• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

THE LOST NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
imported post

G'day OCDO members and FREEDOM fighters.

I'd like to post this article by Alan Korwin becauseI think this would be the most effective way to restore our RIGHT to carry in all 50 states! No permits required to carry openly and concealed. This may be the bandwagon to get on and focus all our energy on. PLEASE share your opinions if you think this is good or is there anything better for a solution than this one? If this idea is the most practical and effective, perhaps the Moderators can make this "sticky" and we go big time out of promoting and publicising this!






[size=+3]THE LOST NATIONAL [/size][size=+3]RIGHT TO CARRY: [/size][size=+3][/size]
[size=+2]Support grows for the American [/size]
[size=+2]Historical Rights Protection Act [/size]

"Possession of a firearm, absent wrongdoing, should never be a crime."
[size=+1]
[/size]

[size=+1]by Alan Korwin [/size]

Until very recently, carrying a personal safety firearm was not a crime. Various government officials have been making it a crime, in the name of stopping crime.
If a person has a gun,
And the person isn't a criminal,
And the gun isn't illegal,
[align=left]And the place is one where guns aren't forbidden,[/align]
[align=left]And the person doesn't change the normal operation of the place,[/align]
[align=left]Then that is not a crime [/align]
[align=left]At least, that's the way it used to be in America. Many Americans firmly believe there s nothing wrong with that, and it s being proposed as a law.[/align]
[align=left]A woman should be able to put a handgun in her handbag and go about her daily business, and come home, without being subject to arrest. The same goes for a man. That's the way the founding fathers pictured it. [/align]
[align=left]No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson [/align]
[align=left]The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams [/align]
[align=left]Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed. -Alexander Hamilton [/align]
[align=left]Americans have the right and advantage of being armed. -James Madison [/align]
[align=left]The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able
may have a gun. -Patrick Henry [/align]
[align=left]Now, if you believe that everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, then this might not be such a good idea. But then of course, when one of those time bombs does go off, what do all the other people standing around do for themselves? And woe is us if that notion is true everyone around you is about to become an ax murderer. [/align]
[align=left]It seems as if everyone who is not mortified of guns has been clamoring for a fix to the situation. Good, decent individuals and families want to travel around this great country and not be at the mercy of every highway hoodlum out there. It's not a states rights issue, it's a matter of civil rights being denied by the states. For today, to travel with a loaded and accessible personal-safety firearm is to break the law of state after state, for the simple act of driving through. This is wrong. [/align]
[align=left]For one thing, the Constitution does not allow states to abrogate your rights as an American citizen, but somehow that has not stopped the states. Legal or not, states (and even towns) have made you subject to arrest for merely bringing a firearm along.[/align]
[align=left]Plenty of people have been arrested and brought near ruin, by a government that isn't following its own rules. Criminals should fear the police, not law-abiding citizens. This needs fixing. [/align]
[align=left]Some people have called for a book that would at least describe the wild array of federal, state and local laws that restrict your right to arm yourself against crime and attack. Books are good. But what would you do when the book says you can't legally drive into this state or that?[/align]
[align=left]A well-intentioned but dangerously misguided movement has gained momentum to establish so called "reciprocity" in the 31 states that have concealed-carry laws in place. The idea is to allow a person with a government issued carry permit from their home state to carry in other states that have a reciprocal carry law. About 1% of the public has been willing to apply for such permits. [/align]
[align=left]The concept is based on the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (Art. 4, Sec. 1), that requires the states to recognize the legal acts of each other. This is what makes drivers licenses and marriage licenses work. At first blush this appears to be a good idea. [/align]
[align=left]This is an extremely bad idea, however, because it tends to legitimize the notion that the government can grant you the right to carry a firearm or not. It places a recurring tax called a fee on that right, and makes exercise of the right subject to permits, licenses, testing, investigations, and all too often, a bureaucratic or discretionary determination on the part of a government worker. [/align]
[align=left]The government has not been delegated such authority by the people. Government activities in this regard are not based on the rule of law. Tolerating the government's further incursion in this protected area should be avoided. There are too many illegal laws on the books now. [/align]
[align=left]It's true that government granted carry permits have helped educate many Americans in firearms safety and the safe use of firearms, since the permits frequently require some degree of training. This is good. The school system has a disgraceful record in this area, leaving children and adults alike in abject darkness when it comes to gun safety. This could also be accomplished in other ways. The turnout for safety training would be overwhelming if you got, say, a ten percent break on your income tax for taking a firearms safety class or two. [/align]
[align=left]The partial relief that concealed carry laws have provided for some, from oppressive and unrelenting laws prohibiting the honest bearing of arms, has confused and misled many otherwise good citizens into support ing such laws. They have been subjugated for so long, that the slightest breath of fresh air smells like unbridled freedom. [/align]
[align=left]The fact of the matter is that the mere possession of a firearm, absent any directly criminal activity, is not, in and of itself, harmful or criminal, save for illegal laws criminalizing possession. There are no victims. No one is harmed. It is time to roll back the onerous restraints and not make criminals of people who harm no one, going about their business personally armed for their own protection. [/align]
[align=left]With this goal in mind, the American Historical Rights Protection Act has been proposed. [/align]
[align=left][size=+2]The American Historical Rights Protection Act
[/align]
[align=left]Section 922 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding the following new subsection (y):[/align]

