PDA

View Full Version : Unblurring the distinction between right and privilege in promotion of "CCW"


CitaDeL
01-27-2009, 10:27 PM
I expect some to be not very happy about the comments I have about rights v. privileges surrounding the political platform published on Jay LaSuer's website. (http://www.sheriffjay.org/articles/carry_permits.html) I want people to know that I have nothing against Mr. LaSuer or his campaign to become San Diego's Sheriff - however, the lines between rights and privileges are becoming less distinct and it seems to originate with a less than perfect articulation or understanding of differences between the second amendment and the privilege to carry concealed in California.

I hope this stimulates thoughtful debate rather than a litany of emotional responses. I have italicized my opinions to seperate them from the original text.


Should Law Abiding Citizens Be Issued Concealed Carry Permits?

Many elected officials seem to have forgotten that when they took their oath of office they swore to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. The last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it still contained the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. These same elected officials also seem to have forgotten that when this nation declared its independence, the founding fathers stated that our creator gave us certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; which I believe includes citizen’s and their family’s safety.

No argument there… However, this is not relevant in the discussion of the issuance of a license to carry concealed. The right of self-determination, the right of self-preservation, and the right to armed self-defense are not subject to licensing, taxation, regulation, or revocation. Issuance of a license is not an affirmation of a right- in fact, the transaction reduces the right to a privilege- an honor that can be bestowed and removed at will and subject to conditions and qualifications. The issuance of licenses to carry concealed or ‘loaded and exposed’ is NOT a Constitutional issue.

There are many other elected officials who act as though they believe only they are trustworthy and law abiding citizens; that law abiding citizens must look to them for their quality of life and their protection from violence. In other words, these elected officials do not trust those law abiding citizens, the very people who built this nation, and whose sons, daughters, husbands and wives have served in our armed forces to guarantee the freedoms and rights our founding fathers intended for all citizens, past, present and future to hold and enjoy.Again, not much to disagree with.

There are also elected officials who act as though they are the final arbiters of who are and who are not suitable benefactors of the second amendment. They portray themselves as pro-second amendment, being members of various 2A organizations, while defending a super-Constitutional system of licensing or conditions and qualifications that are as effective gun control as is advanced by anti-gun organizations. If we are to truly trust the people with the 2nd, they must be allowed to exercise the right without stipulation.

Law enforcement will admit that even if a law enforcement officer was assigned to every city block and every rural area, they could not guarantee the safety of those they are sworn to protect and serve.Currently, 40 states have “Right to Carry” laws (RTC) and 36 states have “Shall Issue” laws pertaining to the right of their law-abiding citizens to have Concealed Carry Permits (CCW). Many predicted enactment of such laws would cause violence and crime to soar. This has not been the case. States where “Shall Issue” laws exist follow certain criteria, which must be met prior to issuing such permits.

Currently, its possible to lawfully carry exposed in 44 states, and 31 states have no specific prohibition to unlicensed open carry- California included. Again, a license is not the exercise or affirmation of a right, but the evidence of a revocable privilege. The application of criteria set by issuing authorities subjects licensees to gun control under threat of non-issuance or revocation.

Persons not eligible for the license include, but are not limited to the following:·


Convicted felons. Felons having paid their debt to society should not have to continue to pay by being defenseless for the remainder of their lives.
Persons who have had restraining orders issued against them. ·
Minors.
Persons with mental illness and/or psychological problems that would prohibit them from functioning without medication. This seems like a disincentive for those who have a condition that is correctable with treatment. Also, this opens the door for interpretation of mental illness and psychological problems- there is too little specificity as to what constitutes a sufficient psychological problem to deny someone a license. Someone overhears you discussing your bad day at work or feeling under the weather, feeling a little blue, and now you are no longer a suitable licensee?
Persons who have been convicted of the manufacture, sales or distribution of illegal substance(s). Again, if they have paid their debt to society, their ability to defend themselves should not be impaired- particularly if they have to defend themselves from elements from their prior lifestyle. Those who have a history of numerous encounters with law enforcement. Numerous encounters with police? This could easily be construed to mean political activists and open carriers- its possible that such people may have multiple contacts with police, without having committed a crime.
Plus a few others. Plus a few others? Political adversaries? Those who are not citizens of the United States? The elderly? The poor? The handicapped? Out of Staters?

