E-Mail 'The First Question is Always Jurisdiction' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'The First Question is Always Jurisdiction' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. So, whether a b.f.stock were part of intra or interstate commerce it could then be sold within the current state as a private party sale and be nullified from batfe jurisdiction. I.e….I’ll sell you mine if you sell me yours for the same price and a clean bill of sale….within the same state regardless of origin? Would that be a true statement in theory or fact?

    1. Short answer – nope. Longer answer – the Supreme Court rulings regarding interstate commerce also give the feds the authority to regulate anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. These rulings are so broad that Congress can find a federal nexus between you scratching your nose or winding your watch and it’s subsequent impact on interstate commerce. Reading these cases in Con Law was quite the shock for me (JD 2000, been practicing for 18 years).
      I’m not saying it’s “right” – it’s certainly not what the Founders envisioned – but it’s what we have to deal with.
      And our host is correct about this point – challenging jurisdiction, regardless of whether you’re behind or in front of a bannister in the courtroom, is likely to be an exercise in futility.

    2. The UNITED STATES is a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia and its territories, Guam, Puerto Rico, ect. The City of ????, the County of ?????, the State of ????, are all franchises of the U.S. Corp. So_____government agent only have jurisdiction on land owned buy The United States of America, demand a certified copy of the deed in that name!!!

      1. From my earlier comment: “Last point: the reference in this article to, “Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and any cases that are CIVIL in nature will have little, if any, any bearing on cases brought under federal CRIMINAL STATUTES (this is the issue that the Sovereign Citizen movement stumbles on in federal court 95% of the time…i.e. UCC and Rule of Civil Procedure to try and explain away or cover their violations of the CRIMINAL CODE)”..state governments and the federal government are not corporations…this is a false teaching that lives on the internet and in some books from left-field. And the gold-rimmed US Flag in many federal offices and in federal courts does not representing a nautical flag for the Admiralty either….use of CAPITAL letters does make anyone a coporate enity…there is no secret account if money linked to anyones name or social security number…yes, you have the right to travel, but not drive a car without a driver’s license…and finally, filing non-sense paperwork, signed in crazy colors (or with fingerprints) and seals with the names of states or fictitious countries just gets added to the trash heap known as ‘MISC FILING’ and your fee goes to the treasury or the end of year office party fund.
        Please to do not take offense, but research or ask a legitimate lawyer for assistance with federalism and constitutional law.

        I am not a lawyer, I just sit in courts for a lot.

  2. Excellent reminder that Question #1 is Jurisdiction.

    Yes, sadly it is futile. I dare folks to question the United States’ jurisdiction of the countries we have attacked or invaded — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

  3. It saddens me to say….”we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, we live in a Corporate State” There is a reason you are no longer called a “citizen”, when dealing with the courts you are called a “customer”.

  4. Why on earth anyone would allow themselves to dragged before a “court” for exercising their right to life, liberty, and property in today’s vile system of “statutory law” is beyond me. The only possible outcome of this is to spend time in one of their cages.

    As has already been said, the “courts” will ignore your pleas of protest. I remember some one saying back in the 1990s with regards to the income “tax” that “every argument against the income tax that can be argued in a court of law has already been argued”.

    The government, their paid enforcers, and the stuffed shirts that head up the “courts” are not listening.

    The question now is what do we, the people, going to do about it?

  5. I am not an attorney but have been in several hundred court hearings.

    This inter versus intra-state argument is such a valid argument that the large gun manufacturers DO NOT SELL OR TRANSFER firearms DIRECT to FFL’s or individuals from the state they manufacture firearms in. They usually rely upon a distributor OUTSIDE the state they are in to ship/transfer the firearm so that the INTERSTATE nexus is ‘met’ allowing federal oversight. I have witnessed many cases in federal court where anytime a firearms charge is laid out, special verbiage is used at the outset to establish that the firearm used to convict TRAVELED or WAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Additionally, anything that passes via USPS can be said to be in federal jurisdiction. A special note should be said about the agreement UPS has with USPS: some UPS packages are shipped via USPS (look into it)…these items now fall under federal jurisdiction.

