Regardless of which level of the federal government enacts or passes them, all current statutory laws or regulations regarding the prohibition or restrictions of arms are unconstitutional with regard to Americans. The acceptance of BATF & E (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) regulations involuntarily binds one to ALL such rules and regulations under Statutory Public Policy, a jurisdiction outside any recognized by the Constitution of the united States of America, but within the jurisdiction of the corporate constitution known as the United States Constitution as adopted by the foreign-owned corporation known as the United States Government.
The original proposed Constitution of the united States of America, ARTICLE I, Section 8: Powers of Congress (Enumerated)
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;“
As amended prior to acceptance by the People, and ratification by the States, the revised Virginia Bill of Rights was included which prohibits any system of governance from passing laws infringing on, but not limited to, specific rights of the individual.
As ratified, the Constitution of the united States of America, the Second Article of Amendment, clearly states,
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.“
The framers and founders were explicit in their meaning, having just fought to maintain the right of self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms was primarily meant as a means of self-defense and in particular in defense from an oppressive government, while today’s corporate public policy administrative courts have debated the meaning and the extent to which the corporate government is limited.
The first part of the Second Amendment was and is meant to establish the right of the Sovereign State to defend itself and the Republic against enemies, both foreign and domestic. This included threats with native nations as well. In the case of defense of not only one’s self, but the common defense of family and community is the mainstay of the Second Amendment. The inalienable right to keep and bear arms to hunt and fish the land was always understood to never be prohibited or restricted in any way in order to feed and clothe oneself and family.
As the corporate public policy administrative courts themselves are limited by the United States Constitution (corporate), and whereas such limitations do not provide the public policy administrative courts the agency to interpret the Constitution of the united States of America (the original ratified constitution of thirteen amendments), the erroneous assumption that the corporate public policy administrative courts may do so is based on a fallacy that these courts gave such an interpretation in Marbury v. Madison. In that case the court decision was based on a law that was unconstitutional, therefore there was no compelling argument for the plaintiff, since his suit was based on a law that was void. The decision therefore was correct; however, the current ensuing corporate agency (the U.S. Supreme Court) continues to interpret the meaning of the Corporate United States Constitution with regard to questionable statutory legislation and render decisions that only apply to U.S. Citizens, i.e. corporate citizens.
Under the Law of the land, common law or Constitutional law, rendered decisions of the corporate public policy administrative U.S. Supreme Court are void since their decisions only apply to U. S. Citizens: Not Americans.