do you divide your days amongst divisions? Christ did not step back and say “I am a Christian”. Fuck them that do.

    • pop de adam

      January 21, 2015 at 3:31 AM

      We see might is right,mostly through firearms, when it becomes hammers, hatchets, knives or knuckles. What then?

  4. pop de adam

    January 21, 2015 at 3:36 AM

    They weren’t killed “they had a misstep on the stairs”

  5. Adask

    January 21, 2015 at 3:41 AM

    Your question and comment are unclear.

    However, if you’re directing that comment at me, and if you mean that we should stand up courageously to fight whenever called on to do so (even if someone has a gun pointed at you), you might recall that in the Old Testament, when Babylon conquered Israel and began to deport the Israelites to Babylon, one of the prophets (Isaiah?, Jeremiah?) advised the Israelites to not fight the deportation, but go along with the deportation and wait patiently under God brought them or their descendants back to Israel.

    Also, if I recall correctly, in the New Testament there is at least one, maybe two, incidents when the Pharisees almost had caught the Messiah and He made a run for it and disappeared into the crowd.

    If you mean to say “F***” anyone who retreats or surrenders in the face of overwhelming force “dividing his days amongst divisions”, then I presume you are also saying “F***” the Israelis who (on God’s orders) cooperated with their deportation to Babylon, and much the same to Messiah who made a run for it rather than risk arrest and possible death at the hands of the Pharisees.

    Don’t use the “F-word” again on this blog–especially if you mean it to apply to me. Do it again, and you’re gone. No exceptions, no excuses, no explanations, no BS.

  6. pop de adam

    January 21, 2015 at 3:48 AM

    What F Word?

    • Adask

      January 21, 2015 at 4:00 AM

      See your comment at January 21, 2015 at 3:18 AM.

  7. palani

    January 21, 2015 at 6:29 AM

    Arms are heraldic devices. They include the right to use a seal, the right to a coat of arms and the right to raise a flag or to possess a flag. From the inception of the United States the lawyers would have you believe that an arm is a firearm. It is not. Believe me I can be much more destructive using a seal, coat of arms and flag than I ever could be with any sort of firearm.

    If in doubt here is the link to the book on Google:

  8. russ

    January 21, 2015 at 1:22 PM

    Title 18 Sect 921(a)(29) [Which is from the 1968 Gun Control Act]
    The term “handgun” means—
    (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
    (B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

    In the Notes section on page 11, it also defines “handgun” as a “firearm”. This is because a handgun is defined as a smooth bore (shotgun) which is modified to be short and concealing.

    Definition of “Handgun”
    Section 10 of Pub. L. 99–408 provided that: “For purposes of section 921 (a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as added by the first section of this Act, ‘handgun’ means any firearm including a pistol or revolver designed to be fired by the use of a single hand. The term also includes any combination of parts from which a handgun can be assembled.”

  9. russ

    January 21, 2015 at 1:47 PM

    When reading the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA), and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), pay attention to the following:
    1. The intent of Congress of each Act
    2. The regulable activity
    3. The definition of the “persons” engaging in the regulable activity
    4. The definition of “firearms”
    5. The “place” where the regulable activity occurs

    I suspect you will discover for yourself that it is applicable to taxing and regulating business entities engaging in interstate commerce defined as within the District of Columbia and its territories. It appears that under “color of law”, they are acting as if the definition of “firearms” was redefined in the GCA of 1968 (Title 18) to mean “any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be
    converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive”. Congress has been careful to limit the definition of “firearms” to certain rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Not all of them. And Congress limits the “place”, “person”, and “regulable activity”, thus revealing their express intent.

  10. Adask

    January 21, 2015 at 1:52 PM

    The definition of “handgun” is a good find. But note that “handgun” is defined to be a “firearm” which 26 USC 4855 (?) seemingly defines as an unlawful weapon that, by implication, must be licensed. This implies that if you concede that you own a “firearm” or a “handgun” (which is defined to be a “firearm,” you may be in deep doo-doo.

    On the other “hand,” what if you can successfully argue that your weapon is not a “firearm” or a “handgun,” but is instead an “arm” of the sort referenced in the 2nd Amendment?

    It’s not about the weapon. It’s about the words.

    Remember, 26 USC 4855 (?) includes text that expressly says (in section “(e)” if I recall correctly) that says a pistol and revolver is NOT a “firearm”.

    Now, we have two definitions of “pistols and firearms”. One says they are “firearms” the other says they’re not. Which prevails?

    Does one or the other prevail by the parties’ AGREEMENT? If so, what happens if one of the parties (the defendant) argues that his weapon is NOT a “firearm” but is an “Arm” as per the 2nd Amendment?

  11. russ

    January 21, 2015 at 2:48 PM

    Remember, a “handgun” is only a smooth bore (shotgun) that can be held and used in a single hand. It is classified as a “any other weapon”. See photos of “handguns”:

    Section 921 (a)(17)(B) is regarding “armor piercing ammunition” for the “handgun” smooth bore shotgun shells. Not ammunition for a rifled barrel, because “handguns” do not have rifled barrels.

