PDA

View Full Version : If carry is a core 2A right, then are fees for carry licenses unconstitutional?


Crom
01-21-2011, 9:23 AM
We are all waiting for the next 2A case to make it to SCOTUS, and I trust that it will be a right-to-carry case. That said I have a constitutional question.

For the purposes of discussion let's establish the following points:

Heller held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald held that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Some future SCOTUS case upholds a right to carry a loaded weapon in public.
One form of carry must be made available, be it concealed or open, the legislature may not extinguish the right.
The definition of a license is: "formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession."

Now turn your attention to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943

One of the holdings was: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

Also, the Heller court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by _the_majority) hinted that DC's "license requirement for carry in the home" was wrong and they probably would have struck it but no such relief was requested...

So my constitutional question is this: If a legislature such as California has established that the only lawful manner of carry is concealed with a license, then in the future will the fees for such a license become unconstitutional? Is the license itself unconstitutional?

Untamed1972
01-21-2011, 9:28 AM
That's kinda where the whole LOC/CCW debate comes in.

State can regulate one if the other is available unfettered as a constitutional minimum.

But in the case of CA, if CCW is the only legally recognized method of carry then fees and licenses then some into question as the taxing/licensing of a fundamental right.

Vacaville
01-21-2011, 9:42 AM
In my opinion, yes, the fees are unconstitutional. Just like having a poll tax. Shouldn't cost a thing to exercise our fundamental rights.

OleCuss
01-21-2011, 9:44 AM
Eventually, fees will disappear or will be greatly reduced.

Not clear that one will be able to make the fees go away entirely (although that is how I believe it should be), but at worst case the fees will be reduced and there will likely be waivers if someone can demonstrate the inability to pay those fees.

Crom
01-21-2011, 9:54 AM
I now believe that the 2A movement is tracing the path that was first forged by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Only recently I have started to realize how they have helped shape our First Amendment rights through the courts.


In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." -Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesse s_by_country#United_States)

command_liner
01-21-2011, 10:07 AM
Yes.
If you read Gura's work carefully, you find mention of this point.

IrishPirate
01-21-2011, 10:11 AM
yes, and i can't wait until someone challenges the HSC card fees. handguns are specifically protected by SCOTUS rulings so making us pay to take a test to exercise our right to own a handgun?!?!?!?! and making it a recurring test?!?!?!?! I'll gladly be the test case for that one!!!

Mulay El Raisuli
01-21-2011, 10:27 AM
We are all waiting for the next 2A case to make it to SCOTUS, and I trust that it will be a right-to-carry case. That said I have a constitutional question.

For the purposes of discussion let's establish the following points:

Heller held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald held that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Some future SCOTUS case upholds a right to carry a loaded weapon in public.
One form of carry must be made available, be it concealed or open, the legislature may not extinguish the right.
The definition of a license is: "formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession."

Now turn your attention to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943

One of the holdings was: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

Also, the Heller court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by _the_majority) hinted that DC's "license requirement for carry in the home" was wrong and they probably would have struck it but no such relief was requested...

So my constitutional question is this: If a legislature such as California has established that the only lawful manner of carry is concealed with a license, then in the future will the fees for such a license become unconstitutional? Is the license itself unconstitutional?


The problem is that by establishing that there's only one lawful manner to carry, the PRK has already violated the Constitution.


The Raisuli

tabrisnet
01-21-2011, 10:51 AM
I was under the impression that Heller & Nunn suggest that in fact the states are allowed to restrict some methods of carry, but not restrict ALL methods of carry.

That is, that per Heller, a state may outlaw CC, but then must allow OC (presumably LOC), or vice-versa. However, that does not appear to strictly require that they cannot _license_ (on a shall-issue basis) OC or CC.

Crom
01-21-2011, 11:01 AM
yes, and i can't wait until someone challenges the HSC card fees. handguns are specifically protected by SCOTUS rulings so making us pay to take a test to exercise our right to own a handgun?!?!?!?! and making it a recurring test?!?!?!?! I'll gladly be the test case for that one!!!

Excellent point. It would seem that the HSC's days are numbered.

The problem is that by establishing that there's only one lawful manner to carry, the PRK has already violated the Constitution.


The Raisuli

We have only won two Supreme Court cases. There will be many more, but it's gong to take time to fix our state.

Regarding your comment. I don't see it the same way. I think at a minimum there should be at least one manner of carry available, and there should be no fees or costs to exercise it. Anything beyond that is a subject to restrictions of law enacted by the legislature. Let's please not enter into a debate over which manner of carry is preferable. There are other threads for that. Thanks. ;)

I was under the impression that Heller & Nunn suggest that in fact the states are allowed to restrict some methods of carry, but not restrict ALL methods of carry.

That is, that per Heller, a state may outlaw CC, but then must allow OC (presumably LOC), or vice-versa. However, that does not appear to strictly require that they cannot _license_ (on a shall-issue basis) OC or CC.

Right. One form must be made available, and if Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943 holds then the state may not require fees for a license to exercise it--assuming there is only one form available. That is the constitutional question I have.

I am making the argument that perhaps in the future that licenses may not be required.

scarville
01-21-2011, 11:13 AM
Patience, is this case, is probably a good policy. Remember that it took nine years to get from Brown v Board of Education to black students enrolling at the University of Alabama.

That doesn't mean I like it.

stix213
01-21-2011, 11:17 AM
If a right to carry is firmly established, and a "shall issue" licensed ccw is found to fall within that definition, then I believe fees that cover the cost of licensing will be deemed legal. Such as the $60 or so I paid to Oregon for my CCW there.

Excessive fees should be unconstitutional.

I highly doubt that SCOTUS will find that "constitutional carry" is the only legal way. I believe they will see a shall issue licensed CCW as reasonable in the same way organized political protests need a permit in some jurisdictions.

navyinrwanda
01-21-2011, 1:52 PM
Now turn your attention to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943

One of the holdings was: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."


This quote (from Justice William O. Douglas' majority opinion) does not represent current jurisprudence regarding fundamental rights, nor does it properly characterize the holding of Murdock. And Murdock is only one case in a long line of cases regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, all of which contributed to the development of the three-prong test known as strict scrutiny.

And, of course, not all fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. In fact, some are analyzed in completely different manners, such as categorical or historical. And even strict scrutiny is not absolute – certain licenses and fees can (and do) withstand strict scrutiny.

If you really want a better understanding of how various fundamental rights are analyzed, you would be well-served by reading two papers by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler: Fundamentally Wrong About Fundamental Rights (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902673) and Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360).

It is also important to remember the actual text of the Second Amendment: it does not read “the keeping and bearing of arms by the people shall not be infringed;” instead, it prohibits infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And even under an originalist or textualist approach, the right means the right as it was understood and limited at the time of ratification.

No right was considered absolute at the founding, even those which were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And while the history of Supreme Court interpretation has been one of ever-expanding fundamental rights, no right has ever been held to be beyond all limit or exception, and none likely will.

dantodd
01-21-2011, 1:53 PM
Why should you have to pay fee to offset the cost of maintaining the permit system and database? Do you pay a poll tax to offset the cost of countering the voter registry and printing of ballots?

vantec08
01-21-2011, 2:02 PM
Should journalists have to pay a "fee" to post their editorials?

Purple K
01-21-2011, 2:13 PM
I can't remember the case, but I read this quote from it years ago: "Nothing that is a Right may be taxed or charged a fee."

Crom
01-21-2011, 2:34 PM
This quote (from Justice William O. Douglas' majority opinion) does not represent current jurisprudence regarding fundamental rights, nor does it properly characterize the holding of Murdock. And Murdock is only one case in a long line of cases regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, all of which contributed to the development of the three-prong test known as strict scrutiny.

And, of course, not all fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. In fact, some are analyzed in completely different manners, such as categorical or historical. And even strict scrutiny is not absolute – certain licenses and fees can (and do) withstand strict scrutiny.

If you really want a better understanding of how various fundamental rights are analyzed, you would be well-served by reading two papers by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler: Fundamentally Wrong About Fundamental Rights (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902673) and Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360).

It is also important to remember the actual text of the Second Amendment: it does not read “the keeping and bearing of arms by the people shall not be infringed;” instead, it prohibits infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And even under an originalist or textualist approach, the right means the right as it was understood and limited at the time of ratification.

No right was considered absolute at the founding, even those which were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And while the history of Supreme Court interpretation has been one of ever-expanding fundamental rights, no right has ever been held to be beyond all limit or exception, and none likely will.

My mistake about the holding in Murdock.

Regarding scrutiny. It remains to be seen how the 2A scrutiny question will be answered by SCOTUS. We know the rational basis test is out, so it's either intermediate or strict. I bet $1.00 USD it will be strict. I do think too that the further way from the core of the right the scrutiny analysis becomes more relaxed. The right is not absolute. But I do feel that carry in public is protected as part of the core right.

It appears that Adam Winkler's paper on Fundamentally Wrong About Fundamental Rights (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902673) was published in 2006. That was pre-Heller and pre-McDonald. According to what he wrote of the first ten Amendments only two trigger strict scrutiny and only some of the time. The amendments are the First and the Fifth. In a few years he may have to update his Research Paper with an amendment. :D I haven't read the second publication you linked as it's 80 pages but I'll take a look at it.

Thanks for your post.

sjalterego
01-21-2011, 3:53 PM
No, Fees per se will not be ruled unconstitutional although some fees might be.

The First Amendment appears to be the most analogous and various fees have been upheld over challenge.
Governments are allowed to impose some fees for things such as parades which are core first amendment modes of expression (freedom of assembly and association). In some situations, governments are allowed to pass on SOME costs such as normal police protection/traffic regulation costs of conducting a parade. Governments are allowed to charge licensing fees etc. for the "right" to post billboard msgs.

Churches may constitutionally be taxed on "income" although the current tax code generally does not tax them for charitable giving income.

wildhawker
01-21-2011, 3:57 PM
Excellent post, and two highly-recommended publications for anyone following the legal issues and cases. Adam Winkler is a sharp law prof and someone who provides insight into and adds substance to alternative arguments.

This quote (from Justice William O. Douglas' majority opinion) does not represent current jurisprudence regarding fundamental rights, nor does it properly characterize the holding of Murdock. And Murdock is only one case in a long line of cases regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, all of which contributed to the development of the three-prong test known as strict scrutiny.

And, of course, not all fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. In fact, some are analyzed in completely different manners, such as categorical or historical. And even strict scrutiny is not absolute – certain licenses and fees can (and do) withstand strict scrutiny.

If you really want a better understanding of how various fundamental rights are analyzed, you would be well-served by reading two papers by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler: Fundamentally Wrong About Fundamental Rights (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902673) and Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360).

It is also important to remember the actual text of the Second Amendment: it does not read “the keeping and bearing of arms by the people shall not be infringed;” instead, it prohibits infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And even under an originalist or textualist approach, the right means the right as it was understood and limited at the time of ratification.

No right was considered absolute at the founding, even those which were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And while the history of Supreme Court interpretation has been one of ever-expanding fundamental rights, no right has ever been held to be beyond all limit or exception, and none likely will.

N6ATF
01-21-2011, 7:40 PM
So at the time of ratification, the majority were planning to set up a system of "you have no inherent human right to self defense unless you bribe us to change our default position of forcing everyone to be disarmed victims"?

DocSkinner
01-21-2011, 7:43 PM
Then also why do we have to pay fees (DROS) to exercise our right to purchase?

Isn't that a fee to exercise your right if you don't already own a firearm? And if you didn't purchase it way back or inherit it.

jpigeon
01-21-2011, 8:03 PM
YES!!!!

navyinrwanda
01-21-2011, 9:12 PM
Regarding scrutiny. It remains to be seen how the 2A scrutiny question will be answered by SCOTUS. We know the rational basis test is out, so it's either intermediate or strict. I bet $1.00 USD it will be strict.
To the the degree that a means-end standard of review develops, we're all hoping it'll be strict scrutiny.

But the Second is currently analyzed on a categorical/historical basis: if something is within the historical understanding of the right, then it's in a category of “cannot be infringed.” This is why so many of the lower court decisions to date have been able to avoid taking a stand on scrutiny.

