akpoff
Founder's Club Member
imported post
This is probably obvious to most everyone on the forum, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion to make sure we're all on the same sheet of music, especially as the battle for our rights takes off in the states without OC. We want OC decriminalized, not merely legalized.
Legalizing means allowing or creating exceptions for an activity that is prohibited, usually by another law, though it could mean creating an exemption to a natural or common-law right generally held by another. (I think CC laws allowing permit holders to carry on private property without explicit permission would be an example.) It usually includes control and restrictions of the activity.
Here in TX carrying a handgun is explicitly prohibited by law in all cases with a patchwork of exceptions that legalize the activity. In addition to legalizing CC, the law creates a permitting process. It may be a "shall-issue" process but there's still a possibility of being denied. There are also requirements about carrying the permit and very explicit, and onerous penalties for failure to adhere to the law.
(Interestingly, if we look at the Constitution there's very little that could be "legalized" for the people.)
Decriminalizing means removing all legal prohibitions to an activity. Advocates for decriminalizing drug use or prostitution want to remove or severely narrow prohibitions to those activities. In the case of prostitution, advocates accept criminalizing prostitution involving minors. In the case of drugs, some advocates would allow prohibitions against use of some "hard" drugs. Neither group wants an outright ban of the activity with some exceptions.
The problem those of us in Texas and the other 5 states is that our legislatures have criminalized activities necessary to the exercise of our 2a rights (among the many rights they're infringing). We should be very clear that we want our legislatures to repeal all laws that criminalize our 2a rights. We don't want a license. We don't want regulation. We don't want the state to "legalize" OC. We want our rights back! We want them recognized and we want them defended (or at least not infringed).
It might be a good idea to criminalize or restrict some aspects of gun ownership or possession, but those would be laws explicitly dealing with those areas. What we don't want, is for possessing a handgun to be de jure prohibited with an exception for OC.
Where we need to be on our guard is with the gun-control crowd. First, as we all know, they most ardently want citizen ownership completely outlawed. With DC v. Heller it looks like that battle is won (though vigilance is required). Secondly, and more likely, is the gun-control group is going to continue to try and take our 2a rights away by law and then license back to us the smallest subset that will pass SCOTUS review. This is unacceptable.
I suspect that if there's any movement in our respective legislatures to quit violating our rights, the gun-control crowd is going to talk about "legalizing" OC. They're already trying to shift the debate by saying that DC v. Heller "legalized" a citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course they're wrong, but it's a multi-pronged campaign to win in the public square so they can then win in the state house.
They'll want to put in place training requirements, restrictions, waiting periods and any other manner of control they can think of. And some in our ranks will be willing to compromise and accept a licensed privilege, rather than a state-recognized and defended natural right.
I urge all of us to fight first for full decriminalization. IMO only Alaska and Vermont truly respect their citizens rights in this area. Once we've set the terms of the debate -- full decriminalization -- then let's discuss sensible prohibitions. If there are any.
--Aaron
This is probably obvious to most everyone on the forum, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion to make sure we're all on the same sheet of music, especially as the battle for our rights takes off in the states without OC. We want OC decriminalized, not merely legalized.
Legalizing means allowing or creating exceptions for an activity that is prohibited, usually by another law, though it could mean creating an exemption to a natural or common-law right generally held by another. (I think CC laws allowing permit holders to carry on private property without explicit permission would be an example.) It usually includes control and restrictions of the activity.
Here in TX carrying a handgun is explicitly prohibited by law in all cases with a patchwork of exceptions that legalize the activity. In addition to legalizing CC, the law creates a permitting process. It may be a "shall-issue" process but there's still a possibility of being denied. There are also requirements about carrying the permit and very explicit, and onerous penalties for failure to adhere to the law.
(Interestingly, if we look at the Constitution there's very little that could be "legalized" for the people.)
Decriminalizing means removing all legal prohibitions to an activity. Advocates for decriminalizing drug use or prostitution want to remove or severely narrow prohibitions to those activities. In the case of prostitution, advocates accept criminalizing prostitution involving minors. In the case of drugs, some advocates would allow prohibitions against use of some "hard" drugs. Neither group wants an outright ban of the activity with some exceptions.
The problem those of us in Texas and the other 5 states is that our legislatures have criminalized activities necessary to the exercise of our 2a rights (among the many rights they're infringing). We should be very clear that we want our legislatures to repeal all laws that criminalize our 2a rights. We don't want a license. We don't want regulation. We don't want the state to "legalize" OC. We want our rights back! We want them recognized and we want them defended (or at least not infringed).
It might be a good idea to criminalize or restrict some aspects of gun ownership or possession, but those would be laws explicitly dealing with those areas. What we don't want, is for possessing a handgun to be de jure prohibited with an exception for OC.
Where we need to be on our guard is with the gun-control crowd. First, as we all know, they most ardently want citizen ownership completely outlawed. With DC v. Heller it looks like that battle is won (though vigilance is required). Secondly, and more likely, is the gun-control group is going to continue to try and take our 2a rights away by law and then license back to us the smallest subset that will pass SCOTUS review. This is unacceptable.
I suspect that if there's any movement in our respective legislatures to quit violating our rights, the gun-control crowd is going to talk about "legalizing" OC. They're already trying to shift the debate by saying that DC v. Heller "legalized" a citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course they're wrong, but it's a multi-pronged campaign to win in the public square so they can then win in the state house.
They'll want to put in place training requirements, restrictions, waiting periods and any other manner of control they can think of. And some in our ranks will be willing to compromise and accept a licensed privilege, rather than a state-recognized and defended natural right.
I urge all of us to fight first for full decriminalization. IMO only Alaska and Vermont truly respect their citizens rights in this area. Once we've set the terms of the debate -- full decriminalization -- then let's discuss sensible prohibitions. If there are any.
--Aaron