Pros Cons of the Companion, cap ball, model...

[stungun]

I don't think I'll really get one... but if there are some pros that I should know about, speak now or forever hold your peace.  

   

   How much would it cost to load 100 rounds, for example??

   

   I mean... WHY?!!??  What could possibly be the benefit, other than being an "Original Gangster" (O.G.)?

[cedarview kid]

Pro: Fun. Con: None.

[stungun]

I wish there was a video of it being loaded.

   

   

   

   Naa_lover... where are you!?!?

[grayelky]

Fun to shoot?

   

   I have not shot one of the NAAs, but the .36 caliber black powder revolvers I have shot are a blast. Except for the cleaning part.

   

   Now, if they would make an Earl/Companion......

[Uncle_Lee]

I have been a blackpowder revolver shooter for years and had a little Freedom Arms 22 blackpowder revolver. It was a lot of fun to load and shoot. After a day of shooting and hearing the WHOOOMPH of a Walker and the pop of the FA 22, cleaning was fun. The Walker was like cleaning a tank, the FA 22 was like cleaning a watch.

   You can't count the cost of FUN.

[stungun]

Are there laws that are more "lenient" on those that carry blackpowder guns??

   

   I'm sure in some state, felons are probly allowed to own blackpowder guns.  There's gotta be one, at least.

[cedarview kid]

As far as I've seen, black powder firearms are considered like most other "real" firearms, except for purchasing.

[stungun]

Yes, I see that no FFL transfer is necessary either.

   

   Kinda KOOL.

   

   Anybody got an idea how much it would cost to fire 100 rounds or so??

[Uncle_Lee]

As far as the FFL transfer law, that is up to the state that you live in. IL and NJ are two that I can think of right off that require a FFL for transfer.

   

   100 rounds=$20-$30.

   

   You don't just buy a black powder revolver, balls, caps, and powder. Like buying a pistol and ammo.

   

   With black powder shooting you have a lot of other "stuff" that goes with shooting it.  

   

   Something to carry the powder in.

   Powder measure.

   If you have old or big fingers, A capper.

   Grease to put over the balls.

   A little hammer, screwdriver, windex, knife, nipple wrench, nipple pick, other small stuff.

   A nice bag to carry all the "stuff" in.

[batjka]

Pros are that you get a handgun compatible to a cartridge mini without any paperwork and shipped to your door. If you carry a loaded spare cylinder, your reload time is faster than with a cartridge mini.

   

   Cons are that it takes a while to load. If you load with BP, it's pretty weak.

   

   Tool kit includes a loader, bullets, tin of caps, a .22 cal brush, and a container of powder.

   

   If you load with Bullseye, the cleanup is a breeze. In my opinion, the Companion is only worth it if you load with Bullseye. Otherwise, it's a fun toy, but not too practical.

[batjka]

Your cost per 100 rounds is:

   

   1) 100 bullets from NAA - $4

   2) Tin of caps - $5

   3) Can of powder - Bullseye cost me $27 per lb. That's 7000 grains of powder. So your cost per 100 shots is 38 cents.

   

   Total - $9.38

[Uncle_Lee]

Sorry, my cost per 100 was for .44 cal.

   All my thoughts were on the 44.

[gunfitrip]

I don't understand the interest in a felon owning, no FFL required to transfer, lenient laws and "original gangsters"? It's a gun and can be made to shoot well. The benefit is fun and it's well made like all NAA arms. NAA is the only place to get bullets and they are on this site for around $4 for 100.  Black powder or substitute and Remington #11 caps at about $6 a 100.  A pound of 777 will last hundreds of rounds if not thousands at 4 grains a shot.  777 is around $25 a lb.  So, for around $11 you can shoot a 100.  .22 LR is about $2 for 50 or $4 for 100.  Dollar wise get a .22 LR mini or BW conversion and shoot .22s if you want to save money.  Of course all the federal and state laws apply in that case.

[stungun]

Just to be clear... I have no interest in a felon owning the gun.  But I'm sure that if I run across one, and his state permits felons to own blackpowder revolvers, I'll certainly know where to send him.

   

   I just prefer to know the ins and outs when it comes to just about anything, but laws and legalities have been taking up a great deal of my time lately.