Those who; apply for a concealed carry permit must demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the laws pertaining to the use of lethal force and competency with their firearm. And, they must pass a law enforcement background check to verify the statements contained within their application.

I think most responsible gun owners make a point of knowing what the law says and what they are capable of with their firearm. Anyone failing to understand these things risks jail or death. A background check and being forced to exchange statements affirming their sanity, sobriety and upstanding character for a permission slip is super-Constitutional. We are not required to prove our worthiness, our innocence, or our competence to practice our religion, speak our mind, or peaceably assemble- why then are we subjected to such scrutiny to defend our lives, having committed no crime? The burden is on the state in my opinion, to prove our disqualification and one should not be compelled to offer evidence of the same against themselves.

Once the above criteria have been met, the applicant must be issued the permit. The issuance is based on these criteria and these criteria only, not on the whim of some bureaucrat. There are also rules, which must be adhered to by those persons who have qualified for and obtained a CCW permit. For example, if a person who has been issued a CCW permit is arrested and convicted for driving under the influence (DUI), that persons permit, is immediately revoked.

A bureaucrat developed the aforementioned criteria. The qualifications and background requirements are both subjective and arbitrary. Driving under the influence and the right to carry a firearm are exclusive of each other, unless the individual is carrying their weapon at the time of their DUI. (This is like suspending a driver’s license for failure to pay child support.)

Many “Politically Correct” officials will raise the shrill alarm that such action is nothing less than creating an armed camp in our neighborhoods. But historically this is an untrue belief with no basis in fact.I believe we should glean the knowledge and experience from the thirty-six states with “Shall Issue’ laws and follow suit. The history of the thirty-six “Shall Issue” states proves that issuance of CCW permits helps protect citizens and actually prevents crime. In my over thirty years of law enforcement experience, I have encountered many individuals with concealed carry permits. I have never had a bad experience with any of these citizens. I have, however, arrested numerous criminals illegally carrying concealed firearms. None of the criminals would have been eligible to legally carry a concealed firearm – their only purpose was to prey on law abiding citizens who had not been granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.

I agree with much that is written here, however the last line is an epic fail. Inalienable rights are not granted by a document like the Constitution or a license issued by a Sheriff. Such rights exist the moment we are born and cannot be taken from us in the way a license may be revoked. The only thing that may be granted is permission or a privilege – the idea that the state or its officer could grant a right is preposterous. If there is a right to carry a concealed firearm, then there is no need to seek out a license.

If a Sheriff is to take an oath to hold office I believe they should be able to make these distinctions- even to the point of disregarding laws that are not in concert with the Constitution or articulating the contrasts between rights and privileges. I believe it is their responsibility, primarily because I believe a Sheriff is the most powerful elected office in the land.

jlh95811
01-27-2009, 10:28 PM
long but interesting.
tagged for future read.

Dr Rockso
01-27-2009, 10:46 PM
I agree with most of what you wrote, but it's a demonstration of a big reason that the liberty minded third parties (Libertarian and Constitution) have no political clout. Sometimes you just have to get behind something even if it's not perfect.

bulgron
01-28-2009, 12:22 AM
Let's remember that our Sheriffs have to remain within the law, even if they don't agree with the law. This means that in California, a license must be issued to carry a loaded weapon. What Jay LaSuer is doing is promising to make issuance of that license as unrestrictive as the law allows.

Hats off to him. I hope he wins his election.