    A “handgun” is not a rifled bore. So an off the shelf glock pistol is not a handgun.

    A “firearm” is not unlawful or illegal to have if you do it properly and do not use it unlawfully. If you read the intent of enforcement you will realize they are abiding by the intent of Congress to regulate the federal commerce to prevent criminal use:

    Also you may realize they are very limited in what they can do outside of federal commerce by reading these “best practices” for “private” sellers that are suggestions of what you “may” do if “you decide” to:

  12. russ

    January 21, 2015 at 4:58 PM

    In the “TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 2009-2010 manual, it refers to licensing a “concealed handgun, which is a “firearm”. Congress defined “handgun” as a smooth bore shotgun that can be used and held in one hand.

    Page 3 GC 411.171 Definitions
    (3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person

    Page 36-37 PC 46.01 Definitions
    (3) “Firearm” means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use
    (4) “Firearm silencer” means any device designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm
    (5) “Handgun” means any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand
    (10) “Short-barrel firearm” means a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or a shotgun with a barel length of less than 18 inches, or any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle if, as altered, it has an overall length of less than 26 inches

    So it appears that under “color of law”, the police officers are enforcing “firearms” as the redefined definition as per 18 USC 921(3)(A) [GCA of 1968], even though Congress expressly stated in the annotated version notes to not construe it to modify the definitions of the NFA of 1934.

    The ATF even published a “Police Officer’s Guide” to identify “firearms” that appears to use definitions as per 18 USC 921(3)(A), which appears to misinform police officers that everything is a “firearm”.

  13. russ

    January 21, 2015 at 5:02 PM

    Sorry, this is the correct link for the “Police Officer’s Guide to identify “firearms:

  14. dog-move

    January 22, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    The Newtown entry is gone —- 1001 am on Thursday!

  15. Adask

    January 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM

    What “Newtown entry” are you talking about?

  16. Jason Roderick

    January 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM

    Where is the link to this audio, cant find any reference to this on that site.

    • Adask

      January 23, 2015 at 12:56 AM

      The audio is on in the Archive. I don’t know the exact link. The audio will only be present until it’s replaced by next Tuesday’s radio show.

  17. Lex Mercatoria

    January 23, 2015 at 12:35 AM

    Alfred, re your post on January 21, 2015 at 3:17 AM:

    A sovereign, by definition, is not subject to government control. When you mention “Sovereigns within States of the Union” to which union are you referring? You say a sovereign is subject to the “people’s law (their State and Federal constitutions)”. Which people are those? It’s certainly not the people classed as free inhabitants and free citizens of “The United States of America” a/k/a the “perpetual Union” or “Confederacy”, as their law is the Articles of Confederation, which, BTW, is organic law and, contrary to Ministry of Truth propaganda, remains in full force and effect as it has never been done away with. The ratified yet unadopted Constitution everyone seems to be enamored with is the corporate charter or by-laws, if you will, of the glorified property management company named “United States” and thus has nothing to do with anyone, absent his/her consent.

    There aren’t two sets of federal powers. All of these laws/policies are only enacted for “United States” which is only federal territory and thus binding upon the citizens & residents therein & thereon. Said laws have nothing to do with the the people of The USofA. The U.S. Congress cannot–and does not–enact legislation for The USofA any more than it does for France or Germany. That Congress doesn’t even pretend otherwise as its–as well as the subordinate territorial States–legislative products, and therefore all court rulings, clearly state where said statutes/codes/regulations apply.

    There are two sets of “states”: perpetual Union and territorial, e.g., Connecticut vs “State of Connecticut” and Texas vs “State of Texas”, respectively. For example: “State of Maine” is the name of both (a) the lands within the exterior borders of Maine under the jurisdiction of United States (federal territory) because said lands have been ceded to The USofA, and (b) the government given jurisdiction over said lands. The predatory commercial enterprised named “United States” was founded as a temporary government to govern the territories owned by The USofA, until such time as said territories could become states of the perpetual Union, at which point United States would lose jurisdiction.

    Though the people continue to fuel its existance United States has long since outlived its original overt purpose.

    • pop de adam

      January 23, 2015 at 1:14 AM

      Prove I am either an immigrant or a resident? prove it.

      • Lex Mercatoria

        January 23, 2015 at 7:31 PM

        Huh? I don’t follow.

  18. Fritz

    January 23, 2015 at 3:55 AM

    pop.Why & what for?

  19. dog-move

    January 23, 2015 at 11:19 AM

    There was a thread on the newtown incident, with a youtube feed that was disappeared, In commented on it , it just vanished. It followed this article??/

  20. russ

    January 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM

    Al’s radio show from last week is now linked on the archive for download:
    [audio src="" /]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s