Alan Gura'a latest amicus brief (http://www.saf.org/legal.action/nordyke.lawsuit/scrutiny.amicus.pdf) in Nordyke is a great tutorial on how to analyze the Second Amendment.

tuolumnejim
01-21-2011, 9:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned they are, but then again so is ANY fee the State or Feds charge for anything firearm related.

Santa Cruz Armory
01-21-2011, 9:37 PM
TFL

Funtimes
01-21-2011, 9:45 PM
You just gotta find a person who legitly can't pay it. When we get a homeless person who can't arm himself, but owns a firearm. Then maybe that fee will be struck down. Like in Hawaii, I am not sure what would happen if a homeless person were to apply for a firearm, they don't have a "soujourn" or residence. It is not illegal to live on the sidewalks, which they do. I wonder how that would play out.

dantodd
01-21-2011, 9:48 PM
You just gotta find a person who legitly can't pay it. When we get a homeless person who can't arm himself, but owns a firearm. Then maybe that fee will be struck down.

A homeless person who "would but for a lack of money" accept and carry a firearm as a gift from the CalGuns Foundation.

Crom
01-21-2011, 10:12 PM
To the the degree that a means-end standard of review develops, we're all hoping it'll be strict scrutiny.

But the Second is currently analyzed on a categorical/historical basis: if something is within the historical understanding of the right, then it's in a category of “cannot be infringed.” This is why so many of the lower court decisions to date have been able to avoid taking a stand on scrutiny.

Alan Gura'a latest amicus brief (http://www.saf.org/legal.action/nordyke.lawsuit/scrutiny.amicus.pdf) in Nordyke is a great tutorial on how to analyze the Second Amendment.

I have read Alan's brief twice last year but I did not pick up on what you pointed out. I remember Alan stating that the sensitive places doctrine would require exploratory litigation--I was a little worried when at the oral arguments for Nordyke when it seemed to me that the Judicial panel asked a lot of questions about sensitive places.

Yes. That amicus brief is pretty awesome at showing a layperson how a Second Amendment claim is to be resolved. I noticed too that it cited Adam Winkler as an authority for one of his papers that you have previously linked to.


I. THE TEST FOR RESOLVING A SECOND AMENDMENT
CLAIM DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE
DISPUTED PROHIBITION OR REGULATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4A. Resolving Cases by Defining the Right’s Core. . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Arms Prohibitions: The Common-Use Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
C. Carrying Restrictions: Time, Place, and Manner.. . . . . . . . . . .8
D. Level of Scrutiny Review: Construing the Second Amendment. . . .10Given the above quote from Alan's brief and the criteria I posted in the OP, I think that perhaps the fees for a carry license may offend the core right (remember in California the only way to carry a fully functional firearm is loaded and concealed with a license.)

hoffmang
01-21-2011, 10:43 PM
You have a right to petition the government for the redress of grievances but you better be poor to hope to not pay your federal court filing fee.

Many fundamental rights have fees associated with them.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-21-2011, 11:15 PM
You have a right to petition the government for the redress of grievances but you better be poor to hope to not pay your federal court filing fee.

Many fundamental rights have fees associated with them.

-Gene

Fee waiver schedules I've seen pretty much imply you have to be homeless, illiterate, and a quadriplegic with zero living relatives to qualify. Rights into privileges... denied! :hammer:

hoffmang
01-21-2011, 11:32 PM
Fee waiver schedules I've seen pretty much imply you have to be homeless, illiterate, and a quadriplegic with zero living relatives to qualify. Rights into privileges... denied! :hammer:

Thanks for agreeing that your right to petition requires fees and has for a very long time...

-Gene

bigstick61
01-21-2011, 11:52 PM
Personally, I don't see how licensure or permittage is not an infringement under most circumstances, much less the fees and other costs associated with it. They certainly can be used for further infringement and I think there was a recent episode of this in another country.

JDay
01-22-2011, 1:10 AM
Now turn your attention to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943

One of the holdings was: "[I]A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

Interesting, all those permits needed to exercise your right to peaceably assemble in public are illegal then.

JDay
01-22-2011, 1:22 AM
Churches may constitutionally be taxed on "income" although the current tax code generally does not tax them for charitable giving income.

Churches are tax exempt.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/03/25/churches-non-profits-and-politics.htm

badreligion
01-22-2011, 2:19 AM
I think that the courts will find both fees and lisences to be illegal, at some time in the furure.

My reasoning is found in the 1st ammendment. While the gov may require a permit, lisence, fees and taxes to exercise some parts of the 1st ammendment, such as assemble, parades, ect., those events are collective group events, that in some ways relate to commerce or public lands. To my knowledge there is no permit, fee, tax or lisence for an individual to exercise thier right within a broad set of boundries.

So how can they impose those things on something that is equal to the first. Actually in most ways greater in that for most of us it is an individual right only, unless you need some friends to help with a crew served weapon system?!?!?

And if they can does that mean they could also do the same with the other amendments within the BOR?

As the courts and state governments move the 2nd further from the collective right to the individual right as a way of thinking I bet we will see many questions asked that must be addressd by the courts. Thankfully we have many very intellegent groups working on getting those questions asked and answered.

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 8:55 AM
To my knowledge there is no permit, fee, tax or lisence for an individual to exercise thier right within a broad set of boundries.

Door to door soliciting (even when it's prostheltizing) is often fee/permitted and is something one person does.

-Gene

Crom
01-22-2011, 9:31 AM
Interesting, all those permits needed to exercise your right to peaceably assemble in public are illegal then.

That is not the same thing. There are no fees or permits for standing on a street corner and expressing your personal beliefs. There is however a permitting process for large assembly because they impact the community. Again, the further away we get from the individual core right then it would seem that the level of scrutiny drops off.

If there are no fees to stand on a street corner and express my personal beliefs, then do I not have the same right to bear arms in public and be free of the fees and burden to obtain a state mandated permission slip?

Furthermore, how outrageous would it be if California passed legislation requiring a license to own your guns in your own home? I suppose it would be similar to the FOID concept on other states.

This is all hypothetical and I suppose that it will all be fleshed out during the next 10 years of exploratory litigation.

N6ATF
01-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Thanks for agreeing that your right to petition requires fees and has for a very long time...

-Gene

You don't have the right to petition. You have the privilege, and for that privilege, you must either pay the bribe (to change the default position of the government that you should just STFU, bend over and take the tyranny) or live in such abject poverty and piteousness that you can't even make it to the courthouse on your own power, let alone fill out the forms.

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 10:50 AM
You don't have the right to petition. You have the privilege, and for that privilege, you must either pay the bribe (to change the default position of the government that you should just STFU, bend over and take the tyranny) or live in such abject poverty and piteousness that you can't even make it to the courthouse on your own power, let alone fill out the forms.

That's a nice opinion you have there. However it's not the law. The 1A reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

However, court filing fees have been there since before 1789... I suggest you read some history (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8763902/Order-in-the-Courts-A-History-of-the-Federal-Court-Clerks-Office-) so your opinions can become more informed.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-22-2011, 11:44 AM
I reject the government redefining words to make them suit their tyrannical ends, no matter how far back in this country's history they were redefined.

Either the words 'rights' 'infringe' 'abridge' 'shall not' ever meant something, or they didn't. Considering we are talking about inherent human rights that pre-existed all government and began when homo sapiens evolved... it's like saying you only have the right not to be tortured by the government if you bribe the government not to torture you.

fiddletown
01-22-2011, 12:06 PM
I reject the government redefining words to make them suit their tyrannical ends, no matter how far back in this country's history they were redefined....Okay, so what effect does that have on the real world?

N6ATF
01-22-2011, 12:09 PM
Innocent people continue to be victimized because the complicit government denied them their rights.

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 12:44 PM
I reject the government redefining words to make them suit their tyrannical ends, no matter how far back in this country's history they were redefined.

Either the words 'rights' 'infringe' 'abridge' 'shall not' ever meant something, or they didn't. Considering we are talking about inherent human rights that pre-existed all government and began when homo sapiens evolved... it's like saying you only have the right not to be tortured by the government if you bribe the government not to torture you.

You are claiming that you understand the definition of those words better then the guys who wrote both documents and didn't see them in conflict. That's a kind of funny position to defend and maybe it should make you think about your position.

-Gene

fiddletown
01-22-2011, 1:02 PM
Innocent people continue to be victimized because the complicit government denied them their rights.I guess I didn't make my question clear. Let's try again.

You wrote that you reject government redefining words. How does your rejection of what you claim is the government's redefining words affect real life in the real world?

N6ATF
01-22-2011, 2:08 PM
You are claiming that you understand the definition of those words better then the guys who wrote both documents and didn't see them in conflict. That's a kind of funny position to defend and maybe it should make you think about your position.

-Gene

I'm pretty sure "the guys" were not perfect and absolutely benevolent human beings.

I guess I didn't make my question clear. Let's try again.

You wrote that you reject government redefining words. How does your rejection of what you claim is the government's redefining words affect real life in the real world?

You may as well have asked the meaning of life.

The effect is that people read what I write and hopefully I am able to convey to them that the government is not here to help good people.

loose_electron
01-22-2011, 2:30 PM
Choose your battles wisely - Nickle and dime fees for permits and similar are not the major focus needed. Things like the restriction of magazine size, sales of ammo, CCW right to carry and similar are where focus is needed.

fiddletown
01-22-2011, 3:32 PM
...The effect is that people read what I write and hopefully I am able to convey to them that the government is not here to help good people.Whatever.

But the question posed in this thread is whether fees for a concealed weapons license are, or would be, unconstitutional. But even if we all here agree that they are, such fees won't disappear. A proper court needs to decide that they are unconstitutional. So the meaningful question is whether a court should and is likely to do so.

Of course, courts make their decisions based on established legal principles. So the question can be refined further: Under recognized principles of constitutional law, should a court find that fees for a permit required to lawfully carry a weapon are unconstitutional?

We know that it's well established that constitutional protected rights may be subject to limited regulations if certain standars are satisfied. And as Gene and others have pointed out, in some cases fees do apply for the exercise of some constitutionally protected rights.

So the question of fees, just as all the other questions about the permissibility of various limitations on the rights described by the Second Amendment, will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The federal government, or the state or local government, depending on whose regulation we are attacking, will have the opportunity to argue that its particular regulation satisfies the applicable level of scrutiny. And of course, we will have to try to overcome the government's defense.

In the meantime, if there's a fee for some gun related license you want, you will need to pay it to get the license.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-24-2011, 10:04 AM
We have only won two Supreme Court cases. There will be many more, but it's gong to take time to fix our state.

Regarding your comment. I don't see it the same way. I think at a minimum there should be at least one manner of carry available, and there should be no fees or costs to exercise it. Anything beyond that is a subject to restrictions of law enacted by the legislature. Let's please not enter into a debate over which manner of carry is preferable. There are other threads for that. Thanks. ;)




I should have been more clear. I don't see that any state has the power/Right to determine the scope of a Federal Right. Yes, we are only two cases in & so I know I am ahead of the curve here. :)


That is not the same thing. There are no fees or permits for standing on a street corner and expressing your personal beliefs. There is however a permitting process for large assembly because they impact the community. Again, the further away we get from the individual core right then it would seem that the level of scrutiny drops off.

If there are no fees to stand on a street corner and express my personal beliefs, then do I not have the same right to bear arms in public and be free of the fees and burden to obtain a state mandated permission slip?

Furthermore, how outrageous would it be if California passed legislation requiring a license to own your guns in your own home? I suppose it would be similar to the FOID concept on other states.

This is all hypothetical and I suppose that it will all be fleshed out during the next 10 years of exploratory litigation.


Yes, the permit for a parade is NOT for allowing you to express your self. The permit is to allow you to block a city street. As you note, if you can express yourself w/o blocking a city street (such as by standing on a street corner) then the city cannot require a permit. This should be the same standard for exercise of the 2A.

I'm hoping that it won't take ten years to get "and bear" in some form here in the PRK.


The Raisuli

fiddletown
01-24-2011, 10:29 AM
I should have been more clear. I don't see that any state has the power/Right to determine the scope of a Federal Right. ..
It's not really a matter of a State determining the scope of a federal right. The Bill of Rights describes limitations on the power of government in recognition of certain rights. The past and future litigation will be about determining the scope and extent of those limitations on governmental power.