If we want to eliminate licensing requirements entirely for our 2A rights, then we have to do a combination of the following things:

1. Elect those officials who will pass laws that recognize our right to Keep and Bear Arms without any licensing requirements whatsoever
2. Win court cases that eventually force society to allow us to Keep and Bear Arms without a licensing requirement

It isn't on Jay to fix the problems we have with our system of permits, it's on us.

dreyna14
01-28-2009, 12:36 AM
Let's remember that our Sheriffs have to remain within the law, even if they don't agree with the law. This means that in California, a license must be issued to carry a loaded weapon. What Jay LaSuer is doing is promising to make issuance of that license as unrestrictive as the law allows.

And thumbing your nose at these laws, unjust and unconstitutional as they may be, is a good way to get a good individual forced from office by some wackjob idiotic supervisor or council member. They don't care about rights, or laws, or anything else other than their elitist agenda and no amount of rational reasoning will change them. One step at a time.

It also must be emphasized that law enforcement and those in charge can't be so cynical of the citizenry since crime prevention starts with you and me. Enabling regular people to assist in preventing crime and to enforce the laws themselves is the best way to reduce crime rates.

DDT
01-28-2009, 12:41 PM
And thumbing your nose at these laws, unjust and unconstitutional as they may be, is a good way to get a good individual forced from office by some wackjob idiotic supervisor or council member.

Or worse, thrown in jail by an overzealous DA.

However; on the point of the OP re: rights v. privileges. My read was that he views RKBA as a right and not a privilege and he uses the term right specifically to highlight the conflict with the legislative requirement for a permit. i.e. he fully understands the difference and feels the same affront that you do to the requirement for a permit.

GuyW
01-28-2009, 2:07 PM
Persons not eligible for the license include, but are not limited to the following:

Convicted felons.

Felons having paid their debt to society should not have to continue to pay by being defenseless for the remainder of their lives.


You want a candidate to run for office on a platform of arming convicted felons??

If I ever forget, please remind me to never ask you for political advice...

.

7x57
01-28-2009, 2:24 PM
You want a candidate to run for office on a platform of arming convicted felons??

If I ever forget, please remind me to never ask you for political advice...


I entirely agree with your point: if there was ever a losing platform, that's it.

But at the same time, the OP is right--right in a way that will end anyone's political career, but still right. The idea of banning firearm possession by felons is based on the same error as other gun control legislation: that laws affect those who refuse to obey them. Any felon that wants to commit a crime will get an illegal gun, so the law does nothing to stop recidivism. But ex-cons tend to have a lot of unsavory friends, it's a hazard of the business. So what about the ex-con who wants to go straight? We've decided to make it harder by denying him self-protection. He might well be safer to get an illegal gun than to be unarmed.

If we were rational, we'd do the opposite of what we do now; we'd use gun registration and all the other favorite tools of the gun prohibitionists *for convicted felons*. If a felon wants a gun, we'd permit him to buy one--but the serial number would be registered to him, and we'd keep a couple of fired bullets on file for the rifling marks. Then he can protect himself, probably from the sorts of friends he made as a criminal, but if his gun is ever used in a crime it will be very easy to trace it back to him.

That also shows that the laws the gun banners want do in fact truly treat citizens as criminals, but that's another story.

7x57

Rivers
01-28-2009, 4:30 PM
(LaSeur) None of the criminals would have been eligible to legally carry a concealed firearm – their only purpose was to prey on law abiding citizens who had not been granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.

I agree with much that is written here, however the last line is an epic fail. Inalienable rights are not granted by a document like the Constitution or a license issued by a Sheriff. Such rights exist the moment we are born and cannot be taken from us in the way a license may be revoked. The only thing that may be granted is permission or a privilege – the idea that the state or its officer could grant a right is preposterous. If there is a right to carry a concealed firearm, then there is no need to seek out a license.