[align=left](1) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, including, but not limited to, the right of any person to possess a firearm, whether the firearm is loaded or not loaded, and whether the firearm is wholly or partially visible or concealed from plain sight, provided, [/align]
[align=left](A) the person is not a prohibited possessor under federal law, [/align]
[align=left](B) the firearm is not a prohibited weapon under federal law,
[/align]
[align=left](C) the firearm is possessed in a place not prohibited by federal law,[/align]
[align=left](D) the firearm is not possessed during or used in any act defined as a felony or misdemeanor under state or federal law, and [/align]
[align=left](E) the possession does not interfere with the normal operation of the place in which the firearm is possessed.[/align]
[align=left](2) For the purpose of subparagraph (D), a crime does not include any violation based upon the ownership or possession of the firearm itself.[/align]
[align=left](3) For the purpose of subparagraph (E), the possession or use of a firearm in lawful self defense or for any other lawful purpose shall not constitute interference with the normal operation of the place in which the firearm is possessed. [opening clause restates 14th Amendment] [/align]

[align=left]For more information and status reports contact Bloomfield Press. [/align]Alan Korwin is a full-time free-lance writer and author of seven books on gun law, including Gun Laws of America Every Federal Gun Law on the Books with Plain English Summaries. Permission to reprint this article is granted to non-profit organizations, provided credit is given to Alan Korwin, Bloomfield Press, Phoenix, AZ. All others, just call us.

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
We publish the gun laws.
Buy a book help us continue our work.
Detailed list is free on request!
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 -- Scottsdale, AZ 85254
(602) 996-4020 Phone
(602) 494-0679 Fax
(800) 707-4020 Sales
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com
[/size]
 

TiP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
imported post

Sounds good so far, exvept that paragraph 1 should begin with "No State, city, town, County, district, municipal corporation,or buisness that is open to the public,".

You know those dirty birds will fall back on city codes and ordinances if they're forced to -- we have to close that avenue off to them right at the get-go.

Otherwise excellent though.
 

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
imported post

TiP wrote:
Sounds good so far, exvept that paragraph 1 should begin with "No State, city, town, County, district, municipal corporation,or buisness that is open to the public,".

You know those dirty birds will fall back on city codes and ordinances if they're forced to -- we have to close that avenue off to them right at the get-go.

Otherwise excellent though.

Amen to that! I think I will somewhat rewrite this article including adding your modification to Paragraph 1 then make the article my own and repost it here shortly.

Thankyou
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

TiP wrote:
Sounds good so far, exvept that paragraph 1 should begin with "No State, city, town, County, district, municipal corporation,or buisness that is open to the public,".

You know those dirty birds will fall back on city codes and ordinances if they're forced to -- we have to close that avenue off to them right at the get-go.

