...AFTER....they take the guns....

[Don Galt]

They didn't require your SSN because they already had it. When I renewed mine, they a required it.

 

[Freedspeak]

SSN

Actually if I remember correctly according to federal law the SSN was an accounting number and by law was never to be used for anything else in the way of ID.

Sounds like lawbreaking to me, or maybe a federal felony!

Looks like I may have to give up driving and get a horse, but they'll probably find a way to reguate that too!

 

[WvaBill]

Sounds like lawbreaking to me, or maybe a federal felony!

No. Even on the 4473 it says Optional. Universities routinely get around the provision that SSAN will not be ID by assigning "Student Numbers" identical to SSAN. Same with IRS and "Taxpayer ID Numbers." Call it something else and it is OK. Some Universities don' use SSAN(Michigan State, for example) but many do.

It doesn't really matter if it is on your DL or not. NCIC will respond to Name and DOB. SSAN is just one way, such as on 4473, that mistaken ID can be avoided.

The Gov't has less on file uner SSAN than the private financial sector.

 

[Don Galt]

The IRS uses your SSN as your taxpayer Id, and makes no bones about it. They are one of the agencies that is allowed under federal law to use it for ID.

You cannot get a taxpayer id (eg: a TIN or an EIN) without giving the IRS your SSN.

I think the green cards being issued these days have a SSN like number to allow the IRS to collect taxes from them.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Don Galt

I think the green cards being issued these days have a SSN like number to allow the IRS to collect taxes from them.

My wife had to have a SSN in order to get her green card IIRC.
She applied for and received a SSN before she got her "green card" (while staying here on her visa). It was not to be used for obtaining employment, but for "identification purposes only" IIRC. Once she got her green card the SSN became active.
It's been quite a few years, so the procedures may have changed by now.

In addition, didn't the Feds (in the past few years) require all parents to obtain a SSN for all their children, regardless of age?

 

[Edward429451]

Doesn't anybody realize that this stuff doesn't even apply to free Americans? Never has, never will.

Umm, how does that presumption of law go? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Its a jurisdictional issue that no ever fights, everyone aquieses (?) to, and that is what makes you lawfully bound to it. Its been going on for so long that it might as well be a law, cause its all "common knowledge" now and if you bring it up now in this day & age you're labeled a tin foil hatter and anti something and you lose anyway, usually with additional cheering from the sheep.

Whats that other lesser known axiom? Knowledge is power.

 

[Don Galt]

Just out of curiosity, how did the IRS identify your wife in order to give her an SSN? IF she didn't have one, they had nothing to tie the number she is issued (the SSN) to her.

Did they just take a passport or something?

Edward--

I don't know where "ignorance of the law is no excuse" came from, but that's a literally irrational statement. You cannot be beholden to laws you know nothing about... not morally anyway. Its tyrannical.

Also, I was issued an SSN when I was young, and I even used it consentually because I was told I had to. Neither of these actions should forfiet any rights I might have.

Any judicial system that sees them as forfieting rights is a corrupt one. But then, ours is pretty clearly corrupt.

 

[Edward429451]

I don't know where "ignorance of the law is no excuse" came from, but that's a literally irrational statement. You cannot be beholden to laws you know nothing about... not morally anyway. Its tyrannical.

Bullseye. It's a very irrational statement. I didn't say I agreed with it or think it's right or lawful, but it's the defacto rules that they go by.

"All persons are presumed to know the law. If any person acts under any unConstitutional statute, he does so at his own peril. He must take the consequences."
16 Am Jur 177, 178

UCC 1-201 (13) states: presumption or presumed means that the party against whom the presumption is directed has the burden of proving that the nonexistance of the presumed fact is more provable than it's existance." The best way to prove such nonexistance is to revert the burden of proof to the Government to prove the facts by challenging jurisdiction.