   

   For example, in Mississippi, a .35 caliber or greater single or dual shot rifle is considered a primitive weapon, which means hunting season is open at least 3x as long as hunting season for modern weapons.  Compound bows are primitive weapons, too!

   

   Hunting with a gun on horseback is definitely allowed in MS.

   

   You CANNOT use 22 rimfire to shoot deer.

   You can ONLY use 22 rimfire rifles or centerfire pistols to shoot hogs.

   

   And if you don't see the benefit in not having to deal with FFL transfers, I just don't even know what else to say to you.

[gunfitrip]

I understand what you mean.  Yes, there are legal differences in the treatment of cap and ball minis from regular firearms.  In Texas and federal law a "replica" cap and ball is treated the same as an actual "antique" which is defined by statute.  In order for a revolver to be defined as a "handgun" it must first be a firearm.  So, an anitque being eliminated from the definition of a firearm makes it technically a Non gun.  You have some tricky legal issues such like what is a replica. Does it have to be exact replica?  I have an old NAA catalogue that indicates in the words of NAA that the Companions were intended to be "replicas". I own two, the mini and Magnum and they are fine guns.  I would highly recommend one if you've got the money. They are dependable with proper loading.  I have owned many types of Black Powder guns and NAAs have the best ignition system I have experienced.  They shoot every time if loaded right.  I can't stress that enough. #11 Remington caps, 777, and proper seated bullet and the gun works.  It has reasonable velocity. You mentioned Mississippi.  I figure you might be from there.  I bet their laws would probably give a "replica" black powder pistol an exception to firearms laws but you better check.

[stungun]

Doubtful.  I'm pretty sure that Mississippi's terms are defined rather vaguely or not at all, which leads officials to accept the vaguest possible decision.

   

   Mississippi's understanding of prohibition of "concealed weapons, in whole or in part" would probly get me in trouble if I had a clear holster or a NAA w/ folding grip!!!  I've already asked the police sergeant here, and based on HIS understanding, I emailed the Attorney General of THE STATE.

   

   Can't wait to see his response to the stuff I laid out for him.  Don't think it'll be any different from the police sergeant's.

[stungun]

Oh what the heck... here's the email I sent him.  I wonder if I'll even get a response at all from anyone at his office...  :-/

   

   =====================

   

   As I have been looking to better understand my rights so that I might be able to better exercise them, I have come across the ridiculousness that is THE STATE's understanding of the term "unconcealed".

   

   On the one hand, the Mississippi Constitution, which all Mississippi public officials must swear an oath to uphold, claims that:

   

   "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property... shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."

   

   The funny thing is that I have contacted the Gulfport Police Sergeant, and he tells me that there is not ONE possible scenario in which unconcealed carry is permitted. That's funny, because I thought that that my right to keep and bear unconcealed arms should never be called into question!!

   

   He said that a clear holster, which leaves the gun totally unconcealed, will wind me up in some trouble. I asked him to cite his authority, and he simply told me, "That's just the way it is."

   

   I'm assuming that he would tell me the mini revolver with folding grip and attached clip for a belt or front pocket would still be considered concealed, because he seems to be quite the unreasonable man. Here's a picture of the gun in question:

   http://naaminis.com/pix/cc22_hgmt.jpg">http://naaminis.com/pix/cc22_hgmt.jpg

   

   The Gulfport Sergeant's thought process seems to revolve around Justice Lee's opinion in this case -- L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992).

   

   Justice Lee actually gives reasoning behind his literal interpretation of the MS Statute's (97-37-1) reference to a gun being concealed "in whole or in part"...

   

   "The reasons for the strict interpretation of the statute were that many years ago people carried firearms for their protection-usually partially concealed as in holsters. People were also prone to settle their differences by fist fights and it was fairly common to see such incidents occur in public places. If a person was prone to provoke a fight with a seemingly unarmed man, he could easily be killed or injured in the event his adversary was carrying a concealed weapon. IF THE WEAPON HAD BEEN VISIBLE PROBABLY NO ALTERCATION WOULD HAVE OCCURRED!!"