Otherwise excellent though.

This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

When I see a posted sign of this order, I simply do not patronize that establishment.You won't hear mebitch and complain about it.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

I would change (1)(C) as well to prohibited by clear articulable and compelling
reason by federal law.
Make them meet the higher standard to even attempt to ban on federal level,
or like the local sheep the federal ones will ban everywhere.

White house ground level, OPEN to CARRY. Upstairs private residence as
determined by persons cowering there.
Court rooms yes, unless you are a prohibited person already. If you loose a
case that makes you prohibited, at that time they can remove the weapon.
Airplanes, only those fragment bullets allowed that don't penetrate the body.
You can then decide to purchase the bullets, or go unarmed, but the choice
is the passengers not the gov.


I would like to see government has no immunity if they take away someones
weapon and that person is injured by that action. If they arrest you and remove
your weapon and you are attacked while locked up, the jailer is responsible and
has no immunity.



If government fears the people so much, then they should quit and join the
masses scarring the ones in charge.:celebrate A government honoring the constitution
has no reason to fear the populace.
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
TiP wrote:
Sounds good so far, exvept that paragraph 1 should begin with "No State, city, town, County, district, municipal corporation,or buisness that is open to the public,".

You know those dirty birds will fall back on city codes and ordinances if they're forced to -- we have to close that avenue off to them right at the get-go.

Otherwise excellent though.

This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

When I see a posted sign of this order, I simply do not patronize that establishment.You won't hear mebitch and complain about it.
There should be no laws in regards to "no firearms" signs and such signs should hold no legal weight. If a person is carrying, even lawfully, the business owner or a person representing a business should ask the person to leave. To have a sign up which holds legal weight, just shows how much of an ass a person/business is to the community.
 

Swampbeast

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
81
Location
Boone, NC, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

Can you please tell me where in the Constitution does it protect your right to property? I have not come accross that section.

However, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution and granted by God. Private homes are one thing, but businesses open to the public should not be allowed to bar gun carriers from them becaasue that is discrimination.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
imported post

(D) the firearm is not possessed during or used in any act defined as a felony or misdemeanor under state or federal law, and


i would ditch the misdemeanor part of this. jay walking is a misdemeanor in some parts, as are a bunch of other ridiculous things that a grumpy cop might write you up for, then you have violated this federal law. leave it at felony.

Bobby
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

rodbender wrote:
TiP wrote:
Sounds good so far, exvept that paragraph 1 should begin with "No State, city, town, County, district, municipal corporation,or buisness that is open to the public,".

You know those dirty birds will fall back on city codes and ordinances if they're forced to -- we have to close that avenue off to them right at the get-go.

Otherwise excellent though.

This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

When I see a posted sign of this order, I simply do not patronize that establishment.You won't hear mebitch and complain about it.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head... everyone feel free to agree... disagree... or just plain chew me out.

Odd thing about property rights... I could be considered negligent if I were to leave a 30 foot deep hole in my backyard with no fencing around it.. and someone taking a shortcut home fell in. And I could be sued for damages that person suffered in the fall... and my property is NOT open to the public... BUT

If a business that is open to the public requires me to leave my gun outside and I am shot by a bad guy (to my mind that requirement has the same danger potential as the 30 foot hole I dug in my backyard... a hurt just waiting to happen) ... yet the business owner isn't liable for the damages I suffered due to a lack of ability to defend myself.

Most business owners who ban guns are willing to put up with the loss of profit from the few gun owners/carriers who will refuse to do business there BUT I wonder how many business owners would be willing to accept the economic loss of a few lawsuits for hospital bills and pain and suffering due to requiring folks to be defenseless while in the business?

How many business owners who ban guns would be willing to accept the economic loss of providing armed security for their patrons?

You see.. in my opinion.. the stance that the business is not responsible for the bad guy shooting up the place is correct yet the business still shares some responsibility for the injuries suffered to innocents due to the business restricting the innocent's ability to defend themselves.

