Question to carriers

imported post

If you live in a state or area where carrying is fully legal and requires no permits or checks then this question shouldn't apply to you.

I am genuinely interested in constructive talking here, so please do not feel I am attacking anyone.

First the second amendment clearly states "Keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed". It is beyond me why anyone would go to get a permit in order to simply use their creator endowed human right.

I have seen a lot of people proud of the fact that they are "exorcising" their right to keep and bear arms, while later admitting that they have a permit.

This means, that they are not exorcising their right. They are using the Privilege given to them by the government (permit). Any time you agree to any form of permits or licensing you lose freedoms.

If I lived in a state that required permits, I would probably open carry or concealed carry without one, since no law, federal or state can supercede, override, limit, restrict, indirectly affect, or stop me from protecting my life, my family's life, and all the while maintaining an ultimate check and balance against a possibly encroaching government.

I can see the obvious reason why you wouldn't do that, the obvious hassle from police etc, that is when you sue them through federal court for infringing on your rights. Spend a good length of time in a law library and you will easily defeat those officers in a court of law. Most of them probably won't even show up.

We need a lot more people disregarding unconstitutional carry laws (in effect not laws at all) for it to work properly.

imported post

With respect, Wolfie, I missed the question part.

I'll try to make a statement that embodies my encouragement to you.

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as has been done in domestic disputes and to stressed veterans.

Welcome to the forum!

imported post

wolffe wrote:

First the second amendment clearly states "Keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed". It is beyond me why anyone would go to get a permit in order to simply use their creator endowed human right.
........

If I lived in a state that required permits, I would probably open carry or concealed carry without one, since no law, federal or state can supercede, override, limit, restrict, indirectly affect, or stop me from protecting my life, my family's life, and all the while maintaining an ultimate check and balance against a possibly encroaching government.

I can see the obvious reason why you wouldn't do that, the obvious hassle from police etc, that is when you sue them through federal court for infringing on your rights. Spend a good length of time in a law library and you will easily defeat those officers in a court of law. Most of them probably won't even show up.

We need a lot more people disregarding unconstitutional carry laws (in effect not laws at all) for it to work properly.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is in support of laws regulating Concealed Carry. Concealed Carry laws do not prevent you from carrying, they merely regulate the manorby which you may carry. No amount of time in a law library will give you the tools or information you would require to over rule the US Supreme Court.

Depending on where you live, getting convicted for Concealed Carry is a fast track to loosing your firearms and the legal ability to ever own them again as it is a felony.

Cool heads prevail during these times. This is a war for public support. In the timid public's eyes, the only point you prove by disregarding laws is that you are a law breaker. That is why we go to such lengths to comply with the laws when we have Open Carry events. An exception would be a local ordinance which is preempted by State Statute. By disobeying the invalid local ordinance,you can potentially bring the issuein front of the court quickly and force the municipality to reconcile their ordinance with State law.

It is a personal decision to carry concealed where it is prohibited in order to better protect your family should you need a firearm. By doing so, you have decided that the risk to your family's safetyby you not carrying is greater than the risk thatyou may be convicted of a crime and pay the penalty for doing so whether that be a fine, your loss of rights as a felon or you having to spend time incarcerated.

imported post

1) Demon, Begone! Go back to hell, you demon from the planet AR-15!!! BACK TO HELLL!!!!!!

2) On a serious note, there are theories of civil disobedience that would agree with you. However, people with very large salaries (NBA Basketball Players) have been unable to do what you ask, and it's taking us going to SCOTUS to make small changes.

3) Most people don't want to be arrested on a weekly basis for violating the law, and then being arrested again for being a repeat offender, loosing their rights completely and becoming best friends with Bubba in prison.

wolffe wrote:

I have seen a lot of people proud of the fact that they are 1"exorcising" their right to keep and bear arms, while later admitting that they have a permit.

This means, that they are not exorcising their right. They are using the Privilege given to them by the government (permit). Any time you agree to any form of permits or licensing you lose freedoms.

If I lived in a state that required permits, I would probably open carry or concealed carry without one, since no law, federal or state can supercede, override, limit, restrict, indirectly affect, or stop me from protecting my life, my family's life, and all the while maintaining an ultimate check and balance against a possibly encroaching government.