Remember that until 28 June 2010 the Second Amendment, under express Supreme Court precedent, didn't even apply to the States. Also remember that courts have expressly ruled that the federal, state and local governments do in fact have some limited power, subject to certain requirements, to regulate rights described in the Bill of Rights.

Patrick-2
01-24-2011, 11:14 AM
We are all waiting for the next 2A case to make it to SCOTUS, and I trust that it will be a right-to-carry case. That said I have a constitutional question.

For the purposes of discussion let's establish the following points:

Heller held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald held that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Some future SCOTUS case upholds a right to carry a loaded weapon in public.
One form of carry must be made available, be it concealed or open, the legislature may not extinguish the right.
The definition of a license is: "formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession."

Now turn your attention to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053), 319 US 105 - Supreme Court 1943

One of the holdings was: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

Also, the Heller court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by _the_majority) hinted that DC's "license requirement for carry in the home" was wrong and they probably would have struck it but no such relief was requested...

So my constitutional question is this: If a legislature such as California has established that the only lawful manner of carry is concealed with a license, then in the future will the fees for such a license become unconstitutional? Is the license itself unconstitutional?

This is one of the few times in our discussions when scrutiny can be called into question. Just as in the First Amendment, it has a place in non-categorical analysis.

If I can re-frame the question into something the Supreme Court would need to answer, it would be "Are fees for background checks acceptable in light of the fundamental nature of carrying a firearm for self defense?"

This would be subject to strict scrutiny, because it plainly impacts the core of the right to bear arms. Implicit is the entire question of permits at all. So the next questions are,

"Do permits serve a compelling governmental purpose?"

You can argue the case here is already made; and ironically, by our side. The statistics generally demonstrate that those who apply for - and are granted - a CCW permit in the many states are in general much less likely to engage in violent action than the general population. This means the permitting system is working in one respect: it filters "dangerous" elements from the population of those who carry arms in public. So those in favor of permitting have a ready answer: the statistical evidence strongly suggests permits do perform this task and they do not (alone) inhibit the core rights for lawful persons.

BUT...heavy permitting requirements (cost, overt training, etc) could prove an inhibition. Let's keep looking.

"Are permits the most narrowly tailored method to accomplish the above goal of public safety?"

Do they prevent people from exercising their rights?

I think this is where your cost question will be argued. I think the "compelling interest" argument for public carry will pass. But I think this is where the fight will get interesting. If the fee is traditional, nominal (small) and has a hold within history either in 2A or 1A...it will survive. But if the combination of fees, process and delays (evaluation periods) is excessive...it will fail.

"Is this the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal?"

There will be differing opinions on this, but I'll just put my "most likely argument to succeed" hat on and say the courts will probably see the right as uninhibited by a low-cost (or free), expedient permitting system. But if any system stops or slows your rights unnecessarily, it should fail. In those cases the state will need to correct the problems and try again. And we have a ready-made argument here as well: the least restrictive means to accomplishing a permit system is one that costs nothing to the individual. That one could be hard for the state. They will argue fees are required to effectively fund the compelling interest they have, but we don't charge public school students fees for the general education they receive.

At the end of the day, this last argument is the one that might cause the most amount of dancing by the state.


All three of those bold questions above need to be "YES" for a law to pass muster. If you can force failure on one; the whole system crashes. Start thinking. I can see holes in two of them (when it comes to fees, not permits in general). So this suggests fees are suspect, at the least. I could be missing something, but my moderate knowledge of the history of similar cases affecting fees for fundamental rights suggests holes exist in the system.


And let me say it again: Constitutional Carry does not exist. It's right there in Heller and we've covered it many times before. That does not mean it will never exist (even short of a constitutional change), just that it does not exist today as we want it to. It is a nice goal, but it is a political goal. We need to stop thinking it is around the corner, lest we distract ourselves from the most immediate goals. One step at a time and all that.

kcbrown
01-24-2011, 12:02 PM
This is one of the few times in our discussions when scrutiny can be called into question. Just as in the First Amendment, it has a place in non-categorical analysis.

If I can re-frame the question into something the Supreme Court would need to answer, it would be "Are fees for background checks acceptable in light of the fundamental nature of carrying a firearm for self defense?"

This would be subject to strict scrutiny, because it plainly impacts the core of the right to bear arms. Implicit is the entire question of permits at all. So the next questions are,

"Do permits serve a compelling governmental purpose?"

You can argue the case here is already made; and ironically, by our side. The statistics generally demonstrate that those who apply for - and are granted - a CCW permit in the many states are in general much less likely to engage in violent action than the general population. This means the permitting system is working in one respect: it filters "dangerous" elements from the population of those who carry arms in public. So those in favor of permitting have a ready answer: the statistical evidence strongly suggests permits do perform this task and they do not (alone) inhibit the core rights for lawful persons.


This interpretation of the evidence is predicated upon a false assumption: that the population of people who apply for CCWs are as likely to engage in violent actions (in particular, illegal violent actions) as people who do not, and therefore that the "filtering" system inherent in the application process is what makes the population of those who have CCWs less likely to engage in violence.

But the people who are intent on engaging in violent actions (generally, illegal ones) are precisely the people who will carry arms in public illegally and who will also avoid applying for a CCW, since doing so forces them to interact with law enforcement.

Which is to say: the CCW permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed. Remember: that argument is a central argument we pro-gunners make in response to a general restriction on RKBA: that criminals pay no heed to the law, so only the law-abiding will be affected by those restrictions.

And if the permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed in public, then the CCW permitting process does nothing to serve the compelling governmental interest of improving public safety.


And the irony of it all is that it is because the laws in question, including the CCW permitting process itself, do so little to affect public safety that the Supreme Court regards RKBA as being so important! For if the public safety were so high that the need for personal self-defense didn't exist, the Supreme Court's ruling would most certainly have come out differently.

Patrick-2
01-24-2011, 12:11 PM
...

Which is to say: the CCW permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed. Remember: that argument is a central argument we pro-gunners make in response to a general restriction on RKBA: that criminals pay no heed to the law, so only the law-abiding will be affected by those restrictions.

And if the permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed in public, then the CCW permitting process does nothing to serve the compelling governmental interest of improving public safety.

...

Excellent points and well taken. Thank you.

So maybe we can argue 3/3 on failing the test for fees.

BlindRacer
01-24-2011, 12:28 PM
This interpretation of the evidence is predicated upon a false assumption: that the population of people who apply for CCWs are as likely to engage in violent actions (in particular, illegal violent actions) as people who do not, and therefore that the "filtering" system inherent in the application process is what makes the population of those who have CCWs less likely to engage in violence.

But the people who are intent on engaging in violent actions (generally, illegal ones) are precisely the people who will carry arms in public illegally and who will also avoid applying for a CCW, since doing so forces them to interact with law enforcement.

Which is to say: the CCW permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed. Remember: that argument is a central argument we pro-gunners make in response to a general restriction on RKBA: that criminals pay no heed to the law, so only the law-abiding will be affected by those restrictions.

And if the permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed in public, then the CCW permitting process does nothing to serve the compelling governmental interest of improving public safety.


And the irony of it all is that it is because the laws in question, including the CCW permitting process itself, do so little to affect public safety that the Supreme Court regards RKBA as being so important! For if the public safety were so high that the need for personal self-defense didn't exist, the Supreme Court's ruling would most certainly have come out differently.

Thanks KC, I was wanting to post this exact thing when I read that section.

fiddletown
01-24-2011, 12:56 PM
...And if the permitting process does not substantially reduce the chance that a criminal will carry a firearm concealed in public, then the CCW permitting process does nothing to serve the compelling governmental interest of improving public safety....But the fact is that at this point we are only guessing how a State will argue that its permit system serves a compelling governmental interest. When this whole question comes before a court, the State will put forth its case, whatever that may be. We will counter, of course. And then we'll have to see what the court does with it.

I could, for example, foresee a State with a shall issue permit process and training requirement arguing that it has a compelling interest in promoting public safety, and that interest is furthered by assuring the persons lawfully carrying concealed, loaded guns in public have a clean background, have at least some minimum level of proficiency and understanding of how to safely handle a firearm and have at least some basic understanding of the applicable laws of the use of lethal force.

Whether a court will buy that remains to be seen, but I'm not sure that I want to bet against it.

kcbrown
01-24-2011, 1:36 PM
But the fact is that at this point we are only guessing how a State will argue that its permit system serves a compelling governmental interest. When this whole question comes before a court, the State will put forth its case, whatever that may be. We will counter, of course. And then we'll have to see what the court does with it.


Of course. That's how it always is.



I could, for example, foresee a State with a shall issue permit process and training requirement arguing that it has a compelling interest in promoting public safety, and that interest is furthered by assuring the persons lawfully carrying concealed, loaded guns in public have a clean background, have at least some minimum level of proficiency and understanding of how to safely handle a firearm and have at least some basic understanding of the applicable laws of the use of lethal force.
There are really two parts of that:


Proficiency and safety of handling the firearm (i.e., training in operation)
Understanding of the laws.

I'll deal with the second item first.

The state arguing here that a person's knowledge of the laws somehow furthers its interests is an argument that can be made with respect to any fundamental right exercised in any venue whatsoever. Knowledge of the laws generally has an effect on public safety only to the degree that the activity in question is a cooperative venture. Since driving (as an example) as a whole is a relatively highly cooperative venture (the safety of each individual depends greatly upon the degree to which the people around him act in a predictable manner), it is naturally amenable to the assertion that knowledge of the laws, which happen to define a set of predictable actions, furthers public safety. That cannot be said of the act of carrying a firearm concealed, as that is not a cooperative venture by any stretch of the imagination. But it can be said of many acts which do not require a permit to engage in, such as walking in public.

That leaves the argument that knowledge of the law on the part of the citizenry is inherently in the interests of the state. However, that argument can be used to justify a permitting process for anything whatsoever, including RKBA within one's own home, political speech in private, etc. If that argument were sufficiently compelling on its face to cause the courts to acquiesce to the state's demand that it issue permits for any given activity, there would be precious few activities indeed that would not by now require a permit. I expect, rather, that the courts have generally not regarded this argument as sufficient grounds unto itself, particularly with respect to core exercise of a fundamental right.


The proficiency and safe handling training argument is another question altogether, but I will note that public safety is affected by that whether the firearm is handled in public or in private, since bullets have the ability to pass through the very walls and fences that our courts have used to distinguish between a "public place" and a "private place". So if this argument is sufficiently strong to convince a court that a CCW permit system is necessary, it is also sufficiently strong to convince that same court that a permit system is necessary to allow RKBA in the home.



Whether a court will buy that remains to be seen, but I'm not sure that I want to bet against it.Me neither. I believe the courts will rule whatever way they feel like, and they will even make up legal theories from whole cloth to justify their rulings after the fact if necessary.

fiddletown
01-24-2011, 1:47 PM
...I'll deal with the second item first....How you deal with it really doesn't mean anything.

When these issues ultimately come up, each side will come up with its arguments. Those arguments will be supported with citation to past cases and established legal principles.

Your "blue sky" analysis really has no basis in legal reality. Certainly you don't support any of it with citation to applicable authority.

Perhaps it amuses you. But it really has nothing to do with what might possibly happen and is pretty much a waste of time.

kcbrown
01-24-2011, 2:09 PM
Your "blue sky" analysis really has no basis in legal reality. Certainly you don't support any of it with citation to applicable authority.

Perhaps it amuses you. But it really has nothing to do with what might possibly happen and is pretty much a waste of time.

That probably covers the bulk of the discussion on the forum...

As you say, when the issue comes up, each side will make the arguments it'll make and the court will do whatever it pleases with it.

Clearly, discussing it here will have no effect on that whatsoever, and it doesn't matter how well-versed in law the participants are.

So what, exactly, do you hope to gain by stating the above?

Patrick-2
01-24-2011, 2:14 PM
How you deal with it really doesn't mean anything.

When these issues ultimately come up, each side will come up with its arguments. Those arguments will be supported with citation to past cases and established legal principles.