    Last point: the reference in this article to, “Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and any cases that are CIVIL in nature will have little, if any, any bearing on cases brought under federal CRIMINAL STATUTES (this is the issue that the Sovereign Citizen movement stumbles on in federal court 95% of the time…i.e. UCC and Rule of Civil Procedure to try and explain away or cover their violations of the CRIMINAL CODE)

  6. I may take a ton of grief for this notion from my fellow preppers ( and yes I know that .gov encroachment on our constitutional rights has become egregious) but what if we were to trade regulation of bumpfire stocks for say 50 state concealed carry law. If you have a CCW permit in your state then it shall grant you carry rights in any other. We would give up a sort of silly device in terms of practical usage for a greater freedom to carry across the country. Just putting it out there.

    1. I’ve heard that idea bandied about before, and it seems to be popping up more recently. The problem with it is that it continues to allow the state to push the notion that 2nd Amendment rights are not rights at all but privelages. The second issue is the reciprocity can be utterly neutered based upon the localities you’re traveling in. Sure, Chicago PD May “recognize” your CCW, but do they also recognize your 15+1 Glock 19 as legal there? Unlikely. So all the good your piece of paper did you as you sit in Cook County Holding with the strung out crackheads and Gangster Disciples awaiting arraignment. And finally, it assumes the good will of people like Rahm Emanuel, Bill DeBlasio, or that nutjob they have running the show in Philly. If you’re prepared to sacrifice your freedom and property based upon there willingness to properly enforce the law, I suspect someone somewhere has a bridge to sell you…

      As someone who negotiates complex and oftentimes high pressure contracts for a living, I can attest to the fact that bartering principles is always ineffective. Both sides have nothing to offer one another that either side wants. In this case, the left thinks it can offer us safety. We reject there notion of safety and the means they mean to employ to reach that aim. They reject our interpretation of our God-given rights and the means we mean to employ to keep them. Since neither side has anything the other wants, there’s nothing to compromise, and no deal to be made. This is a zero-sum situation. There will, by necessity, be only a winner and a loser.

  7. We keep playing prevent defense, giving a little ground in order to not give a lot of ground. If you keep it up, sooner or later they WILL score. We need to start taking back some of the ground that has been lost.

    The left will overreach and we need to strike hard to get back some of what has been lost.

    The latest stuff after Parkland demonstrate the idiocy of the left’s arguments. Prominent example is telling us that the kids calling for more gun control are wise and we should embrace their demands. Yet, one thing they are calling for is the raising of the age to buy long guns to 21 because people younger than that are not responsible enough to own firearms. Really? Let them write laws, but don’t let them buy guns.

    1. What’s worse: there is a move, given more impetus by the youth movement fueled by the Parkland school shooting, to lower the voting age to 16. I heard this on NPR yesterday. The argument is over whether 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. I think there is another issue entirely: having life experience. Of course, the commentator mentioned Parkland, so the assumption is the 16 and 17 year olds will vote for gun control. But someone over 18 who lives alone, on her own, works at night, and notices someone following her home, and wishes she had a firearm for protection, might vote differently on that issue. That is the value of having life experience in the real world.

  8. All the gun laws to come mean nothing if there isn’t enough of LE out there who are willing to give their lives in an effort to enforce said laws. I say there aren’t enough LE willing and folks will get to keep their goodies that they have now.

  9. THE JURY? I can second that, on the jury is the key.

    I sat on a jury two years ago, and helped a young fellow go free. They had treated the young fellow as if he had been a murderer. Went to his grandmother’s house where he lived, scared her almost to death (kind of a Waco treatment police event- or pile on 9-11 hero deal). Didn’t even let him put on his clothes. Handcuffed, still in a PJ bottoms, no shirt, no shoes, and the court shows us (the jury) this taped questioning with no lawyer, etc.

    FAST FORWARD So I was able to swing the only two black folks on the jury to vote my way. As you said in your article, about the court instructing you what you have to do. I just let the members of the jury know that “we are the jury”, not the judge. The jury foreman (a woman, disclaimer- I’m not PC), was a white spoiled (inset unkind name). While I am an old white man , right wing, veteran that believes in the death sentences an such, this whole setup smelled. So the young black man went free. The lesson that day was for the Nazi state, and they way they do business. Now, knowing I made a difference, please send me another jury notice.

Comments are closed.