I can see the obvious reason why you wouldn't do that, the obvious hassle from police etc, that is when you sue them through federal court for infringing on your rights. Spend a good length of time in a law library and you will easily defeat those officers in a court of law. Most of them probably won't even show up.

We need a lot more people disregarding unconstitutional carry laws (in effect not laws at all) for it to work properly.

Click to expand...

imported post

wolffe wrote:

First the second amendment clearly states "Keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed". It is beyond me why anyone would go to get a permit in order to simply use their creator endowed human right.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt in my mind that this is going to ruffle some feathers, but I don't agree that the RTKBA is a god given right appointed to us by a creator. A god given right is self defense, the right to preserve one's self from harm (aka fight or flight instincts). The 2nd Amendment is a legislative appointed freedom protected by a document allowing us the tools to better our chances should we find ourselves having to exercise a god given right of self preservation. Same goes with the 1st Amendment. We are free to think and feel as we see fit (god given), but our freedom to verbally express our thoughts no matter their position, is a protected freedom.

imported post

I have no idea what the creator wants in regards to guns, and frankly as part of this debate, its a moot point. It doesn't matter when it comes to the law of the land what the Creator, aliens from Space or the dude at the corner wants. Maybe your Creator wants you to use water guns to spray people with magical holy water or perhaps your Creator is against guns in general. I have no idea, because religion is a PERSONAL thing that has no effect on the Constitution.

For example, if tomorrow, someone proved to me that "The Creator" really wanted us not to have guns, and Jesus, Mohammad, Mickey Mouse said "Guns are bad, get rid of them" that would have no effect on the Constitution.

It's the same theory which I say to anti-gun people who say "Wouldn't the world be safer without guns." Honestly, I don't believe so, but it doesn't matter!!!

The Constitution says "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It DOES NOT have any of the following added:
1) shall not be infringed... unless you provide numbers that say its a bad idea.
2) shall not be infringed... unless Jesus tells me otherwise
3) shall not be infringed... unless President Obama/Bush/Clinton doesn't like it.
4) shall not be infringed... unless your neighbor hates seeing you in Starbucks with your XDM 9mm

The Bill of Rights doesn't care about those things for a specific purpose. It leaves out God, it leaves out opinions, it leaves out anything to do with belief and is a document of Civil Law. Period.

Any debate that talks about "God Given Rights", "Safety", "Being Confortable" doesn't matter in Civil Rights.

imported post

wolffe wrote:

If I lived in a state that required permits, I would probably open carry or concealed carry without one, since no law, federal or state can supercede, override, limit, restrict, indirectly affect, or stop me from protecting my life, my family's life, and all the while maintaining an ultimate check and balance against a possibly encroaching government.

Click to expand...

What would you do if you lived in a state that didn't allow you to possess or carry a gun at all?

What state do you live in?

imported post

Although I have read and followed topics on this site for a long time, I've only today registered. I am a ten year veteran of the USMC; I have given of my sweat and blood to my country.

The right to keep and bear arms is plainly stated in our Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers spoke and wrote plain, not without the legal mumbo-jumbo that lawyers and judges of today speak so easily and with such quantity.

If EVERY American that truly believed in the Bill of Rights, and have the moral integrity to be true to that belief, would carry open or concealed we could and would enable the change of America's slide to the left. Liberals have always excelled in PR, out-right lies, and mis-representation of truths. As long as we try to play their game of we will continue to be second class citizens in our own country.

Semper Fi, do or die. What are you faithful to?

imported post

Short a answer, such as here in VA:

Open carry is legal; there is no law on the books about it. Carry is prohibited in a few places like schools, courthouses, etc. Something the legal department calls "reasonable restrictions". Whatever...

Concealed carry requires a permit unless en route to/from a gunsmith, hunting, etc.

Therefore CARRYING the the gun is a right, CONCEALING the gun is a privilege.

Or as I like to call it, a fashion permit since it dictates how I dress.

imported post

I like this explanation, although don't agree with it 100%

Ie, Open Carry is the NORMAL means of carrying a gun.

paramedic70002 wrote:

Short a answer, such as here in VA:

Open carry is legal; there is no law on the books about it. Carry is prohibited in a few places like schools, courthouses, etc. Something the legal department calls "reasonable restrictions". Whatever...