Your "blue sky" analysis really has no basis in legal reality. Certainly you don't support any of it with citation to applicable authority.


For the record, I like the thoughtful banter back and forth. And these are not legal briefs; when required people do whip out citations. Feel free rise to that level at any time. People here can keep up.

Perhaps it amuses you. But it really has nothing to do with what might possibly happen and is pretty much a waste of time.

Sorry we are wasting your time. I'm sure you've got better things to do than let us bother you. See ya.

fiddletown
01-24-2011, 2:21 PM
...So what, exactly, do you hope to gain by stating the above?Interject some reality into the discussion.

I think it helps us to understand what needs to be done as the next steps in our efforts on behalf of the RKBA -- to look ahead and identify in broad terms the issues that will need to be dealt with in the courts. But jumping too far ahead really doesn't help.

wash
01-24-2011, 2:34 PM
This is funny.

If the founding fathers had thought that requiring fees to exercise a fundamental right was unconstitutional, they failed to fix that because court fees existed before and after the constitution and bill of rights were ratified.

We won second amendment incorporation through historical analysis of the constitutional text and what right the founders thought that it protected.

If you can go back and say they meant that you can't charge a fee for a fundamental right, but they were charging a fee for a fundamental right, that's pretty much a living document theory and doomed to fail (and worse if it suceeds somehow).

Clearly everyone here believes that fees for exercising our second amendment rights are bad.

I wonder why you think that you have to convince anyone? That won't change the reality of the situation. There will be fees and if we try to sue the government over them, we won't be able to win unless the fees are unreasonable.

The strategy "the right people" are taking is to fight the battles that we can win and after we have secured all that we can, go after everything else.

Fees are not the priority when some people can't carry even if they are willing to pay a fee.

I don't understand why some people get upset when the best legal strategy does not include flailing around like Don Quixote at their favorite gun rights issue when we don't have the legal prescedence required for victory.

Uriah02
01-24-2011, 2:56 PM
In my opinion, yes, the fees are unconstitutional. Just like having a poll tax. Shouldn't cost a thing to exercise our fundamental rights.

+10^100

In light of this, we should take this one step at a time. I for one don't want to go after Utah/Florida/Nevada/(Insert Free State here) for charging us to get a non-resident CCW permit.

kcbrown
01-24-2011, 3:09 PM
I certainly agree that the fee issue is the last thing we should be fighting. But I think the comments here are greatly illustrative of what the overall situation really is.

Which is: the judiciary can do any damned thing they please. Whatever they say goes, period. There is no recourse.

That means you can't even keep them honest. When they say "strict scrutiny", in reality that means whatever they want it to mean. For instance, "least restrictive means" doesn't actually mean "least restrictive", it only means "sufficiently restrictive to satisfy us".

Law is primarily subjective and arbitrary, because everything is ultimately decided by a relatively small number of well-placed people, based on their own beliefs and desires. In the end, law itself is highly (if not entirely) arbitrary, because it's not derived from physical principles or from anything objectively measurable. It is only derived from prior law and rules made out of whole cloth (i.e., the stuff from the legislature), with a smattering of historical circumstance thrown in. Law can be whatever those who participate in its creation and evaluation wish it to be. It hardly gets more arbitrary than that.


We are fortunate that the current Supreme Court consists of at least some people who are at least somewhat concerned about the historical purpose for which the rights in question were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But don't kid yourself: it is luck and luck alone that put us where we are with respect to that.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-25-2011, 4:03 PM
It's not really a matter of a State determining the scope of a federal right. The Bill of Rights describes limitations on the power of government in recognition of certain rights. The past and future litigation will be about determining the scope and extent of those limitations on governmental power.

Remember that until 28 June 2010 the Second Amendment, under express Supreme Court precedent, didn't even apply to the States. Also remember that courts have expressly ruled that the federal, state and local governments do in fact have some limited power, subject to certain requirements, to regulate rights described in the Bill of Rights.


Could you provide some examples?


The Raisuli

wash
01-25-2011, 4:15 PM
the judiciary can do any damned thing they please. Whatever they say goes, period. There is no recourse.
All the more reason to get what we can when we can quietly without pissing off the soccer moms at Starbucks.

If there is no public uproar and headlines, there is no motive for the legislature to infringe our rights.

So we secure what we can. That will make it harder for them to take anything else.

If we make it a public debate or scream for constitutional carry when we could have quietly gotten virtual shall issue CCW with reasonable fees, we get things like AB144.

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 4:28 PM
If there is no public uproar and headlines, there is no motive for the legislature to infringe our rights.

Pardon my French, but that is unmitigated bovine feces.

The mere fact that law-abiding people EXIST outside prison is the traitorous legislature's only motive for infringing upon us. If not, no more motive. That is their endgame. All law-abiding people dead, in prison, or fled from their criminals' utopia into a free state.

You think they'll quit infringing if all 2A activism (or even court action) for that matter stops tomorrow? HELL NO! They'll quit when we are dead. Even after they die, their sizable estates will be used to further criminal safety and victim disarmament.

wash
01-25-2011, 4:40 PM
You just don't get it.

Of course we can't stop the antis cold but we can slow them down.

That's a much better plan than riling them up.

UOC activism is the answer if your question is: How we can encourage more anti gun legislation and lose UOC?

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 4:44 PM
Even if we are to accept your premise, the legislature would simply direct their fellow unconvicted felons from the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament to commit violent crimes after being noticed by press/police for "2A activism". Years of non-violence from any one of us civil gun owners would be spun as 2A activists being crazed killers in waiting, even if we had all stopped bringing our guns outside our homes months before.

fiddletown
01-25-2011, 5:27 PM
...The mere fact that law-abiding people EXIST outside prison is the traitorous legislature's only motive for infringing upon us. If not, no more motive. That is their endgame. All law-abiding people dead, in prison, or fled from their criminals' utopia into a free state....It appears that attempting rational discourse with you would be a waste of time.

But for others who may be reading this thread, I'll note that while it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

...Could you provide some examples?... Laws regulating the time, place and manner of speech or peaceable assembly; Laws requiring prior governmental review and approval of solicitation for certain investment ; Laws requiring prior governmental approval of the labeling of prescription drug; Laws requiring licensing for persons soliciting money for charity.

The foregoing abridge (diminish, reduce in scope) the right of free speech and assembly.

Fjold
01-25-2011, 7:43 PM
It appears that attempting rational discourse with you would be a waste of time.

.

+1

The use of hyperbole, name calling and extreme rhetoric that raises the emotional level of the argument is used to cover for an unintelligent argument and is a typical method used by the antis.

It's typically something that we complain about ourselves and it's pitiful that we have to see it used on our side.

Goldseeker
01-25-2011, 10:00 PM
Eh, I think the ocassional hyperbole here is good to balance the scales, and to remind us (on some level) that politicians and bureaucrats are not friends of freedom.

Maybe its more palatable to some if its offered as quotes from Founding Fathers, though.
.

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 11:47 PM
It appears that attempting rational discourse with you would be a waste of time.

Just now figuring that out? LOL

From my perspective, most politicians want to do harm and make heaping sums of cash doing it. They will lie, cheat, and steal their way into/and to remain in office, while pretending to be ignorant of COTUS, which they swore an oath to protect. They see that they can commit pretty much any crime with impunity. If they couldn't secure lucrative careers in politics and effectively absolute immunity from any prosecution, they'd just be common criminals.

Please add me to your ignore list (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=12364)! :p

Patrick-2
01-26-2011, 6:21 AM
Laws regulating the time, place and manner of speech or peaceable assembly; Laws requiring prior governmental review and approval of solicitation for certain investment ; Laws requiring prior governmental approval of the labeling of prescription drug; Laws requiring licensing for persons soliciting money for charity.

The foregoing abridge (diminish, reduce in scope) the right of free speech and assembly.

I will add:


Laws regulating the content of private contracts;
Laws regulating the administration of private care
Laws regulating the price of commercial items
Laws regulating the rate of return on loans (usury laws)
Laws regarding the cost of housing (rent control)


These all regulate the fundamental right to enter in contract, acorns and all.

nicki
01-26-2011, 11:13 AM
Like it or not the courts will probably use some kind of balance test, I don't see them giving us pure right to carry anyway we want.

I don't see the courts abolishing CCW permit fees, I do see them however cracking down on unreasonable fees. The state will have to justify administrative costs for instance.

The length of time the licenses are valid may come into play. Most other states issue permits for a period of 4 to 5 years on average, ours is 2.

Since most states charge under 100 dollars, that means our permits costs 4X more than everyone elses.

The limitation of how many guns you can have on your permit is bs, in fact, why do we need to even list our guns on our permit if they are already registered with the state when we buy them?

The Handgun Safety Card, the 10 day waiting period are annoying, but it will be hard to argue that they are undue burdens.

I don't see the Federal Courts eliminating the CCW permit systems, what I do see them doing is viewing the permit processes and seeing if they create an undue burden on applicants and modifying them accordingly.

I see no reason for instance why a "Temporary CCW Permit" can't be issued, especially if there is an "urgent need". We are supposed to have a national data base of prohibited persons already, so if the data base is up to speed, we are not going to be issuing to felons.

We have this type of system with driver's licenses for instance.

The courts will probably give us loaded open carry as a right, by doing that they can preserve the state CCW permit systems.

Those CCW permit systems will be subject to equal protection however.

The option of loaded open carry will serve to keep the CCW process from getting burdensome, if fact, it will speed up the adoption.

Nicki

Patrick-2
01-26-2011, 12:53 PM
Like it or not the courts will probably use some kind of balance test, I don't see them giving us pure right to carry anyway we want.

I don't see the courts abolishing CCW permit fees, I do see them however cracking down on unreasonable fees. The state will have to justify administrative costs for instance.

The length of time the licenses are valid may come into play. Most other states issue permits for a period of 4 to 5 years on average, ours is 2.

Since most states charge under 100 dollars, that means our permits costs 4X more than everyone elses.

The limitation of how many guns you can have on your permit is bs, in fact, why do we need to even list our guns on our permit if they are already registered with the state when we buy them?

The Handgun Safety Card, the 10 day waiting period are annoying, but it will be hard to argue that they are undue burdens.

I don't see the Federal Courts eliminating the CCW permit systems, what I do see them doing is viewing the permit processes and seeing if they create an undue burden on applicants and modifying them accordingly.

I see no reason for instance why a "Temporary CCW Permit" can't be issued, especially if there is an "urgent need". We are supposed to have a national data base of prohibited persons already, so if the data base is up to speed, we are not going to be issuing to felons.

We have this type of system with driver's licenses for instance.

The courts will probably give us loaded open carry as a right, by doing that they can preserve the state CCW permit systems.

Those CCW permit systems will be subject to equal protection however.

The option of loaded open carry will serve to keep the CCW process from getting burdensome, if fact, it will speed up the adoption.

Nicki

You had up until that one. No court will give you Open Carry as a right. The best you will get is carry as a right - manner left up to the state.

Heller already ruled on this. The state can decide. An argument against Heller (with this court) would be futile.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-27-2011, 6:18 AM
You had up until that one. No court will give you Open Carry as a right. The best you will get is carry as a right - manner left up to the state.

Heller already ruled on this. The state can decide. An argument against Heller (with this court) would be futile.


Actually, I think Nicki is right on this. Heller didn't say that the state can decide. What Heller quoted was Nunn (which said that LOC is a Right) & also said that restrictions may be imposed on CCW.



Laws regulating the time, place and manner of speech or peaceable assembly; Laws requiring prior governmental review and approval of solicitation for certain investment ; Laws requiring prior governmental approval of the labeling of prescription drug; Laws requiring licensing for persons soliciting money for charity.

The foregoing abridge (diminish, reduce in scope) the right of free speech and assembly.


First, thank you for the list. Having said that, this doesn't quite equal "A state can regulate a Federally enumerated Right." For reasons gone over before. But, I do agree that it doesn't equal "A state cannot regulate a Federally enumerated Right" either. I see that its gonna take a lot of work to keep the dirty little fingers of the PRK off the Right.