   

   (emphasis mine)

   

   Therefore, it is my understanding from the U.S. Constitution, the Mississippi Constitution, all officials' oaths to protect my rights (which are declared in those constitutions), the Mississippi statutes with vague wording about "in whole or in part", the opinions of the MS Supreme Court Justices during the L.M., Jr. v. State case in 1992, etcetera.... that CARRYING A TOTALLY UNCONCEALED WEAPON (which means that it levitates near the front side of my waist and is in *no* holster), IS TOTALLY LAWFUL AND LEGAL, seeing as how there is no punishment.

   

   Basically, you MUST agree that I have the "right" to carry a TRULY unconcealed weapon, in defense of my person, correct?

   

   And you MUST agree that the MS Legislature has no authority to regulate this "right", correct?

   

   Lasly, if TRULY unconcealed carry includes neither a clear holster, nor a mini revolver with clip so that NO holster is necessary... then how exactly must I exercise this right?? Must I suspend the gun in mid-air above a hat, so that it can be visible from 360 degrees?? Or did the MS Constitution presume that men are actually not men, but ghosts??

   

   Since my right to unconcealed carry on my person must not be called into question by a public official, perhaps I should ask a public official what is an example of "legal" unconcealed carry on my person (... if not that of the NAA mini revolver with folding grip and clip)??

   http://naaminis.com/pix/cc22_hgmt.jpg">http://naaminis.com/pix/cc22_hgmt.jpg

   

   Are clear holsters "CONCEALING... in whole or in part"??

   

   Would a reasonable man consider something that is see-through to be "concealing"??

   

   Thanks for your time,

[chopprs]

A rule of thumb that one of my attorneys gave me years and years ago is that if you ever have any question about handgun laws always sway towards believing the side that will get you in more trouble. A lot of times if an officer just does not know he will simply arrest you and let the courts figure it out. I have asked many of my State trooper budz gun law questions and they usually have no idea. If you get a Liberal judge you may be a very, very sad boy in the end!

    When I went to college in Daytona I worked at K-Mart(most fun job I ever had!) and a woman came in wearing a Levi's outfit made from clear plastic. You could literally see EVERYTHING....she was arrested for indescent exposure although she whined all the way to the Police car that she was in fact, fully clothed!

[stungun]

Well... this isn't indecent exposure.

   

   It's open carry, and I've laid out a pretty good foundation for why I shouldn't be arrested.  I will slowly try to contact all of them, and if I get no response... I will accept that I am correct in my understanding and they have nothing to dispute.  After I have contacted them all, I will file a Notice & a few other things with the court house and wait for their silent acquiescence to make it official, then get it notarized by a judge.  Carry that Notice and an Affidavit or two with me, and I think the officers will get the point.

   

   Thank you, NAA, for getting me around the "concealed, in whole or in part" nonsense that my state is blessed with!!

   

   Any reasonable person who reads my SHORT letter to the Attorney General will understand that nothing about clipping an NAA to my belt is concealing.  The trigger is concealed, yes... but let's see if the reasonable man thinks that the NAA design is actually acceptable for the public safety, and there is nothing deceiving or fraudulent about the gun.

[doc_stadig]

All of this become null and void once the hammer falls forward, so to speak. The carry/no carry/ concealed/not concealed turns from a semantic topic, to an assault with a deadly weapon for the person that presents the black powder weapon and fires it, if they are not permitted to have a weapon, and shoot a perpetrator with it, they will face a jury of their peers, and most likely, will be found guilty and it will be left almost to the whim of that jury, what will be the fate of the weapon owner. The violent felon may face that jury with more strikes against him than the first time legal carrier, but the jury will still determine the person's fate.

   There must be the same amount of soul searching for the Companion carrier as there is for the regular weapon carrier, be it a North American Arms mini-revolver, a Smith and Wesson 38 Airweight, or a 1911 45 ACP. Both must decide when they holster their weapon that they're ready to face another person and take their life, that their death is the best solution to the situation, and required for them to live.

   Make no mistake, you are making that decision every time that weapon goes into your pocket/holster. If that is not your thought when you carry, reconsider your position. If your thought is to just wound your opponent, you will be charged, you carry because you fear for your life. If they are wounded that's fine, but when your attorney asks you if you were afraid of dying your answer must always be yes.

