Gun Registration - Legality

I am a bit fuzzy on regstration vs recording a possession. But as I understand it so far...

Registration - You the 'registered owner' has the privaledge of paying for the purchase and maintainance of the car, gun, whatever needs to be registered with the 'aiuthaurities. and they actually own title to the item and can reclaim it whenever they wish.
Recording- you still own the item and it cannot be taken from you.

Since this has all been done by contract if the feds ty to take your gun can you as the person who has been housing said item demand storage fees to be paid prior to your surrendering said firearm/car? (I would make it a really high fee- 100K or the guns weight in gold or something that they would not be willing or capable of paying ) and enforce the equivalent of a mechanic's lein on the item?

Learn the rules they used to trick you into giving up your rights and use it against them.

yeah good topic. i wonder how far any of this would go int he real world. makes me wonder how the cops can charge you for impound fees if it's their car that they're impounding.

reply to post by ..5..


Great topic O.P., thanks for bringing it up. The first time I ever noticed this assertion was when I first moved to California and was applying for a drivers license and registering my vehicle in this state. On the walls and clearly printed in big bold letters in their handbook was this assertion:

Driving is a privilege not a right!

This struck me not only as false but a blatant lie being told by an administrative agency that, to the best of my knowledge has no legal authority by which to declare what is a right and what is not. Stupidly I waited in line for more than an hour to then sign a contract with this deceitful agency agreeing to their outrageous abrogation and derogation of my rights. Even so, it put on the path to asking pertinent question about how an administrative agency that serves the public could get away with such a blatant lie.

What I discovered was the prelude to a horror story I now call "Born in the U.S.A." I discovered that it is not a crime at all for a government official to lie, and that I am presumed to know the law, as we all are. I further discovered that the law of contracts and my own willful granting of jurisdiction is what made this mendacity possible. The true horror of this is that there is a reasonableness to creating an administrative agency that would seek to regulate traffic and ensure that people who are driving these very dangerous vehicles capable of causing much damage and harm and even a reasonableness to going along with licensing schemes.

That reasonableness has been used against the people and the very agency we created has turned against us legally plundering us while we continue to suffer this long train of abuse as reasonable people. If we are presumed to know the law, it is incumbent upon us to learn that law. Knowing the law will set you free, the trick is knowing it. With so many statutes, codes and ordinances on the books it becomes increasingly difficult to know the law. Of course, legislation is not law but merely evidence of law and when one understands that, they are closer to knowing the law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Jean, I agree with your assertion in the privilege vs right notion, but we have shot ourselves in the foot with this one.

On private land one could assert that it is a right and not a privilege, but since most of automobiles being operated occur upon public streets, we have created it as to be a privilege that can be revoked through a process. I do not agree with it, but it is what it is because we have created it as such.

In terms of a firearm, the right to bear arms is retained as it was seen as a fundamental right that must be guarded and retained by the people so that the government cannot disarm the people at a whim.

The OP brings up a good point and accentuates my signature in regards to words. Government is notorious in its use of language and rhetoric and using it to their will. They know by using certain words, people will assume it means one thing, but legal means another and be able to pass restrictive laws unknowingly to the populace.

Hence: Registration vs Recording......in this case, it gives the State the upper hand in the court of law based merely upon definitions, legal definitions to be exact.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I am currently responding to another post of yours in a different thread but had to break away from that one in order to respond to this one. By the way, thanks for pointing out your signature I had not noticed it until you pointed to it. I love it!

To this public lands assertion, I would argue that public lands are owned by We the People as is the government that lay's claim to this public land. People have the right to travel and if one follows closely the history of Department of Motor Vehicles they will discover that it was not always an assertion made, that "driving is a privilege and not a right." Indeed, there was no such thing as a Department of Horse and Buggy's prior to the invention of the automobile and yet there was still public lands.

I do agree with you that we have shot ourselves in the foot but I don't think it is through the use of public lands but is through the valid use of law of contract. It is our own signatures on licenses and registrations that empowers governments to, in fact, circumvent our right to due process of law and seize our property, (technically by contract their property), without any regard to rights.

It has become a horrible mess of confusion, mistake of facts and misinterpretation of law that we will only be able to sort out by coming to better understand the law and how that law exists to serve us and not the government.

That said, I'm off to that other thread to finish responding there, see ya there!