"We have in our political system (two governments) a government of the United States and a government of the several (50) states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own..."
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S., 542, 23 L., Ed 588

In 1945 the supreme court in Hooven and Allison Co. v Evatt, 324 U.S., 652 affirmed that there are TWO distinctly different United States with two opposite forms of governments. Both United States have the same Congress. This supreme court case officially defined the two distinct and seperate meanings of the term "United States." The Hooven decision is the basis for the definition of "United States" found in the sixth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary;

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses:

1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignity of the United States extends. (Const. Art. I sec 8 Cl. 17 & Art. IV sec 3 Cl 2)

3)It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." (The 50 states)

The 2nd, very different "United States" definition refered to in the Hooven decision does not include the 50 states but is a "term" for a "territorial" United States. In the constitution, the federal government was given the power to set up a "seat of government" over which it excercised"exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever." This exclusive territory was created and limited by Art. I, sec 8, Cl. 17 and Art. IV, sec 3, Cl. 2 of our constitution. Read those two sections and notice where the exclusive jurisdiction of this United States ends.

The jurisdictional area of this United States is limited to only the District of Columbia (not exceeding ten square miles), and the possessions and territories belonging to and under the exclusive sovereignity of the United States. (D.C., Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands). This United States does not include the 50 states, except for lands ceded to the United States for purposes such as setting up military bases, federal buildings, etc. The 50 sovereign states DO NOT belong to the United States. They belong to the sovereign PEOPLE. In the territorial states (not the 50 states), the United States is sovereign and excercises exclusive and absolute legislative authority. This "other" United States is a corporate entity with the deceptive "trade names" of "The United States of America", and the "U.S." When they write legislation, and apply it to "persons", "citizens", etc., they throw in the definitive but misleading "subject to the jurisdiction" or "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the text which is supposed to differentiate it from lawful authorized legislation for the 50 states of which there is next to no power authorized. Joe American is good and wants to be law abiding so thinks the law applies to him and obeys without challenging jurisdiction, thereby aquiescing (?) to the law and making himself lawfully subject to it by not rebutting the presumption of law that it applies to him and that they have jurisdiction in the first place.

Clear as mud?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Don Galt

Did they just take a passport or something?

I believe so (passport). Been about 11 years so the details are pretty sketchy. She's sleeping right now (I work nights), so I'll have to ask her later. IIRC, she could use her SSN for everything except employment. That would include aquiring credit, bank accounts, etc.

 

[c_yeager]

Of the several immigrants (non citizens) i know living in this country they ALL have SSNs.

 

[mantispid]

Not gonna do any such national ID cards... I'd renounce my federal citizenship first. Probably will in about a decade anyway... just retain my state citizenship and remain a U.S. National.

I'm looking into revoking my social security stuff too.. or at the very least, seperating myself from tne number in the system.

 

[Don Galt]

Mantis-- why would they do a national ID?

They already have one, and you carry it around every day.

Your drivers license or state-ID is the national ID.

But please let us know if you can get rid of your SSN. I'd like to do that to. Don't mind payin' my taxes without an SSN. What are they gonna do, send my money back?

 

[mantispid]

Oh don't worry, I'd be doing away with my Drivers license as well when the time comes.


Oh, as for living without a SSN...

Living the outlaw life:
Yes, You Can Work without
a Social Security Number
By Claire Wolfe


I know there are fragments of info here and there about filing 'notices of revocation and recision' or whatnot.. but there isn't anything I've found that is nicely compiled with a decent amount of research behind it.

Many suggest the best way to 'revoke' your SSN is to simply refuse to use it.

 

[WvaBill]

Oh don't worry, I'd be doing away with my Drivers license as well when the time comes

So much for FA purchases, except that pesky Gun Sow Loophole

Travel, no commercial carriers. Some states won't allow registration of vehicles or other property w/o DL. It is not the idea of the DL being required to travel freely or track movements. It could morph into that, but I do not see that on horizon.

It is more likely to be used to ID one as a citizen rather than foreign national, felon, ex-felon, or perv.

 

[Don Galt]

You should be able to use a passport for ID... but probably not with the DMV (unless you have a DL as well.)

Edit: Thanks for the reference to the Claire Wolfe article. I'd read it in the past, and will again.