   

   

   Doc

[chopprs]

Stun, I was just trying to agree with the point that that was already made. Please read Doc Stadig's post. He is absolutely correct!!! For someone to open carry even in a state where a permit is not needed for that and one does it is my opinion that said person is just asking for trouble because on the street where the cop that arrests you sees you with the gun if he does not like the way you are carrying it he will indeed arrest you. A Police office can arrest you for picking your nose if he so wishes. that is what "Arresting Powers" is! It is simply his decision. Trying to explain to him that you have a letter from the attorney general that says your holster is ok will likely not help if he has already made his decision. The laws about this, I believe, are purposely vague in an attempt to leave the doors open for prosecution if needed. The question that has already arisen is that once you take that cap and ball revolver out even in defense, you open yourself to an entire different world of litigation. I think you would be far better with a regular gun in your pocket where no one can see it and a CCW in your wallet. Why would you want to crry a black powder mini for SD anyways?....Just curious....or are you simply trying to make a point. Not bustin' yer nuts, I genuinely am curious......

[stungun]

You could see what my state's requirements are above.

   

   That's the law, those are the statutes, those were the opinions of the chief justice on a ruling that had nothing to do with carrying on a person, but teenagers carrying loaded guns under their hood after they had shot at other people, even tho concealed carry in a vehicle is LAWFUL *and* LEGAL. "Truly" open carry is neither unlawful, nor illegal, and the act carries no punishment.

   

   I know when to carry and when not to carry.  I would even comply with the state's "rules" for where permit holders are restricted from carrying.  And, of course, I would know when to fire.

   

   I am not going to beg of the government to get a permit that I must always carry with the gun, when TRULY unconcealed carry carries NO punishment.  I'd rather show them my Notice & Affidavit and get some attention drawn to the issue about how our public officials are disobeying their oath and bond... and how they are being DECEITFUL, *CONCEALING*, and FRAUDULENT!!

   

   These are called my rights.  I will wait to hear word from the AG or governor or legislators or somebody.  Somebody must talk to me, and if they don't... and I go ahead with it... and I am then arrested... I will sue the governor and his wife for conspiracy to violate my rights.

   

   Law is fun.

[stungun]

Oh, and I'm not getting the cap and ball, most likely.  We seem to have gotten off on quite the tangent.

   

   I'm highly considering the Break-Top.  

[chopprs]

Hhhmmm, why are you so angry man?

   I can bet you that if the Chief of Police told you that you will be arrested.....YOU WILL BE!

   Your best bet is not the Attorney General but to get a local Judge to sign off on it. Likely you will be asking the Judge to create new law which he will be reluctant to do. You are really asking for trouble man.....Why not just get a CCW?

[stungun]

I'm not angry.  Just throwing out the gameplan to show you that I mean business and that "arresting power" is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to the Law.

   

   And I won't get a CCW for the same reason that I wouldn't get a marriage license... and for the same reason that I am eventually going to rescind my driver's license...

   

   It is my right to protect myself and those around me.

   It is my right to marry my soulmate and not have the government come between us, claiming authority over our decisions.

   It is my right to travel in my own private automobile on the public roads, provided that I am not making a profit, or gain, at the expense of the public.

   

   I'd rather not get into it now... but I'm not exactly waiting on the AG's decision alone.  I'm going to talk to just about everyone in the state that there is to talk to, and *then* I'll file my proper Notices and such.

[heyjoe]

stungun i hope you have somebody who well send you clean underwear in the can. Reminds me of the government has no power to impose income tax argument. that didnt go too well for those involved. being a test case isnt always what its cracked up to be.

     many states recognize common law marriages already.

[chopprs]

Well, it is like this. Some of your arguments are shared by others but Heyjoe is right as well. Being the test case is usually not a good place to be. I can tell you that you are wrong about the drivers license though.  I have heard that argument in court before. It seems that since the government owns the roads and not you they can insist that you prove your ability to operate a vehicle safely on THEIR roads by passing a driving test and holding a license. They can also Make you purchase auto insurance since an automobile can be dangerous to others if operated incorrectly.

    I wish you well in your endevour though I am quite sure you will not travel far on it before you have a nice new shiny set of bracelets!

[stungun]

Who told you that the roads belong only to the few men that We the People permit to be our servants?

   

   Last I heard, "This land is YOUR land. This land is my land.  From California to the New York island.  From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters.  This land was made for YOU and ME."

   

   Lemme share a simple hierarchy chart about how the government was setup and will even accept, so long as you remind them about it....