That is not an "epic fail." According to the SCOTUS, the RKBA can be regulated. One area of approved regulation concerns concealed firearms. Perhaps Jay should have said "license to carry a concealed firearm" instead of "right to carry a concealed firearm." SCOTUS has made clear that this type of carry, as opposed to open carry, etc. is unique and subject to the regulation of the states.

CitaDeL
01-28-2009, 5:18 PM
It seems I have instigated an argument on a number of fronts.


And thumbing your nose at these laws, unjust and unconstitutional as they may be, is a good way to get a good individual forced from office by some wackjob idiotic supervisor or council member. They don't care about rights, or laws, or anything else other than their elitist agenda and no amount of rational reasoning will change them. One step at a time.

Lets ask some pointed questions through the Constitutional filter.

Article. VI, Clause II
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If judges are not bound to rule with laws that were not made continuing or founded upon the Constitutions framework, why then, would our elected law enforcement officials be bound to enforce them? Police regularly excersize discretion in what they will and will not enforce... In spite of the fact that a seat belt is required, some choose not to cite. And there is the fact that there are so many laws on the books, how can our law enforcement officers possibly enforce them all? Are they not already busy enough with real crime like robbery, rape, assault, and murder? Why add to their duties the enforcement of gun free school zones, loaded weapons bans and concealed weapons prohibitions when the people are endowed with the right to keep (have) and bear (carry) arms?

I believe elected law enforcement officials have the discretion like our judiciary to selectively administrate justice, when a law is contrary to our Constitution. This is what it means when they take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution"... they arent just meaningless words to say- they actually mean something- but they only mean something when you take the initiative to halt a violation of the Constitution.

I think it would be interesting to see a Sheriff adopt a policy of non-enforcement of 12025,12031, 626.9, 171b and dozens of unconstitutional bans on firearms and their possession. I would find such a policy a compelling reason to elect them.


You want a candidate to run for office on a platform of arming convicted felons??

How does it benefit society to prohibit a person who has been convicted of felony speeding, felony check fraud, or felony tax evasion from possessing a firearm? How do you reconcile denying the need for self-preservation/self-defense with the states' inability to protect an individual from harm? Why is it permissable to continue punishing someone who has been convicted of a crime, served their time and paid their debt to society? If these people are so dangerous, why would we let them out again-ever? If you can let them out to contribute to society again, why cant they be permitted to draw the benefit of free men by restoring their rights?

CitaDeL
01-28-2009, 5:25 PM
That is not an "epic fail." According to the SCOTUS, the RKBA can be regulated. One area of approved regulation concerns concealed firearms. Perhaps Jay should have said "license to carry a concealed firearm" instead of "right to carry a concealed firearm." SCOTUS has made clear that this type of carry, as opposed to open carry, etc. is unique and subject to the regulation of the states.

The problem is that both concealed and exposed carry in California are regulated in ways that make neither of them a right. And you touched the theme of my original post- the right v. privilege distinction is poorly articulated here and leads people to believe one is the equivelant of the other.

hoffmang
01-28-2009, 7:13 PM
You are making an assumption that is a platitude and not a supported statement. Many rights are regulated. Speech can have different tax rates via different mediums. You don't have the right to say certain untrue things about others and that is in fact a prior restraint. Copyright is a prior restraint on certain types of speech. Municipalities can require licenses for certain most public assemblies. Sex criminals have their right to not speak routinely waived for life.

It's a thought I have some sympathy for, but the right to keep and bear arms is not going to be the one enumerated right in the Constitution that has some vastly larger lack of rules and regulations. When you actually analyze it, there are very analogous laws in the speech arena or in other enumerated rights which allow government to curtail certain rights when those curtailments can meet heightened scrutiny. Violent felons bars are going to meet heightened scrutiny. Non violent felon bars may not meet that bar over time.

Since you can lose your right to not have government compelled speech by sleeping with a 17 year old, do you think that the freedom of speech is only a privilege?