If I'm wrong on this, any part of this, I'd really like to know.....
 

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
imported post

I really believe in the power of the business owner to decide.
I don't think the analogy of a hand of cards, where one hand beats another is suitable for the comparison of rights and precedent.

Right now the whole smoking in public places came along and trounced on property rights, I don't believe we should be able to smoke any damn where we please because its our right and to hell with you if you disagree with me. I think it should be up to the proprietor to determine what should and should not be allowed to take place in his establishment.
Gambling? Decide.
Drinking? Decide.
Smoking? Decide.
Firearms? Decide.

I think the 30 foot hole in property is madness, has that really happened? God help us if it has.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
imported post

You see.. in my opinion.. the stance that the business is not responsible for the bad guy shooting up the place is correct yet the business still shares some responsibility for the injuries suffered to innocents due to the business restricting the innocent's ability to defend themselves.

In my opinion, when a business dos'nt allow people to carry the means to protect themselves on said business's premises the business owner who made that decision is assuming responsibilty for the safety of his patrons. Therefore, IMHO, if some of his customers get injured or killed while unable to defend themselves due to his decision then he should be criminally and civilly libel for denying his customers the means to protect themselves andfailing toensure their safety.

I feel the same should apply to elected officials who pass laws that deny people their right to defend themselves, those officials should be considered accomplises to the crime(s).
 

TiP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
imported post

Wow... sorry for stirring up the s***storm there, friends.

But I felt that something had to be said; since there is no "shall not be infringed" clause attached to the Constitutional language regarding property, and since disarming before entering a buisness would be de-facto infringement (albeit by another citizen, not the government -- but the infringement clause makes no discernment between the two), IMO, the RKBA DOES in fact trump private property rights, INSOFAR AS buisnesses 'open to the public' are concerned. The idea that a private buisness owner doesn't give up some of their rights when they open a buisness is clearly not supported (health codes must be adhered to, prices can't be set artificially high, sales can't be denied to customers based on their race, etc. etc.), so it makes sense to me that, in light of what I've just laid out, the 2A does, in fact, take precedence over buisness owners' rights in that regard.

Also, I agree with Bobarino as to the removal of misdeameanors from paragraph D; there are a slough of victimless crimes currently defined as misdemeanors, and to have someone's 2A rights denied based on victimizing... noone, would be a grave travesty.

More thoughts to come later this evening...
 

TiP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
imported post

Okay, had to run a quick errand... Now then.

I agree with SlackwareRobert that the government should be vulnerable to lawsuits regarding injury to disarmed people; they can't simply remove someone's weapon and absolve themselves of all responsibility when harm comes to that person -- they should be FORCED to deal with the consequences of their legal disarmament strategies (by lawsuits, and by new legislation if necessary, in addition to the legislation being proposed in this thread).

I also agree with Bikenut that buisness owners who absolutely insist on disarming their [otherwise law-abiding] customers should be completely liable for any injury or tragedy that occurs within their establishments as a result of their weapon policies. Barring a change in those policies, I think that buisness owners SHOULD be legally obligated to provide armed security for their customers while in their buisness or on their property (note that this would extend to the parking lot, if present) if they refuse to allow their patrons to carry weapons to defend themselves.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:
<SNIP>
I think the 30 foot hole in property is madness, has that really happened? God help us if it has.
Yes, things like this have in fact happened! (and there are good reasons for having a 30ft hole, I believe, however, that that was mainly for analogy purposes, so please don't try to pick apart the argument based on that!)

I am of the opinion that once you 'open to the public' that your property becomes 'de-facto' 'public space'! You have the right to 'refuse service' and/or to ask anyone to leave the premises, however blanket disarmament should not be allowed UNLESS, you are going to provide armed security/full protection to your patrons from the time they have to leave their weapon until they can return to it (as well as security against theft of said weapon...)
I am all for property rights, and where the public is generally not allowed (ie: your personal residence) ban whatever you want! In 'public', the 'law of the land' should apply, and in this case, the RKBA is the 'law'...
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Swampbeast wrote:
rodbender wrote:
This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

Can you please tell me where in the Constitution does it protect your right to property? I have not come accross that section.