I will add:


Laws regulating the content of private contracts;
Laws regulating the administration of private care
Laws regulating the price of commercial items
Laws regulating the rate of return on loans (usury laws)
Laws regarding the cost of housing (rent control)


These all regulate the fundamental right to enter in contract, acorns and all.


My thanks to you also. But "the right to contract" isn't quite as enumerated as the Bill of Rights. Still, this also shows that we have a long road ahead of us to force the PRK to keep their dirty little fingers off the Right.


The Raisuli

fiddletown
01-27-2011, 7:06 AM
Laws regulating the time, place and manner of speech or peaceable assembly;
Laws requiring prior governmental review and approval of solicitation for certain investment ;
Laws requiring prior governmental approval of the labeling of prescription drug;
Laws requiring licensing for persons soliciting money for charity.

The foregoing abridge (diminish, reduce in scope) the right of free speech and assembly.

First, thank you for the list. Having said that, this doesn't quite equal "A state can regulate a Federally enumerated Right." For reasons gone over before. But, I do agree that it doesn't equal "A state cannot regulate a Federally enumerated Right" either. I see that its gonna take a lot of work to keep the dirty little fingers of the PRK off the Right. However, various of those laws have been challenged on constitutional grounds under the First Amendment but have been found by courts to be within the scope of permissible regulation of rights described in the First Amendment. And courts have done so by applying the level of scrutiny found applicable and then finding that the regulation passed that level of scrutiny.

While you attempted in post #48 to explain those sorts of results, courts have not adopted your analysis.


I will add:

Laws regulating the content of private contracts;
Laws regulating the administration of private care
Laws regulating the price of commercial items
Laws regulating the rate of return on loans (usury laws)
Laws regarding the cost of housing (rent control)


These all regulate the fundamental right to enter in contract, acorns and all.

My thanks to you also. But "the right to contract" isn't quite as enumerated as the Bill of Rights. Still, this also shows that we have a long road ahead of us to force the PRK to keep their dirty little fingers off the Right.Actually a right of contract is recognized in several ways in the Constitution:

[1] "No state shall .... pass any ....law impairing the obligation of contracts,..." (Constitution, Article I, Section 10)

[2] "...nor shall any person ... be deprived of ...property, without due process of law;..." (Constitution, Amendment V)

[3] "...nor shall any state deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law; ..." (Constitution, Amendment XIV)

Under Common Law principle, the right of contract involves and reflects property rights. Laws circumscribing or limiting the terms upon which private parties may acquire, dispose of, rent or otherwise use their property, or enter into contracts regarding such matters, involve some deprivation of property.

N6ATF
01-27-2011, 12:26 PM
Noone still has ever been able to show me where it says in the 2A "with reasonable restrictions".

:iamwithstupid:

Patrick-2
01-27-2011, 5:54 PM
Actually, I think Nicki is right on this. Heller didn't say that the state can decide. What Heller quoted was Nunn (which said that LOC is a Right) & also said that restrictions may be imposed on CCW.

...

The Raisuli

No, this is wrong. Nunn expressly discounted this logic. I wrote two large posts previously that covers why. You are mistaking Nunn for Bliss, maybe. Bliss is 'constitutional carry', which Heller expressly avoided in favor of Nunn (which expressly discounted Bliss). Nunn accepted the reasoning of a state that argued the legislature could remove any manner of carry provided they left at least one open for the citizens. It did not matter which...it just could not remove them all. Bliss denied that logic, but Nunn accepted it.

And this is what is being argued today by the SAF and others. It is only historical context by which OC was chosen by the legislatures (not the courts, as you suggest). The cases were not about the manner of carry, but about whether the legislature could make the choice. And the answer was: yes.

So the only thing these cases cited by Heller say is that a legislature can choose a manner of carry if it so wishes. None of those cases rule on whether OC is better than CC. They note that the legislature made a choice, explain why they chose that method, and then go into whether any such choice is even legit.

The state may choose, according to Heller. Not saying I like it, but not liking it won't change what it said.

kcbrown
01-27-2011, 6:25 PM
The state may choose, according to Heller. Not saying I like it, but not liking it won't change what it said.

Then the state will choose the most restrictive means possible, since it can legitimately impose time, place, and manner restrictions.

I expect the state will try to impose all kinds of ridiculous restrictions, such as imposing time restrictions (literally, e.g. you can only carry during daylight hours), manner restrictions (e.g., you may only carry the firearm in such a way as to keep the muzzle pointed up at all times), etc. LEOs will be exempt from all such restrictions, of course, and "important people" will be able to get themselves LEO status in order to avoid all the hassle.

Many such things will be struck by the courts, of course, but I expect the state to attempt it all the same, since it costs legislators nothing to continuously harass law-abiding firearm owners. And some of the ridiculous restrictions will get past the courts, because it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court gets a change of the guard such that the makeup is no longer favorable to 2A rights. At that point, the states will succeed in enacting a bunch of anti-gun legislation because, as is the case for us right now, they will be able to appeal the issue all the way to the (at that point) anti-2A Supreme Court.

Get a bunch of Sotomayors on the Court and you'll see just how fast a Supreme Court can reverse itself.


This "right" of ours probably won't last terribly long... :(

hoffmang
01-27-2011, 8:05 PM
Then the state will choose the most restrictive means possible, since it can legitimately impose time, place, and manner restrictions.Right.
This "right" of ours probably won't last terribly long... :(
Wrong.

Notice that Roe loses 5-4 with this court yet...?

-Gene

kcbrown
01-27-2011, 8:41 PM
Wrong.

Notice that Roe loses 5-4 with this court yet...?


Notice that we don't have a bunch of Sotomayors on the court yet?

I'm not just talking about political leanings, I'm talking about lack of integrity. Or, alternatively, their willingness to do whatever it takes to get what they want.

Roe may lose 5-4 but still remain intact, but how well do you think 2A cases would fare if the Court were 7-2 against, where the 7 in question were like Sotomayor?

N6ATF
01-27-2011, 11:32 PM
Right.

Wrong.

Notice that Roe loses 5-4 with this court yet...?

-Gene

People have been unsuccessfully petitioning for cert with cases that would overturn Roe?

If not, there will be dozens of infringement cases petitioned as the strongholds of victim disarmament throw everything and the kitchen sink at the law-abiding. 2 years to SCOTUS per case means the VDers just have to run their endless clock until they get a favorable makeup, which will then grant and affirm every "reasonable restriction", claiming judicial deference. They won't specifically overturn 2A incorporation, but the effect will be the same. Neutered into oblivion.

hoffmang
01-28-2011, 12:19 AM
People have been unsuccessfully petitioning for cert with cases that would overturn Roe?
Cert has been granted in cases that could overturn Roe and even though there are 5 votes to overturn it, it has become settled law that not even Scalia will vote to overturn.

As usual, history tends to be irrelevant to inform some posters opinions, but those who refuse to learn from history....

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
01-28-2011, 6:43 AM
However, various of those laws have been challenged on constitutional grounds under the First Amendment but have been found by courts to be within the scope of permissible regulation of rights described in the First Amendment. And courts have done so by applying the level of scrutiny found applicable and then finding that the regulation passed that level of scrutiny.

While you attempted in post #48 to explain those sorts of results, courts have not adopted your analysis.

Actually a right of contract is recognized in several ways in the Constitution:

[1] "No state shall .... pass any ....law impairing the obligation of contracts,..." (Constitution, Article I, Section 10)

[2] "...nor shall any person ... be deprived of ...property, without due process of law;..." (Constitution, Amendment V)

[3] "...nor shall any state deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law; ..." (Constitution, Amendment XIV)

Under Common Law principle, the right of contract involves and reflects property rights. Laws circumscribing or limiting the terms upon which private parties may acquire, dispose of, rent or otherwise use their property, or enter into contracts regarding such matters, involve some deprivation of property.


The courts haven't adopted that reasoning yet.

But, that deprivation always came with a reasoning as to why that deprivation was justified. Because it had to be justified. My hope is that, at the very least, this will apply to the 2A. Since real justification doesn't exist (for most of the trash laws that Brady et al favor) I see sanity eventually ruling the day.


No, this is wrong. Nunn expressly discounted this logic. I wrote two large posts previously that covers why. You are mistaking Nunn for Bliss, maybe. Bliss is 'constitutional carry', which Heller expressly avoided in favor of Nunn (which expressly discounted Bliss). Nunn accepted the reasoning of a state that argued the legislature could remove any manner of carry provided they left at least one open for the citizens. It did not matter which...it just could not remove them all. Bliss denied that logic, but Nunn accepted it.

And this is what is being argued today by the SAF and others. It is only historical context by which OC was chosen by the legislatures (not the courts, as you suggest). The cases were not about the manner of carry, but about whether the legislature could make the choice. And the answer was: yes.

So the only thing these cases cited by Heller say is that a legislature can choose a manner of carry if it so wishes. None of those cases rule on whether OC is better than CC. They note that the legislature made a choice, explain why they chose that method, and then go into whether any such choice is even legit.

The state may choose, according to Heller. Not saying I like it, but not liking it won't change what it said.


And why I disagree was also posted following your earlier posts.

Only time will tell which of us is right.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 7:16 AM
Cert has been granted in cases that could overturn Roe and even though there are 5 votes to overturn it, it has become settled law that not even Scalia will vote to overturn.


Isn't Scalia a big fan of stare decisis? If so, why is it any surprise that Scalia would not overturn Roe?



As usual, history tends to be irrelevant to inform some posters opinions, but those who refuse to learn from history....
Indeed. But it appears you're using history as a predictor here and it's not. It's a guide.

Anything that can happen, will happen, given enough time. It is a statistical certainty. In a showdown between the predictions of history and those of natural law, natural law wins every time. It's only a matter of time before we get a bunch of Sotomayors on the court. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when.

The move to more stringent gun control is happening around the globe. The U.S. is the only country that I know of where that trend is being reversed. If you want to ensure that the U.S. remains on its current course then you'd better start thinking of how to isolate the U.S. as a culture from the rest of the world, because if that doesn't happen then it's only a matter of time before the influence of the outside 5 billion people overwhelms the internal fortitude of our measly 300 million. Easy communications as provided through the internet only serves to make such isolation an even harder problem.


History indeed. If it is history you cherish so much for its predictive power, I suggest you examine what's happening in Switzerland right now, and tell me which bit of history predicted that.

Liberty1
01-28-2011, 7:37 AM
A majority of States do not regulate/license/tax Exposed Carry (handgun) 'on foot'.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-29-2011, 5:34 AM
The move to more stringent gun control is happening around the globe. The U.S. is the only country that I know of where that trend is being reversed. If you want to ensure that the U.S. remains on its current course then you'd better start thinking of how to isolate the U.S. as a culture from the rest of the world, because if that doesn't happen then it's only a matter of time before the influence of the outside 5 billion people overwhelms the internal fortitude of our measly 300 million. Easy communications as provided through the internet only serves to make such isolation an even harder problem.


Or, once the 2A is fully restored, we will lead the rest of the world to our POV. Before anyone laughs at this, we lead the world in presenting our way of doing things. No one here wants to dress like (or live like) they do in Beijing. We aren't learning Chinese.

Presenting the idea that the difference between a subject & a citizen is the heat on his hip is just another step.


The Raisuli

Patrick-2
01-29-2011, 5:59 AM
The move to more stringent gun control is happening around the globe. The U.S. is the only country that I know of where that trend is being reversed. If you want to ensure that the U.S. remains on its current course then you'd better start thinking of how to isolate the U.S. as a culture from the rest of the world, because if that doesn't happen then it's only a matter of time before the influence of the outside 5 billion people overwhelms the internal fortitude of our measly 300 million. Easy communications as provided through the internet only serves to make such isolation an even harder problem.

Good point.

But there is one other diamond in the rough out there: India. I don't think they are reversing the trend yet, but they just formed the equivalent of our NRA about two years ago and membership is soaring. Their legislature is now under increasing pressure to undo years of abuse.

I think the Wall Steet Journal had an article some time back on it. They look to the USA and the NRA as a guide.

The intellectual and political leaders of most nations decry us exporting our values. We are a bigger influence than we realize. A lot of Indians have spent time in the US and go home. It is inevitable a happy number of them leave the USA as gun nuts.