-Gene

CitaDeL
01-28-2009, 8:51 PM
When you actually analyze it, there are very analogous laws in the speech arena...Since you can lose your right to not have government compelled speech by sleeping with a 17 year old, do you think that the freedom of speech is only a privilege?


Ah Gene, I do like the speech/firearms comparisom, but you are cheating a little by integrating a sex crime into the mix.

Free speech is a right- and as you pointed out, there are some reasonable limitations to that right. There are criminal penalties for making threats, as there are for creating panic in shouting "fire!" in a theater. There are civil penalties for slander as well. Does this eliminate free speech? Not by a long shot.

There are laws prohibiting brandishing. The are laws that prohibit discharge in certain areas. There are laws prohibiting certain kinds of conduct while possessing a firearm.. all of which I find reasonable. However, to flip the comparisom of speech and firearms rights once again, in California, if 'firearms' were 'speech' the only permissible venues to 'speak' would be in the privacy of your home or at licensed gun ranges, inside a locked case, or under a license that is seldom issued and highly controlled.

Getting back to the original topic- to tell people that the only exercise of a right comes through a state issued license is completely faulty and fosters dependency upon a system of control and not the affirmation of liberty.

hoffmang
01-28-2009, 8:55 PM
Ah Gene, I do like the speech/firearms comparisom, but you are cheating a little by integrating a sex crime into the mix.


I'm not cheating on that one. A core part of the first amendment right is the right to not be compelled to speak the government's message. It even tangentially shows up on the right not to incriminate oneself. However, there are certain crimes that allow the government to severely infringe your right to free speech for life - even though your debt to society is supposedly paid. That's just like a convicted violent felon.

I don't like licenses for fundamental rights, but the right to travel paperless is fundamental and I dare you to take a flight without government issued photo ID...

-Gene

7x57
01-28-2009, 9:10 PM
Copyright is a prior restraint on certain types of speech.

Not disagreeing with your point that the RKBA will never be construed more absolutely than other fundamental rights (indeed, we'll be so very lucky if it is simply treated equally), but it seems that copyright is not relevant here because there is a specific grant of power for that case. Congress has an extra grant of power there that I suppose was made explicit because it would not otherwise have had that power without the copyright clause. The closest analog for the 2A would, I suppose, be the militia clauses.

Actually, there is a danger in arguing for a more absolute 2A than the others: you're creating distinctions between rights not distinguished (in terms of how absolute they are) in the text, just like the anti-gunners do. Seems like using the devil's tools to me. Once it is treated equally with the other explicitly protected rights, to make the 2A more absolute it seems that you would have to change how all rights are construed.

7x57

hoffmang
01-28-2009, 9:17 PM
Congress has an extra grant of power there that I suppose was made explicit because it would not otherwise have had that power without the copyright clause. The closest analog for the 2A would, I suppose, be the militia clauses.


And if the state says that a firearms registration is necessary to make sure that the militia is well regulated...

Copyright is a restriction on the freedom of speech that has had to have certain speech exceptions carved out for it (think fair use tests.)

-Gene

7x57
01-28-2009, 9:48 PM
And if the state says that a firearms registration is necessary to make sure that the militia is well regulated...


Before the 14th, I'd have said that's legal if the state constitution permits. After the 14th, I say the state can't do it if the feds can't do it. Can the feds require registration in the name of regulating the militia well?


Copyright is a restriction on the freedom of speech that has had to have certain speech exceptions carved out for it (think fair use tests.)


Understood, and hopefully there are similar carve-outs for the regulation of the militia if the states can use their powers to regulate the militia to, well, regulate it into non-existence or some other gross infringement.

My original argument was that copyright did not belong on your list of speech exceptions if the list was intended to illustrate the sorts of restrictions that could apply to the 2A under any likely construction, because it has a special quality not shared by either the other examples or likely examples of strict-scrutiny 2A exceptions. I noted the militia clauses as the closest analog, but assumed that they were not that similar to the copyright clause, which seems to me to go much closer to the heart of Free Speech than the militia clauses go to the RKBA. I think I have always assumed that the effect of the militia clauses is to specify limits on state control of their militias, not so much individuals.