Go brush up on the 5th Amendment.

The government can't deprive you of your property (including your free enjoyment of using it in the way you wish) without due process and just compensation.
 

TiP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Go brush up on the 5th Amendment.

The government can't deprive you of your property (including your free enjoyment of using it in the way you wish) without due process and just compensation.

Right, but there's no "shall not be infringed" clause. In fact, there's a specific exception mentioned -- due process and just compensation -- where there are NO exceptions allowed for in the Second Amendment.

Which tends to beg the question as to which right trumps which, but I digress...
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

I have seen the suggestion on a different forum as follows:



Business open to the public (Stores, Hospital, ect) be given the option of Blocking me from carrying a weapon on their premesis BUT by so doing they assume the FULL responsibility/Liability should an incident occur in which I am injured/kill by an act of another wheather they be an owner, employee, or just a general BG.



On the other hand, If I am allowed to carry/possess my legally carried weapon they are protected from any liability for my actions taken with regard to the carry of the weapon.



This would be a comprimise that i could live with!
 

Wangmuf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
imported post

Swampbeast wrote:
rodbender wrote:
This particular part infringes on my property rights. Sorry, but it's wrong. If I were to decide that I don't want guns in my place of business, then you should be willing to abide by that, and I would suffer the economic loss.Our RTKBA do not trump anyone's property rights.

Can you please tell me where in the Constitution does it protect your right to property? I have not come accross that section.

However, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution and granted by God. Private homes are one thing, but businesses open to the public should not be allowed to bar gun carriers from them becaasue that is discrimination.

Try the 9th Amendment. My right to manage any "public" real property I own is a right already retained by myself. It's not necessary to be enumerated by the Constitution. Not to mention, the Constitution and it's Amendments are a limitation of powers on the Gov't, not private business owners.


On that note, I believe any business owner who bans tools of self-defense should be held criminally and civilly liable for any crimes against persons or their property while they are at said business.
 

bufordtpisser

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
19
Location
, ,
imported post

Bikenut wrot
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head... everyone feel free to agree... disagree... or just plain chew me out.

Odd thing about property rights... I could be considered negligent if I were to leave a 30 foot deep hole in my backyard with no fencing around it.. and someone taking a shortcut home fell in. And I could be sued for damages that person suffered in the fall... and my property is NOT open to the public... BUT

If a business that is open to the public requires me to leave my gun outside and I am shot by a bad guy (to my mind that requirement has the same danger potential as the 30 foot hole I dug in my backyard... a hurt just waiting to happen) ... yet the business owner isn't liable for the damages I suffered due to a lack of ability to defend myself.

Most business owners who ban guns are willing to put up with the loss of profit from the few gun owners/carriers who will refuse to do business there BUT I wonder how many business owners would be willing to accept the economic loss of a few lawsuits for hospital bills and pain and suffering due to requiring folks to be defenseless while in the business?

How many business owners who ban guns would be willing to accept the economic loss of providing armed security for their patrons?

You see.. in my opinion.. the stance that the business is not responsible for the bad guy shooting up the place is correct yet the business still shares some responsibility for the injuries suffered to innocents due to the business restricting the innocent's ability to defend themselves.

If I'm wrong on this, any part of this, I'd really like to know.....
Bravo BikeNut. I also believe that when you open your business to the public at large and wish to make a profit from same that you either allow me to protect myself, or you guarantee my protection if I choose to patronize your business.

Hell, the government does not even guarantee an individuals protection from crime but then again they for the most part allow us to defend ourselves. If you wish to have a business that does not allow firearms then you should be taxed an enormous amount so that protection has to be provided.
 

Notso

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
432
Location
Laveen, Arizona, USA
imported post

Not having given this a great deal of thought, but playing devil's advocate.... If a business posts a 'No Firearms' sign, you have the option of going in or not. I'm not sure the business assumes any responsibility in case something happens there beyond their reasonable control. It's your choice.
 
Top