The laws and concepts they are reciting exist, and are correct. They are just inapplicable in the situations to which they are trying to apply them.
So they don't have a full understanding, at least in the context of the laws in this country, which puts them in your category 2 or 5. But they don't fit in category 2 because of the complexity of their belief systems (i.e. they aren't ruled by memes). And they don't really don't fit in category 5 because, they their non-reality isn't related to believing those who agree with them are right.
And none of this has to do with others having equally valid opinions.
To simplify it - it is as if someone told then to calculate the volume of a cone and they looked in their formula book and pulled out a formula for volume which included a radius and a height - specifically the one to calculate the volume of a cylinder. The formula for the volume of a cylinder was correct, their calculations were flawless. But it was the wrong formula - and no matter how many differing opinions you seek out, you can't calculate the volume of a cone using the formula for the volume of a cylinder. Even though both are valid formulas and both objects have a radius and a height. The formulas are simply not interchangeable.
But sovereign citizens treat legal rules, in similar settings, as if they were interchangeable. No amount of opinion, however, can make Article I of the UCC (which governs the sale of goods) apply to a sovereign citizen's interactions in court. No matter how flawlessly they execute any of the provisions. But that is the basis for tacking on "without prejudice" or UCC 1-308 to their signatures. In a commercial transaction it would be valid and have a purpose. But appearning in court as a defendant is not a commercial transaction.
= new reply since forum marked as read