   

   God

   - Divine Law

   -- Natural Law

   

   --- Common Law

   

   ---- We the People

   ----- U.S. Constitution

   ------ U.S. Government

   ------- U.S. Statutes

   -------- U.S. Citizen

   

   We the People hold supreme power over the government.  *We* grant the privilege of providing for the general welfare (roads) to the government.  *We the People* are the creditors for the government.  They use OUR money to upkeep OUR public roads for OUR benefit.

   

   Now you're gonna tell me that I'm not allowed to hit golf balls at the local elementary school anymore!!!  Get outta here!

   

   I'm not up on the tax scheme yet [only because taxes don't currently affect me], but the majority of people fall into trouble because they CONSENT!!  On a W4, you mark U.S. Citizen... you are consenting to being a statutory citizen, who accepts all the rules & by-laws of the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES, not to be confused with the "united States of America".

   

   It's all just a big word game.  For example, if you look in law dictionaries, like Blacks, Bouvier, etc... you'll see that a driver is actually somebody who is "for hire", "making gain or profit at the expense of the public", "commercially transporting people or goods", etc.  Driving is a PRIVILEGE that *We the People* grant to businesses.  How can something that *We* created tell us what *We* need to do (provided that we are not breaking Common Law -- harming someone, harming someone's property, or committing fraud in our contracts)??

   

   A "motor vehicle" is also defined as a commercial vehicle, different from an automobile.  Just word games.

   

   The government can NOT regulate sovereign, private men, WHO DO NOT CONSENT.

   

   The First Amendment allows you the right to choose whatever society that you'd like to be apart of.  If you want to be a member of the corporation known THE UNITED STATE, and pay into their retirement fund, known as SSI... go ahead.  I'll stick to liberty.

   

   Could you imagine liberty if you weren't allowed to travel?!?

   

   Here's a couple links that just scratch the surface of the difference between driving and traveling:

   ONE) http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml">http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

   TWO) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BwMY-JZEXNkJ:www.thejoojooforum.com/gim/showthread91bc.html">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BwMY-JZEXNkJ:www.thejoojooforum.com/gim/showthread91bc.html

   

   "He who distinguishes well, learns well."

   

   I believe that's what started this whole tangent.  

[stungun]

And I hear there's a library in jail, so it's just a temporary change of scenery until I file a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

   

   I'll live.

   

   - Attention toward distinguishing the difference between LAW and LEGALITIES is more important than me staying in the "free world".

   - Attention toward distinguishing the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES is more important than me staying in the "free world".

   

   Wake up, folks!

   

   Statutes are rules of a society.  You can choose to be a national (aka: a constitutional citizen), and even get a passport that states you are a "National, but not Statutory citizen".

   

   There is no hierarchy when it comes to TRUE Law.  We are all equal before *and* under the Law.

   

   Hence, statutes like this, which I would obviously include in any such Notices to any public "officials"...

   

   - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html

   - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html

   

   I'm itching for a cop to use his color of law to deprive me of my rights.  ITCHING!!

[stungun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

   

   Let freedom ring!!

[heyjoe]

Stungun i dont know how old you are but this is going to end very badly for you.

[stungun]

How old do you think I am?

   

   How 'bout we forget the age.

   

   You just start by telling me which part of the letter to the attorney general did you not understand?

   

   "That's just the way it is." is not an acceptable answer.  I'm sorry.  The police chief failed the test of integrity.  All he said to me after that was. "I'm not a lawyer."  And when I said, didn't you take an oath to protect my rights, he said: "I'm hanging up the phone now...  NRA! NRA! NRA!"

   

   That's just despicable.  I DON'T EVEN OWN A RIFLE!!  So, I'm going straight to the Attorney General.  Let's see what the top attorney for THE STATE has to say.  I'd be willing to bet that Heyjoe could put together a better response...

[chopprs]

......exactly Joe, he is twelve!

[Uncle_Lee]

Stungun,

   A couple of questions.

   Have you ever been arrested?

   Didn't think so. You are headed for a rude awakening.

   Jails around here (southern Indiana) don't have libraries. Nor TVs, radios, or luxury items. If someone don't bring it for you, not even soap.  