So are you saying that I am wrong because

(a) the militia clauses are "sufficiently similar" under any reasonable construction and sane originalists should agree that they carry with them restrictions on individuals, or

(b) they may not have ever carried the power to make individual restrictions historically and may not mean that textually, but are never the less likely to be retroactively so interpreted to save gun control laws that judges happen to like (and, perhaps, preserve some of the effect of the collectivist interpretation of the Constitution by applying collectivist restrictions to an individual right).

If your point is (b) I'd like to think that's not likely, but the barking insanity of how the commerce clause is construed could almost convince me that the courts can accept the individual rights interpretation and still nullify it at will. (I'm not personally sure that a written constitution has any meaning at all so long as the commerce clause can be taken to be some sort of wish-granting genie, but maybe that's off-topic.)

7x57

hoffmang
01-28-2009, 9:53 PM
The Militia act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) is clearly constitutional and I think one can drive a registration truck right through it.

-Gene

CitaDeL
01-29-2009, 4:46 AM
And if the state says that a firearms registration is necessary to make sure that the militia is well regulated...

Oops. Looks like we have another one of those pesky distinctions taking us further afield...

Dont you think "well-regulated militia" seems to be contrary to "the right of the people shall not be infringed"? If the right of the people shall not be infringed, what regulation is the first part of the clause refering to? I dont believe it is refering to any limitation- rather, a shift in our perception of what the words mean does.... the meaning of well-regulated to the founders was well-equipped and trained, and reading it with the correct meaning makes much more sence than...

"A militia restricted by laws and statutes as to what arms are permissable, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed."

7x57
01-29-2009, 8:24 AM
The Militia act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) is clearly constitutional and I think one can drive a registration truck right through it.


Interesting. Just scanning the WP article because of rank laziness, it would seem that registration of privately held service arms (M4's!) would make sense, as part of a measure requiring that militia members possess the arms necessary to serve. That would make historical sense as well.

I'm not sure general registration would make any actual sense, but I fear you may be right that the courts would so expand it if they darn well felt like it.

7x57

yellowfin
01-29-2009, 10:30 AM
Copywrite, slander and libel, etc. limitations on speech exist in that doing so explicitly right then and there causes damages to others. There is almost no such example where ownership and possession of firearms (a few other arms such as explosives, perhaps) that causes direct harm to other parties by their mere being.

hoffmang
01-29-2009, 12:17 PM
Dont you think "well-regulated militia" seems to be contrary to "the right of the people shall not be infringed"?

I don't at all. Requirements by Federal, State, and Local Governments that improve the readiness and discipline of the militia are the types of positive (not negative) restrictions on the liberty that were intended by that phrasing.

Having a knowledge of the type, kind, and character of all arms owned by the unorganized militia is exactly the kind of government power envisioned in Article I, Section 8. Requiring basic skills testing is likely exactly within government power to raise the militia.

Banning arms possession or purchase for the militia doesn't lead to an effective defense force...

-Gene

yellowfin
01-29-2009, 12:24 PM
The word "regulated" as intended at the time of the Constitution's writing meant smooth facilitation. Regulation was meant for constructive guidance to have a net increase of output of something, not decrease it by sabotaging it. Regulations in accounting standards, for example aren't limitations meant to curtail the number of accountants, but as guidelines so that the financial statements and bookkeeping they do is sound. There's virtually nothing in firearms regulations that do that.

SwissFluCase
01-29-2009, 12:58 PM
The word "regulated" as intended at the time of the Constitution's writing meant smooth facilitation. Regulation was meant for constructive guidance to have a net increase of output of something, not decrease it by sabotaging it. Regulations in accounting standards, for example aren't limitations meant to curtail the number of accountants, but as guidelines so that the financial statements and bookkeeping they do is sound. There's virtually nothing in firearms regulations that do that.