Our 'gun culture' is unique to us. And I have no shame in saying it is cultural. I am proud of it. The US has been exporting our culture for years. If Hollywood ever latches on to the second amendment, you can bet the pace of this cultural export will increase.

To the larger point: I am hoping history replays itself here. All of the previous civil rights battles were prefaced by a hostile media. Womans suffrage, desegregation, and others all fought uphil battles. But after recognition the tide changed. Once critical mass was reached, the nation as a whole embraced the change. What we see with gun rights is a similarly hostile media, but less so than suffrage and race relations.

I think if we can get the recognition and hold it a few years (5-10), it will be cemented in our collective consciousness. Or it could be another issue like abortion.

But I doubt it, because we are building the recognition one case at a time. Unlike Roe, we will have lots of credible backup to go with this. This is one of the many reasons I think the Supreme Court has gone to such great lengths in the decisions to explain their reasoning.

Patrick-2
01-29-2011, 6:15 AM
Or, once the 2A is fully restored, we will lead the rest of the world to our POV. Before anyone laughs at this, we lead the world in presenting our way of doing things. No one here wants to dress like (or live like) they do in Beijing. We aren't learning Chinese.

Presenting the idea that the difference between a subject & a citizen is the heat on his hip is just another step.


The Raisuli

You beat me to it. Agree 100%.

We generally do not need to worry about foreign dilution of our values. We import, ingest and integrate foreign cultures - the melting pot analogy. But US values usually supplant the foreign themes. Number one restaurant in all of China: KFC.

Jeans used to be a sign of working class poor in some parts of eastern Europe. Five years after the Iron Curtain fell...they couldn't get enough Levis.

It's not intentional. There is no cabal of US interests trying to modify the world to our way of thinking. It just happens.

Of course, this is probably why the rest of the world wants to see our gun rights knocked back to nothing. This is one cultural value China does not want exported to their people.

hoffmang
01-29-2011, 10:09 AM
Overlay in your mind where the Heller decision and the McDonald decision fit on this poll graph:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2s1apfs.jpg

Continued success in the Supreme Court cements that owning a gun is not some taboo subject.

History is more than a guide as you abstract back. Every major individual civil right has actually expanded since 1789 with only a quibble about the right to contract. To understand what I'm saying though, you have to understand how limited a lot of rights we take for granted in 2010 were in 1789 - especially speech.

The thing that has changed is that I now hear women who didn't have guns before these SCOTUS cases say when asked why they want to get a gun is that "it's my right." That is a huge and important long term change.

-Gene

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 11:28 AM
You beat me to it. Agree 100%.

We generally do not need to worry about foreign dilution of our values. We import, ingest and integrate foreign cultures - the melting pot analogy. But US values usually supplant the foreign themes. Number one restaurant in all of China: KFC.


The U.S. gun culture has existed for far longer than KFC has. And yet, the trend elsewhere in the world is towards greater gun control.

That is prima facie evidence that the U.S. gun culture is not being exported around the globe at any appreciable rate. That can change, of course, but I am not optimistic that it will change significantly in my lifetime.


As to the assertion that we do not need to worry about foreign dilution of our values, I vehemently disagree. And I point to the "culture" of the coasts as evidence.

Haven't you noticed that it is in the areas where the concentration of immigrants is greatest that the gun culture is the weakest? The laws themselves may have had racist roots but the culture is the result of the beliefs of the people within the culture, and on the coasts where the biggest ports are located (California, New York, etc., in particular), those beliefs are anti-gun just as they are in the rest of the world.


No, we need to concern ourselves greatly about foreign dilution of our values. Foreign values are being imported at a greater rate than our values are being exported, and the race towards ever greater gun control in the rest of the world is strong evidence of that.



Of course, this is probably why the rest of the world wants to see our gun rights knocked back to nothing. This is one cultural value China does not want exported to their people.That is a most astute observation, but their native population is so overwhelmingly large that I hardly think that's something they need to worry about. And in any case, obedience and submission have been beaten into the population over there for thousands of years, so the powers-that-be need only issue a bit of propaganda in order to take care of any dissent among the ranks.

Tarn_Helm
01-29-2011, 11:44 AM
Should journalists have to pay a "fee" to post their editorials? [Emphasis added by me.]

Yes, to the question above, but only until The National Firearms Act (["NFA"], 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) is repealed and only after "Constitutional Carry (http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarry.htm)" is recognized nationwide.

:rant:

Gray Peterson
01-29-2011, 2:44 PM
Haven't you noticed that it is in the areas where the concentration of immigrants is greatest that the gun culture is the weakest? The laws themselves may have had racist roots but the culture is the result of the beliefs of the people within the culture, and on the coasts where the biggest ports are located (California, New York, etc., in particular), those beliefs are anti-gun just as they are in the rest of the world.

Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but I have to call you out for your ignorance on the situation and the historical context of what you're talking about.

The culture of being anti-gun didn't come from the immigrant populations. It came from Americans who were AFRAID of immigrant populations, as well as being afraid of african-americans and native americans. Good old fashioned xenophobia and racism has EVERYTHING to do with gun control.

When many of these gun control laws passed, immigrants had NO political power at all. California banned non-citizens from possessing concealable firearms from 1923 to 1972 (struck down by People v. Rappard). Washington State had a restrictive Alien Firearm License law which was struck down by the federal courts and then repealed by the Legislature. Massachusetts still has alienage laws on the books, but the number of states which flat out banned possession of guns by non-citizens was huge.

American anti-gun culture is purely american, not sourced in fabian european socialism and russian/chinese statist authoritarianism.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 3:19 PM
Absolutely not. I'm sorry, but I have to call you out for your ignorance on the situation and the historical context of what you're talking about.

The culture of being anti-gun didn't come from the immigrant populations. It came from Americans who were AFRAID of immigrant populations, as well as being afraid of african-americans and native americans. Good old fashioned xenophobia and racism has EVERYTHING to do with gun control.


I agree that's where a lot of the original laws came from. But as I said, that's different from the anti-gun attitude, which did not originate from the Americans who were afraid of immigrant populations.

You'll note that the laws you speak of do not target the population in general, they explicitly targeted immigrants.



When many of these gun control laws passed, immigrants had NO political power at all. California banned non-citizens from possessing concealable firearms from 1923 to 1972 (struck down by People v. Rappard). Washington State had a restrictive Alien Firearm License law which was struck down by the federal courts and then repealed by the Legislature. Massachusetts still has alienage laws on the books, but the number of states which flat out banned possession of guns by non-citizens was huge.
There is a huge difference between a "rights for me but not for thee" attitude, and a "rights only for agents of the state" attitude. It is the latter that I refer to.

The attitude that immigrants should not have guns is not a general anti-gun attitude, it is an anti-immigrant (or, more precisely, a racist) attitude, and it is very different from the prevalent coastal attitude that nobody (excluding agents of the state, of course) should have guns. Quite clearly, someone with such a racist attitude would not have wanted to disarm himself and put himself on a level playing field with those of the races he wanted disarmed.



American anti-gun culture is purely american, not sourced in fabian european socialism and russian/chinese statist authoritarianism.Nope, I have to disagree with you on this. The anti-immigrant culture is purely American. But what you're suggesting is that Americans were eager to give up their own guns just so immigrants couldn't have them. I'm sorry, but I'm highly skeptical that this is how the American population thought at the time.

More precisely, Americans weren't afraid of guns, they were afraid of immigrants. That's no longer the case. Today, coastal Americans are afraid of guns. That is an anti-gun culture.


In truth, I'm sure that some of the anti-immigrant attitude, and the laws that followed from it, contributed some to the anti-gun attitude along the coasts, but I strongly suspect the majority of the anti-gun attitude comes from outside, not inside.

Gray Peterson
01-29-2011, 3:32 PM
More precisely, Americans weren't afraid of guns, they were afraid of immigrants. That's no longer the case. Today, coastal Americans are afraid of guns. That is an anti-gun culture.



Yes, but it's a leap to say it's because of the immigrant populations. The problem states for gun rights on the coasts are California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York. Connecticut less so, and Mass is really bad.

Why? The first four states have NO RKBA provisions in their state constitution. Massachusetts's RKBA provision was intrepreted out by the SJC to be not an individual right, and Connecticut is a wierd bird in of itself. Has a really weak RKBA because of Benjamin v. Bailey.

The Cities of Portland, Seattle, and Norfolk have very large seaports. The cities themselves and residents of the cities support gun control, but that's just that one city. The city is surrounded by commuter residents who understand that there is an RKBA and do frequently carry. Try telling Washingtonians that they don't support RKBA just because they are a "coastal state". You would be very wrong. I-676 in 1997 was a gun licensing system that lost by a stunning 71 percent of the vote. You can also say the same about Oregon too.

Washington State and Oregon is not anti-gun. Neither is the states of Virginia going down south, New Hampshire and Maine on the coasts.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 3:59 PM
Yes, but it's a leap to say it's because of the immigrant populations. The problem states for gun rights on the coasts are California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York. Connecticut less so, and Mass is really bad.

Why? The first four states have NO RKBA provisions in their state constitution. Massachusetts's RKBA provision was intrepreted out by the SJC to be not an individual right, and Connecticut is a wierd bird in of itself. Has a really weak RKBA because of Benjamin v. Bailey.


Yes, states with weak or nonexistent RKBA provisions in their constitutions are going to be more vulnerable to gun control, of course, and that plays a significant role.



The Cities of Portland, Seattle, and Norfolk have very large seaports. The cities themselves and residents of the cities support gun control, but that's just that one city. The city is surrounded by commuter residents who understand that there is an RKBA and do frequently carry. Try telling Washingtonians that they don't support RKBA just because they are a "coastal state". You would be very wrong. I-676 in 1997 was a gun licensing system that lost by a stunning 71 percent of the vote. You can also say the same about Oregon too.
That's true, but it's also missing the point. Areas that have a large percentage of immigrants, most especially first generation immigrants, seem to have stronger anti-gun sentiments than do areas that don't. Why do you think it's the cities of Portland, Seattle, and Norfolk that have a relatively strong anti-gun bent and not the surrounding commuter areas? It's not population density, else other large, dense cities in the country would be similarly anti-gun. The only answer that seems to fit is that those cities have a larger immigrant population density than the outlying areas and other cities around the country.

And those immigrants vote.


Of course, I'm sure that even that is drastically oversimplifying things...



Washington State and Oregon is not anti-gun. Neither is the states of Virginia going down south, New Hampshire and Maine on the coasts.And how large are their first-generation immigrant populations in comparison with those of strong anti-gun areas?


The problem with your thesis is that you don't specify a mechanism by which the population became anti-gun. That's not something that just happens for no reason. It's an effect, and therefore it has a cause. You've correctly stipulated the attitudes that caused the first racist gun control legislation to come into being but do not state how those attitudes magically transformed into anti-gun attitudes. Your argument is that the anti-gun attitude is mostly home-grown, but for that to be the case there has to be some mechanism to transform the racist attitudes that preceded the first gun control legislation into the anti-gun attitudes seen today, and which somehow manage to bypass the obvious self-interest that those who wanted immigrants disarmed would have in not being disarmed themselves.

I'm sure the full picture is relatively complex, but I believe the influence of the attitudes of immigrants has had a very large role to play in it.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 4:24 PM
Lest one come to believe from the above that I'm a racist, I'm not.

Different cultures harbor different ideas. People who come to the U.S. from other cultures bring the ideas from those cultures with them. Those ideas spread and diffuse into the native culture. You see this phenomenon throughout history.

As the "native population", it's our job to convince those who immigrate here that our cultural ideas have greater merit than theirs. In particular, it's our job to convince them that the way of freedom is superior to the approach their culture takes. In a lot of cases, that probably isn't all that hard in principle, because a substantial number of of them probably came here because they crave freedom. But as relates to guns, we'll have to convince them that the freedom to keep and bear arms is just as superior to the restricted approach of their culture as the way of freedom is to their culture's supposed lack thereof. Of course, the U.S. is no longer the shining beacon of freedom it once was, and that just makes our job that much harder.

My point being that I'm not racist -- I have nothing inherently against people from other cultures. I just naturally believe that the way of freedom is superior. But as with all things, it's important to argue such things on their merits through the venue of rational discourse.