   You can be picked up and locked up and held without being charged (around here, 72 hours) for suspicion. Suspicion of what? You ask. We might find something. Your guaranteed one phone call? One cop looks at the other and says "Didn't you hear him say he didn't want to make a call?" The reply is "Yep, he said that."

   

   Are you a white male?

   If you are a white male, you WON'T-WON'T-WON'T beat the system. Been there, failed at doing that.  

   If you are a white male, just try to file a harassment suit. In most cases it won't happen. Bug them enough and something will be found on you and you will go away for a long time. After you get to prison where they do have libraries, then you can study to get your law degree. When/if you get out then you can go about to change the system. But by then, you will be smart enough not to try.

   You write of a "game plan". To them, it isn't a game.

[stungun]

Yes, I have been arrested for public intoxication.  I ended up staying in there for about 20 hours, because "the system was down", so I couldn't get bailed out.  And guess what!!  I ended up being found NOT GUILTY!  And I represented myself!

   

   Thank God I don't live where you do.  We actually had pool tables at the county work center where I ended up!!  Can't always bank on ending up there, but I'm not worried about entertaining myself for 3 days.  I'd enjoy to be clothed and fed for free while I have time to contemplate about what happened and what form of action I will take when I get out... among many other things.

   

   But they can't keep you longer than 3 days if you don't give them a name.  If you give them a LEGAL name, then you are entering into a contract with them the second you offer it up to them.  Instead of just offering your entire legal name, you'd be better off just offering your given name only (i.e. - no family name);  in MS, one must only present a LAWFUL name to a cop and no ID.  Offer your given name, and then he'll ask for a last name.  At that point, ask him if he's operating legally or lawfully.  If he says lawfully, tell him that if he's acting lawfully, he shouldn't need a last name, since he saw no one infringe on the rights of another.  If he says legally, tell him that you don't wish to contract with him.

   

   "Are you operating legally or lawfully?" is a very important question.

   

   But, I'm not going to be talking to the cop, remember!!  I'm going to have everything written down in the Notices & Affidavits, which all will have been notarized, recorded into EVERY public record I can find, and sent by certified mail to EVERY relevant government corporation.  They must follow the Uniform Commercial Code like every other corporation.  They MUST acknowledge my Notice & Claims when they see a Notice.  Proof is there that I sent it and they received it.  Just like the vast majority of Notices that are sent by corporations, I will allow them a 30 day response, and if they don't reply within that time period... I get the Notary to send a Certificate of Dishonor and Non-response.  After another 30 days of dishonor, the Notary sends a Notice of Fault.  After another 30 days of dishonor, the Notary sends a Notice of Default... and 30 days after that, you have what is referred to as a default judgement.  The decision has already been decided by them ignoring the question.

   

   Court decisions are pre-judged the majority of the time, if you don't present your case BEFORE the arraignment.  If you just go to the arraignment and then sign their little contract, where you're PLEADING (read: BEGGING) for something from the court, without asking questions first... then you're giving them all the jurisdiction they need to convict you of any statutory offense.  Don't plead to an inferior & fictitious entity is all I gotta say.  They can't make you sign that contract.  There's no punishment if you don't sign.  They're not gonna put a gun to your head.  If they do, sign the contract "Without prejudice" & "Under protest, threat, and duress".

   

   If only you guys knew how everything revolves around contracts, honor & dishonor, commercial regulation, etc...  then perhaps you all wouldn't feel the same way you do today.

   

   I'm willing to bet that for as young as I am, I understand more about my liberties than any of you who are telling me to sacrifice them.  Never again will I sacrifice my rights thru silent acquiescence or a legal contract where I offer up my legal name.

   

   

   Repeat after me.................

   

   On, and for the Record..

   

   > I do not consent

   > I object

   > I decline to contract

   > I disallow You Power of Attorney

   > I challenge your supposed Jurisdiction,

   

   and ..

   

   repeat ...

   

   

   It goes a little something like this..

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE

   

   P.S. - UncleLee... I only used the term gameplan because that's what it is, a strategy.  Dealing with the Law is an awful lot like chess.  Most people don't even know how to play the game of Law, so they can't even put all their pieces on the board.  No wonder the gov't usually wins.  But when they see that I am going to battle with them for years, if need be, in order for them to recognize my claim(s) of right... they'll likely have to give up from the money that I'm costing them.