It seems that the confusion arises over the historic meaning of "regulated" after the pressure regulator was invented? Just a thought...

Gene, you most certainly can fly without a photo ID. If you tell the airline you misplaced your ID and cannot get another in time, they will get you on board no sweat (girlfriend just did this). If you tell the airline you don't need no stinking ID, you will get a very different response. The airlines pushed the FAA for the requirement to cut down on frequent flier mile fraud, not security.

Maybe not the best example...

Copyright is not only to restrict speech, it would protect my right to make a living with my speech. An absence of copyright law could prevent me from being able to write a book or produce a movie. How can I do those two items if I cannot afford to eat? I have the right to be compensated for my work, whether it is ditch digging, or writing software.

I agree that a right should not be licensed, unless you are making money off of it (we have to make sure the rights of the buyers are protected). The problem with the CCW issue, is that we lost these rights incrementally, and that is the only way we are going to get them back. Right now we have to get as many pistols in holsters that we can. This will anchor the 2A in real terms for most people.

Interesting comments about militia regulation. The Swiss in their militia serialize everything, including ammo (until recently). A militia does no good if the equipment is not in good working order, and present! This means inspections must be done to insure readiness. Think of fire extinguishers. All fire extinguishers that are legally required to be present by law are tagged, numbered, and inspected, and may only be used in accordance with the fire code. Violating these requirements is illegal, even if the extinguisher is your property.

The question then goes, why would this allow the registration of non-militia weapons, or the registration of any weapons not in the hands of a militia member (too old, disabled, etc.)? What about weapons held purely for self defense? It would also seem that any registration by the government without actually *regulating a militia*, would be only to infringe the 2A rights, and would not be legal.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

hoffmang
01-29-2009, 3:02 PM
Gene, you most certainly can fly without a photo ID. If you tell the airline you misplaced your ID and cannot get another in time, they will get you on board no sweat (girlfriend just did this). If you tell the airline you don't need no stinking ID, you will get a very different response. The airlines pushed the FAA for the requirement to cut down on frequent flier mile fraud, not security.


And I'm still POed at John Gilmore's attorney for not pointing out the TWA 800/FF program issue... That combined with the fact that requiring ID would have stopped 0 of 19 hijackers....

Back OT - the real meaning of well regulated will certainly support lots of gun control measures. However, in so doing it will also actually help our side make sure that firearms are plentiful and in a wide variety of hands - the true point of the unorganized citizen militia as the security of a free state.

-Gene

7x57
01-29-2009, 3:15 PM
Back OT - the real meaning of well regulated will certainly support lots of gun control measures. However, in so doing it will also actually help our side make sure that firearms are plentiful and in a wide variety of hands - the true point of the unorganized citizen militia as the security of a free state.


Interesting. Care to expand on that?

In any case, the problem I have with general registration is that it seems that part of the purpose is best served if the government does not know where they are. That's different than proving that I have a required duty weapon, which I have no objection to. However, I'm pretty sure the courts will allow it whether it should or not.

7x57

SwissFluCase
01-29-2009, 3:47 PM
Interesting. Care to expand on that?

In any case, the problem I have with general registration is that it seems that part of the purpose is best served if the government does not know where they are. That's different than proving that I have a required duty weapon, which I have no objection to. However, I'm pretty sure the courts will allow it whether it should or not.

7x57

The question in this case is, does registration serve to protect the right, or is it used against this right? A lot would certainly depended on whose rifle it was. A rifle lent to you by Uncle Sam should be registered, it's .gov property. However, would simply requiring guns to be registered, without any other support of a militia be OK? It certainly seems the latter is simply to remove firearms from the citizens, and there is ample historical evidence to support that.