That said, if they (or anyone else) believe that we should be less free, then it's my opinion that a different country would suit them better. It's far better that they move to someplace that matches their sensibilities than to attempt to force their sensibilities onto a country that does not heed their sensibilities, if they're not willing to engage in rational discourse and follow that discourse wherever it may lead.

Gray Peterson
01-29-2011, 4:35 PM
I'm sure the full picture is relatively complex, but I believe the influence of the attitudes of immigrants has had a very large role to play in it.

What is your proof?

The coastal states with anti-gun culture problems have one particular correllation: No RKBA provisions in their state constitution. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California have no RKBA clause in their state constitution. Anti-gun culture would not have florished in the way that it did if they had a moderately strong RKBA provision (Connecticut, despite having a bad ruling with the Bailey case, allow carry with a permit that's pretty much shall-issue).

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 4:41 PM
What is your proof?


No proof. Just a perceived correlation. Even that might not pan out. I could be wrong, naturally. But as I said, it's the only sensible causative link I can find.



The coastal states with anti-gun culture problems have one particular correllation: No RKBA provisions in their state constitution. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California have no RKBA clause in their state constitution. Anti-gun culture would not have florished in the way that it did if they had a moderately strong RKBA provision (Connecticut, despite having a bad ruling with the Bailey case, allow carry with a permit that's pretty much shall-issue).But Illinois stands as a counterexample.

It does have RKBA in its constitution. And yet, it's very much an anti-gun state.

Did something happen with the case law there that essentially neutered it? Does the wording, as with the Idaho constitution, make the stated RKBA worthless (thus leaving it entirely to the sensibilities of the judiciary)?


And in any case, how does that determine how anti-gun the culture is? Are you saying they were anti-gun from the beginning? I would find that quite difficult to believe, particularly in the west, which (American Indians aside) was initially populated by independent-minded frontiersmen who most certainly valued their RKBA.

Gray Peterson
01-29-2011, 4:52 PM
Lest one come to believe from the above that I'm a racist, I'm not.

Different cultures harbor different ideas. People who come to the U.S. from other cultures bring the ideas from those cultures with them. Those ideas spread and diffuse into the native culture. You see this phenomenon throughout history.

As the "native population", it's our job to convince those who immigrate here that our cultural ideas have greater merit than theirs. In particular, it's our job to convince them that the way of freedom is superior to the approach their culture takes. In a lot of cases, that probably isn't all that hard in principle, because a substantial number of of them probably came here because they crave freedom. But as relates to guns, we'll have to convince them that the freedom to keep and bear arms is just as superior to the restricted approach of their culture as the way of freedom is to their culture's supposed lack thereof. Of course, the U.S. is no longer the shining beacon of freedom it once was, and that just makes our job that much harder.

A few things here:

A) Between the 1950's and 2009, the citizenship tests and other study materials for citizenship tests told our first generation immigrants that the 2A was a collective right of a militia, not an individual right. The real fact is that WE as native born Americans were responsible for their learning this, not something from their home country or their home culture.

B) In the four states I named specifically, the fact that it was considered that 2A did not at all apply to the states made the 2A dead letter to any person living in that state. Nearly all interaction between a person in their daily lives is with local and state government, not federal. Many of these people spent their lives believing what the US government told them: that 2A was not an individual right. Some of them did their own research and foudn this not to be the case.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 5:02 PM
A few things here:

A) Between the 1950's and 2009, the citizenship tests and other study materials for citizenship tests told our first generation immigrants that the 2A was a collective right of a militia, not an individual right. The real fact is that WE as native born Americans were responsible for their learning this, not something from their home country or their home culture.


Wow. That is something I did not know, and is a causative link I find compelling. The timing is right, too.

It also suggests a huge ray of hope: Heller and McDonald mean that said materials must be changed to reflect the current jurisprudence. New immigrants will study that material and, hopefully, have their beliefs about guns influenced strongly by it.



B) In the four states I named specifically, the fact that it was considered that 2A did not at all apply to the states made the 2A dead letter to any person living in that state. Nearly all interaction between a person in their daily lives is with local and state government, not federal. Many of these people spent their lives believing what the US government told them: that 2A was not an individual right. Some of them did their own research and foudn this not to be the case.

That makes sense as well, but again, how does one explain states like Illinois that have an enumerated RKBA but which are somehow vehemently anti-gun anyway?

Gray Peterson
01-29-2011, 5:02 PM
No proof. Just a perceived correlation. Even that might not pan out. I could be wrong, naturally. But as I said, it's the only sensible causative link I can find.


But Illinois stands as a counterexample.

It does have RKBA in its constitution. And yet, it's very much an anti-gun state.

Did something happen with the case law there that essentially neutered it? Does the wording, as with the Idaho constitution, make the stated RKBA worthless (thus leaving it entirely to the sensibilities of the judiciary)?


And in any case, how does that determine how anti-gun the culture is? Are you saying they were anti-gun from the beginning? I would find that quite difficult to believe, particularly in the west, which (American Indians aside) was initially populated by independent-minded frontiersmen who most certainly valued their RKBA.

1970 Constitutional Convention. Richard J. Daley was the major power broker in that convention, and he was against the possession of firearm by normal citizens. Here A1 S22:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

You see, the magic words "police power" was used to neuter RKBA in that state. It made all constitutional challenges to gun control fail because the courts used "rational basis" and "police power". District of Columbia kept using "police power" wordings for their arguments to keep the DC handgun ban intact. They lost. Thus led to McDonald.

There may, however, be a significant strengthening in the offing in Illinois. The state courts there, at least some of the appellate courts and the state Supreme Court, seem to be moving towards strengthening A1S22, either reading out or significantly downplaying police power (saying, basically, that police power only applies to detentions of persons, etc).

Patrick-2
01-29-2011, 5:12 PM
We are deep into demographics and sociology, but I think a missed correlation here is that larger urban areas are frequently liberal/progressive hotbeds. How many large cities in America can actually claim to be pro-2A? And not just claim it, but live it.

Anti-gun cities:

Midwest: Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago, St. Louis. Many others.

Northeast: OK...pretty much all of them. :(

South: Atlanta, several cities in Florida (Palm Beach), Virginia Beach, little rock, Memphis, Dallas, Austin, Houston

And these are just off the top of my head.

In many of those cases state preemption is the only thing standing between a citizen and her rights. For those of us stuck in states that laughed off RKBA...we are pretty much toast.

I guess my point is that there must be more at play than immigration because several of these cities did not see an influx until quite recently. Immigrants end up in cities because that is where they can find communities they understand. They are natural magnets. But new immigrants are rarely politically active. It takes a generation or two before they take off. Witness the recent rise of Mexican and Central American political activists...about 20 years after they were granted amnesty. Same happened with the Italian and Irish in my old hoods in New York.

I don't think immigrants are dragging down RKBA...I think it's the progressive statist mindset.

Most immigrants I know (and I know many...I happened to marry one who literally carried her baby sister from an active war zone) are interested in gun rights. Any rights. But there are plenty who get preached to by the progressive set. Not sure they are lost forever, but they might be blind for now.

I am not an expert on any of this. It's all just anecdotal to me and more guesswork than what I would normally post. So just consider this my contribution to the Saturday Night Thread Jack. ;)

Tarn_Helm
01-29-2011, 5:18 PM
I'm pretty sure "the guys" were not perfect and absolutely benevolent human beings. . . .
+1

There are really two issues here that need to be separated: 1) logic and 2) legality.

LOGIC:
Many contradictions were espoused by the imperfect individuals who, despite their imperfection, crafted a pretty wise set of founding documents.

The contradictions between a lot of their rhetoric and a lot of the laws come immediately to mind when one considers, um, say, SLAVERY.

I too respect the founding fathers.

I do not, however, worship them.

With regard to their logic, they were incorrect.

It is logically impossible to denounce tyranny and also impose it (i.e., to enslave people for the sake of creating a source of unpaid labor).

Doing so is called hypocrisy.

LEGALITY:
Simply using the words "legal" or "legally" as modifiers when describing words used, or actions committed, by governments does not make, eo ipso, those words or actions, right.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is right.

Word games conducted within the context of the law are not like word games conducted outside that context.

By law, the word "black" can be defined to refer to what is white and vice versa.

In reality, people who use such tricks to try to win arguments are dealt with harshly.

The difference is that when the government plays such tricks, it has the coercive force of its various enforcement systems to compel you to acquiesce to its inanities, insanities, and insincerities.

And the government also makes you pay the expenses it incurs while oppressing you, which adds no little insult to the injury.

Charging us fees to petition for redress of grievance, unless the fees are purely nominal and minimal (costs of paper, etc.), is something the government does by using the "might makes right" argument: It does it because it can do it--not because it is right.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

People who possess a vested interest in perpetuating the priesthood of perversity which our legal system happens to be cannot ever be expected to publicly admit that any other argument other than a legal argument should be followed.

If they did, people would swiftly recognize lawyers as dispensable when the matter at issue is something which should never be left to the vagaries of a legal system.

Action would simply replace and make superfluous the machinations of the legal system, depending of course on the "right" in question and the exact nature of the circumstances in which it is "illegally" exercised (allegedly).

Would anyone in his right mind allow a lawyer or a judge give him or deny him the right to breath?

No.

Let's bear in mind at all times the words of a legal scholar who dwarfs every lawyer on this site when it comes to this issue, St. George Tucker:

"A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm) . . . ."

Stephen Halbrook (http://stephenhalbrook.com/) has the modesty to bear those words in mind (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso).

hoffmang
01-29-2011, 7:54 PM
kcbrown,

If immigration drove anti-gun culture, please explain Chicago and District of Columbia.

-Gene

fiddletown
01-29-2011, 8:53 PM
....People who possess a vested interest in perpetuating the priesthood of perversity which our legal system happens to be cannot ever be expected to publicly admit that any other argument other than a legal argument should be followed.

If they did, people would swiftly recognize lawyers as dispensable when the matter at issue is something which should never be left to the vagaries of a legal system.

Action would simply replace and make superfluous the machinations of the legal system, depending of course on the "right" in question and the exact nature of the circumstances in which it is "illegally" exercised (allegedly).....I hope you let us all know when you manage to bring about this utopia. In the meantime, we'll just have to muddle through with what we've got.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 10:22 PM
kcbrown,

If immigration drove anti-gun culture, please explain Chicago and District of Columbia.


I would explain Chicago through the influence of organized crime, particularly with respect to the government there.

DC is more difficult. I don't have a ready explanation for it, except perhaps that, as the location where the majority of federal power brokers reside for a significant portion of the year, those in power wanted to place the local population at an arms disadvantage. That was easier to accomplish for them (since there is no state government that needs to be manipulated) and the perceived need more acute to them.

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 10:28 PM
1970 Constitutional Convention. Richard J. Daley was the major power broker in that convention, and he was against the possession of firearm by normal citizens. Here A1 S22:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

You see, the magic words "police power" was used to neuter RKBA in that state.


I figured as much.

My comments with respect to the Idaho constitution are derived from the same kind of exception in the text. For some reason, those comments wasn't taken very seriously despite the fact that the methodology of interpretation was essentially the same.

Illinois and Idaho make for an interesting contrast. In both cases, the constitution contains a clear exception that, if taken, can render the RKBA clause inert. In Idaho, that exception was ignored by the judiciary, and RKBA remains strong as a result. In Illinois, that exception was accepted by the judiciary, and RKBA is therefore nonexistent there.



There may, however, be a significant strengthening in the offing in Illinois. The state courts there, at least some of the appellate courts and the state Supreme Court, seem to be moving towards strengthening A1S22, either reading out or significantly downplaying police power (saying, basically, that police power only applies to detentions of persons, etc).With McDonald in play, what real relevance would that have anymore, save perhaps for speeding the supposedly inevitable?

kcbrown
01-29-2011, 10:32 PM
I don't think immigrants are dragging down RKBA...I think it's the progressive statist mindset.


And where, pray tell, does that mindset come from?

It's certainly not rooted in American tradition, nor does it derive in any way from the frontiersmen that spread throughout the land early on.

So from where does it harken, then?

