Gun-grabbing cops and subornation of perjury

Corrupt federal cops have been purloining our firearms

It is a basic principle of law, that whenever any statement to facts is made in court, on penalty of perjury, sworn and presented as such, in order to be admissible, it must be impartial, and not influenced or induced or procured or required as a pre-condition for exercising basic civil rights, and in particular, the Fifth Amendment holds that “no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
US Code - Title 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1622

The requirement of fingerprints for gun purchases is already the opening of a federal criminal case against any person who purchases a firearm from a licensed FFL dealer, placing that person as a criminal defendant from the moment of legally acquiring or attempting to acquire a firearm under all the extraneous, unecessary, and unconstitutional terms and conditions imposed by the federal government.

Any sworn statement made in a context of cops taking fingerprints already amounts to self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. In particular these unruly officers’ procurement of false government forms for the sworn statements of members of the public who buy guns is tantamount already to the officers’ commission of the felony crime of subornation of perjury under the U.S. Code, especially when the answers so procured and required to be sworn as facts are subject to varying legal interpretations.

“Have you ever been arrested?” Whether or not it was a legal arrest or any charges were ever pursued or indicted in court. Let alone if a proper conviction was ever obtained against the person purchasing a firearm.

And that’s the worrisome thing about cops with no morals who take fingerprints ostensibly for non-criminal purposes — because when they appear in court to prosecute the criminal cases they are building against law-abiding gun owners, they always have all their bases covered with parallel constructions to justify their lies, so by that time the original application for a gun purchase would have been destroyed, substituted and reinterpreted years after the fact as an arrest with a booking using the fingerprints cut out from the original gun purchase application document, because the cops are required to have such a construction in court of the probable cause and warrant on which they would have obtained the fingerprints in the first place that they would claim to have on file for any prosecutorial use.

Forms Library | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is a fugitive from justice; who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled

That particular agency is a gang of unruly and lawless armed officers with absolutely no allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. The Second Amendment enumerates a particular right that shall not be infringed, and officers who interpret various statutes and codes in defiance of the Constitution are not in compliance with the law. Our response to the arbitrary and capricious rulemaking on gun ownership by government agencies must include the binding precedent of the judgment in the case of Marbury v. Madison against a litigious D.C. cop from a former presidential administration who was in court seeking a commission for law enforcement duties in the district from the incoming president.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

¶It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. ¶Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. ¶The rule must be discharged.

The judge uses a highly unusual form of a verb, “in declaring,” which is almost an exact English equivalent of the Finnish term «julistettaessa,» which is very formal and strikingly peculiar to so-called “law Finnish,” the inessive case of the second infinitive in the passive voice, and then the next phrase “essential to all written Constitutions” (= «yleistä kaikkien kirjoitettujen sisujen seassa») is nothing short of a stunning rebuke to the Finnish concept of an unwritten «sisu» with an unspoken code of honor to follow, and so many eager servants of the law to usurp that honor.