It seems that if one were to buy an AR for militia duty, one would need to say "I own an AR that meets .gov specs for militia duty", this, along with readiness inspections, would serve the government's interest in regulating a militia. Why should .gov care about the fact that you might own a "Hello Kitty" AR in addition to your approved AR? A "Hello Kitty" AR is not a militia weapon in any sense of the word. Registration in this case would only be justified under the pretext of laying the groundwork for confiscation.

With CCW we really are going to take what we can get, and keep pushing from there. Having to get a license is not ideal, but it is a lot better than most of us in this fine state of ours have now. I'd be first in line to apply.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
01-29-2009, 4:13 PM
The question in this case is, does registration serve to protect the right, or is it used against this right?


If it actually worked like that, I wouldn't care about *any* registration. The reason to oppose registration is fear of skulduggery later, as has happened in just about every country that imposed it. The fact that we could elect Obama is enough to ensure that I will never, ever trust my government. Thus, in practice, I oppose it.


A lot would certainly depended on whose rifle it was. A rifle lent to you by Uncle Sam should be registered, it's .gov property.


I don't know that I'd call that registration, but certainly if it's gov. property I don't think I have any rights relative to it (well, maybe "to bear" while in my possession). It isn't a private arm, and so far as I can tell private arms are what the 2A protects.


However, would simply requiring guns to be registered, without any other support of a militia be OK? It certainly seems the latter is simply to remove firearms from the citizens, and there is ample historical evidence to support that.


There's never been any other reason. It certainly doesn't work to reduce crime.


It seems that if one were to buy an AR for militia duty, one would need to say "I own an AR that meets .gov specs for militia duty", this, along with readiness inspections, would serve the government's interest in regulating a militia.


Sure--so far as I can tell, there can be a duty separate from any right. If I have a duty to keep a weapon for militia duty, I'm rather sure the government has the power to require I prove I have it, have kept it in good condition, and so on. They can probably ask for a periodic re-cert. of marksmanship (though what they do with people who are simply incapable of shooting a barn from the inside I don't know). They shouldn't be able to take it, as I bought it, but I imagine they could fine me if I am not fulfilling my obligation.


Why should .gov care about the fact that you might own a "Hello Kitty" AR in addition to your approved AR?


Even under strict scrutiny the government clearly has an overriding interest in tracking the perverts who want such things, for later deportation to Antarctica. :eek:


A "Hello Kitty" AR is not a militia weapon in any sense of the word.


I dunno, San Francisco has a right to have a militia too you know.


Registration in this case would only be justified under the pretext of laying the groundwork for confiscation.


I'm going to have to vote "yes" for confiscating "Hello Kitty" branded arms. :chris:


With CCW we really are going to take what we can get, and keep pushing from there. Having to get a license is not ideal, but it is a lot better than most of us in this fine state of ours have now. I'd be first in line to apply.


In reality, we don't know where we will end up, and given the SCOTUS history in blatantly insane rulings I am not horribly sanguine that the end result will satisfy the founder's intent to enable defense against (1) criminals, (2) government refusal to protect me, *AND* (3) direct government violation of basic human rights.

From what the lawyers say it seems that if there were, say, a registration system for NFA weapons we would do best to work within the law to get as many in civilian hands as possible. That seems to work both the social aspect, to prove that in fact the sky does not fall, and the legal aspect, to prove that we will choose them in large numbers (thus setting up a situation like Heller found with handguns). Same strategy as with all the OLL's in CA.

That's also consistent with my current behavior--I seem to always choose to comply with the CA registration laws (and as far as I'm concerned transaction tracking is registration, let alone the actual one for handguns), while doing my small part to get rid of it. To me, that's the citizen's duty so long as it is possible.

7x57

yellowfin
01-29-2009, 5:34 PM
The one good thing about licenses if shall issue is that they act as a means of voting in support of carry rights. States like Florida, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Virginia have hundreds of thousands or even a million people or more who are verifiable supporters of carry rights: such a number cannot be easily ignored by the politicians there. Unlike projections and polls which only show what voters might think about, carry license numbers show what they actually do.