Tarn_Helm
01-30-2011, 6:12 AM
I hope you let us all know when you manage to bring about this utopia. In the meantime, we'll just have to muddle through with what we've got.

I was alluding to manifestations of anarchy not utopia.

Funny that you should recognize my description of anarchy as utopian!

:D

What I am saying is that when people are pushed to the breaking point by their representatives (leaders, rulers, overlords, etc.), they break.

They simply stop following unjust laws.

Does that undermine the basis of our society?

Yes, but so does a chaotic patchwork bramblebush of biased, arbitrary, unjust laws.

Go figure.

Perhaps we need to make regular, loud, en masse expressions of our disapproval heard.

Some good, old-fashioned, vociferous public protesting might be exactly what we need right now.

Nothing overwhelms politicians like overwhelming numbers of people all moving in the same direction.

They see the masses moving, and then they run out in front of them and pretend to be their "leader," in hopes that they'll get to keep the role.

Some leaders have actually generated followers.

But some followings have actually generated leaders.

The problem with the mindset and perspective of legalism is that it is a doctrine of social change that is too narrow, slow, and shallow.

Legalism, as a doctrine of social change, fails to recognize the potential for deep, wide, swift change that comes out of mass action rather than isolated individuals prancing around courtrooms in suits, pretending to speak a special language the rest of us are too stupid to understand.

(And no, I am not echoing "The One" here with my use of the word "change.")

Legalism is like a false signal that leads the ship of state onto a reef while the captain thinks it's leading him, his crew, and his passengers to safe harbor.

It puts us on a course like the Titanic's.

Remember what Jefferson warned in the Declaration of Independence:

"[A]ll [historical] experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms [of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."

Key clause: "to which they are accustomed."

People wait until it is almost too late to fight back.

Why?

Because they have slowly become accustomed to gradual losses of rights.

That's why Madison said: "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
(speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 6 June 1788) Reference: http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm

And that's why Jefferson also said:
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

With regard to tyranny, it is a good idea to bear in mind the words of a columnist who developed a knack for expressing his thoughts in style similar to both of the above authors:

“Tyranny seldom announces itself. ...In fact, a tyranny may exist without an individual tyrant. A whole government, even a democratically elected one, may be tyrannical.”
~Joseph Sobran (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/joseph+sobran), American newspaper columnist and author
(http://www.amazon.com/Hustler-Clinton-Legacy-Joseph-Sobran/dp/0967884519/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224937978&sr=1-9)
Unfortunately, the final stage of tyranny is anarchy.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-30-2011, 6:34 AM
You beat me to it. Agree 100%.

We generally do not need to worry about foreign dilution of our values. We import, ingest and integrate foreign cultures - the melting pot analogy. But US values usually supplant the foreign themes. Number one restaurant in all of China: KFC.

Jeans used to be a sign of working class poor in some parts of eastern Europe. Five years after the Iron Curtain fell...they couldn't get enough Levis.

It's not intentional. There is no cabal of US interests trying to modify the world to our way of thinking. It just happens.

Of course, this is probably why the rest of the world wants to see our gun rights knocked back to nothing. This is one cultural value China does not want exported to their people.


Thank you! I blush. Yet, modesty compels me to point out that you did a much better job of explaining the concept.


The U.S. gun culture has existed for far longer than KFC has. And yet, the trend elsewhere in the world is towards greater gun control.

That is prima facie evidence that the U.S. gun culture is not being exported around the globe at any appreciable rate. That can change, of course, but I am not optimistic that it will change significantly in my lifetime.



I am. While you are correct that the "gun culture" is older than KFC, the depiction of the 2A as a Right by the media has just started. For the reasons given above in the thread, I think this will change fairly soon.


The Raisuli

fiddletown
01-30-2011, 7:15 AM
I was alluding to manifestations of anarchy not utopia.

Funny that you should recognize my description of anarchy as utopian!....Whatever. It seems to be your idea of a utopia; it's not mine. In any case, it certainly is a waste or time to bother with your opinions. Enjoy your alternate universe.

Tarn_Helm
01-30-2011, 8:26 AM
Whatever. It seems to be your idea of a utopia; it's not mine. In any case, it certainly is a waste or time to bother with your opinions. Enjoy your alternate universe.

I have merely been describing what is--not what ought to be.

Utopias are invariably the creation of lawyers and/or other tyrants who back their dictates with the coercive power of the state.

Since you seem content to worship at their feet, you may perhaps be a utopian without realizing it.

It's the lawyers who live in a world of artificial meanings and usages not us.

But you are welcome to stay there.

Your heated tone and personal insults are rather amusing--I'll take your disapproval as a high compliment.

Have a nice day.

Hunt
01-30-2011, 11:57 AM
haven't read the entire thread but commenting from the title 99% of what is imposed on us is unconstitutional, then one should consider the legitimacy of the constitution itself, since none of us are signatory parties to it, where does one find the language that makes the Constitution enforcable for perpetuity upon people that have not consented to be governed by it? Isn't it a one generation document that suggests the contents may be useful for future generations?

kcbrown
01-30-2011, 11:58 AM
Perhaps we need to make regular, loud, en masse expressions of our disapproval heard.

Some good, old-fashioned, vociferous public protesting might be exactly what we need right now.

Nothing overwhelms politicians like overwhelming numbers of people all moving in the same direction.

They see the masses moving, and then they run out in front of them and pretend to be their "leader," in hopes that they'll get to keep the role.


That is no longer an option. Or, rather, it's no longer an option that works.

Witness the staunch and loud opposition to the war in Iraq, or the same with respect to the bank bailouts.

Loud protest did nothing to stop the politicians in either of those cases.

The politicians no longer heed their constituents except for the trifling things that don't really matter. For the things that really matter, the politicians pay heed to those who made their election possible: those who own the media, those who own the banking system, and others of great wealth and power. For without them, these politicians would not even be known to their constituents. They would be nobodies. And one cannot elect someone that one doesn't even know about.


So feel free to get tens of millions of people to march upon the capitol. It will do you no good at all.

N6ATF
01-30-2011, 12:34 PM
Unless you bring the apparatus to charge them with their treason. Handcuffs, trailer with bathroom, judge, bailiff, court reporter, prosecutor, defense attorney, jury.

Hunt
01-30-2011, 12:41 PM
So feel free to get tens of millions of people to march upon the capitol. It will do you no good at all. yes it's too late for the USA, the TEA Party is the last grasp for freedom here and it has been hijacked by big gov't RINOS. What will work and is indeed happening is to create your own society that refuses to be pat of the current regime. Look into the FreeStateProject.org FreeGrafton and the Shire society. I have heard in some areas of rural NH they are close to decertifying all local gov't, eliminating police, code enforcement etc. organizing the local society around private property rights, private contracts, private security and the shire society declaration. I have been watching the Alaska Independence Party for a while and when they realize the TEA Party is just more RINO, they will fall into a similar situation as those in the FSP rural NH.
We can have our revolution for freedom here, but we must use the Ghandian and MLK principle of non aggression, this is indeed working in NH right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_x-YVviM-o

Tarn_Helm
01-30-2011, 2:49 PM
That is no longer an option. Or, rather, it's no longer an option that works.

Witness the staunch and loud opposition to the war in Iraq, or the same with respect to the bank bailouts.

Loud protest did nothing to stop the politicians in either of those cases.

The politicians no longer heed their constituents except for the trifling things that don't really matter. For the things that really matter, the politicians pay heed to those who made their election possible: those who own the media, those who own the banking system, and others of great wealth and power. For without them, these politicians would not even be known to their constituents. They would be nobodies. And one cannot elect someone that one doesn't even know about.


So feel free to get tens of millions of people to march upon the capitol. It will do you no good at all.

Compare the numbers of the March on Washington DC to see MLK jr. to the little protests you are talking about.

Scale things by comparing total today's U.S. adult population today to that of August 28, 1963.

A large enough mob of angry voters, who then actually voted, would catch the attention of our Politiswines.

Folks elected JFK http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

That seemed to be a mass movement that countered plenty of "establishment" opposition.

kcbrown
01-30-2011, 2:57 PM
Compare the numbers of the March on Washington DC to see MLK jr. to the little protests you are talking about.

Scale things by comparing total today's U.S. adult population today to that of August 28, 1963.

A large enough mob of angry voters, who then actually voted, would catch the attention of our Politiswines.

Folks elected JFK http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

That seemed to be a mass movement that countered plenty of "establishment" opposition.

So what?

It was still a candidate fielded by one of the two major parties that won the election.

Both major parties answer to the same masters on matters of import, and those masters are not the voters. That is what makes the wrath of the voters irrelevant.

This ain't your father's United States anymore...

Hunt
01-30-2011, 3:54 PM
you are nothing more than cannon fodder for the war profiteers and tax livestock for the Banksters the sooner you realize that the sooner you can act to drop the chains of your enslavement.

scarville
01-30-2011, 5:08 PM
yes, and i can't wait until someone challenges the HSC card fees. handguns are specifically protected by SCOTUS rulings so making us pay to take a test to exercise our right to own a handgun?!?!?!?! and making it a recurring test?!?!?!?! I'll gladly be the test case for that one!!!
After reading through this and related threads, I doubt such a case would have much of a chance. The cost of an HSC is much less than a CCW. The DROS is a one time fee (tax) for each gun. If CCW fees are constitutional, I don't see the HSC or DROS going away any time soon.

wash
01-30-2011, 6:29 PM
The united states has been exporting gun culture for a long time. Hollywood movies have a world wide reach.

Look at Hot Fuzz, it's all guns all the time and it's a British movie influenced by Point Break and Bad Boys 2. Also Kick *** is very similar, British film influenced by Batman and Spiderman with lots of guns.

There are some weird foreign movies that have a highly distorted view of the U.S. I remember seeing one where a woman was on death row in Florida because she stole a car or something. I think it was a French movie and obviously when that writer heard that the death penalty existed in the U.S. they assumed that it was terribly common without researching it at all.

Perhaps YouTube is the way that we will export our gun culture. That will get around the problem of being misrepresented by film makers who don't research.

We can show the world that private gun ownership is safe and a whole lot of fun.

kcbrown
01-30-2011, 7:22 PM
The united states has been exporting gun culture for a long time. Hollywood movies have a world wide reach.


Movies that depict police officers and bad guys as having guns while the civilians are unarmed do not count as "exporting gun culture". If anything, they reinforce the notion that the only good guys that should have guns are LEOs.



Perhaps YouTube is the way that we will export our gun culture. That will get around the problem of being misrepresented by film makers who don't research.


That is possible.



We can show the world that private gun ownership is safe and a whole lot of fun.

I fully agree.

Tarn_Helm
01-30-2011, 8:48 PM
you are nothing more than cannon fodder for the war profiteers and tax livestock for the Banksters the sooner you realize that the sooner you can act to drop the chains of your enslavement.

My thoughts exactly!!!

In that case, everyone should join the Taliban!!!

:willy_nilly:

hoffmang
01-30-2011, 11:23 PM
Winners understand how to motivate majorities. Losers focus on conspiracy stories and try to find technical answers to social questions.

We have an overabundance of technical folks. Many of them don't understand social context. That is widely apparent in this thread.

The funniest part is that, even with the doom and gloom by the technocrats in this thread - we're winning.

-Gene

kcbrown
01-31-2011, 9:52 AM
Winners understand how to motivate majorities. Losers focus on conspiracy stories and try to find technical answers to social questions.


And it is for that reason that I am quite thankful that the people spearheading this movement are not people like me.

I couldn't motivate someone if my life depended on it.

I'm used to losing, because that's how life typically is in my experience (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4656804&postcount=191).



The funniest part is that, even with the doom and gloom by the technocrats in this thread - we're winning.
Here's hoping that remains the case, but my skeptical nature forces me to expect that it won't last.

ETA: But I wouldn't do a thing to change the strategy. One does not mess with success, even if one doesn't expect that success to last...

scarville
01-31-2011, 10:51 AM
But I wouldn't do a thing to change the strategy. One does not mess with success, even if one doesn't expect that success to last...
You might want to be prepared for the backlash.

kcbrown
01-31-2011, 11:00 AM
You might want to be prepared for the backlash.

Yes. That would be some of the "offsetting cost" that I referred to in the message that I linked to.