This will be most interesting. I found this in the comment section of a blog this morning:
"The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Posted by: Neil Evangelista at July 1, 2008 6:05 AM"
Edit: Corrected formatting