Concealed carry requires a permit unless en route to/from a gunsmith, hunting, etc.

Therefore CARRYING the the gun is a right, CONCEALING the gun is a privilege.

Or as I like to call it, a fashion permit since it dictates how I dress.

Click to expand...

imported post

Pace wrote:

I like this explanation, although don't agree with it 100%

Ie, Open Carry is the NORMAL means of carrying a gun.

paramedic70002 wrote:

Short a answer, such as here in VA:

Open carry is legal; there is no law on the books about it. Carry is prohibited in a few places like schools, courthouses, etc. Something the legal department calls "reasonable restrictions". Whatever...

Concealed carry requires a permit unless en route to/from a gunsmith, hunting, etc.

Therefore CARRYING the the gun is a right, CONCEALING the gun is a privilege.

Or as I like to call it, a fashion permit since it dictates how I dress.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Perhaps you might agree with this, then. Open carry in Virginia is the default mode of carrying a defensive arm. I would imagine our friend meant this with the term "normal" which I also use at times.

imported post

Simply put you have to play their game till you can get the government out of your way or laws changed.

imported post

onlurker wrote:

wolffe wrote:

First the second amendment clearly states "Keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed". It is beyond me why anyone would go to get a permit in order to simply use their creator endowed human right.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt in my mind that this is going to ruffle some feathers, but I don't agree that the RTKBA is a god given right appointed to us by a creator. A god given right is self defense, the right to preserve one's self from harm (aka fight or flight instincts). The 2nd Amendment is a legislative appointed freedom protected by a document allowing us the tools to better our chances should we find ourselves having to exercise a god given right of self preservation. Same goes with the 1st Amendment. We are free to think and feel as we see fit (god given), but our freedom to verbally express our thoughts no matter their position, is a protected freedom.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt you did want to ruffle feathers. You will find that we believe that we have rights that we are born with. The Bill of Rights enumerates them and puts phrases in like 'Shall not be infringed' so stupid people and paranoids cannot take those rights from us. Silly people voted in politicians who listened to the crazies and laws were passed inimical to the rights and welfare of citizens. We are working on getting those unconstitutional laws wiped off the books, to educate the silly people and to reduce the influence of the crazies.

You want to be unarmed in the face of adversity that is your right but do not put your prejudiced wrong headed views on the rest of us. You may need one of us someday to protect you.

imported post

wolffe wrote:

We need a lot more people disregarding unconstitutional carry laws (in effect not laws at all) for it to work properly.

Click to expand...

So you are encouraging people to go out there and break the law to "prove a point"? Is that what you are saying?...


Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about that...
SHENANIGANS...

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

SHENANIGANS...

Click to expand...

I wonder if this is one of those "cognitive infiltrations" I was reading about the other day.

We're not really a Truther or a Conspiracy website, you know?

imported post

Old Grump wrote:

I have no doubt you did want to ruffle feathers. You will find that we believe that we have rights that we are born with. The Bill of Rights enumerates them and puts phrases in like 'Shall not be infringed' so stupid people and paranoids cannot take those rights from us.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, te Constitution an Bill of Rights weren't really enacted to protect the People against stupid people. IT was put in place to protect the People against the actions of very CRAFTY people, people who plan and plot and maneuver with malice aforethought to enslave, oppress and lord over the People. You need to remember that the folks out there who are REALLY behind the anti-gun movement are not stupid or silly--they are calculating, crafty, and very manipulative. They are sociopathic, power hungry, and generally VERY bright. That is what makes them so dangerous...

Silly people voted in politicians who listened to the crazies and laws were passed inimical to the rights and welfare of citizens. We are working on getting those unconstitutional laws wiped off the books, to educate the silly people and to reduce the influence of the crazies.

Click to expand...

Again, you're a little off target in your assessment of the real motivations and processes involved in the enactment of most gun laws. Almost every single gun law on the books--Federal and local--was based on racism and classism. The NFA was essentially an anti-Italian immigrant move, enacted through playing on the fears of the Mafia, which were whipped up by the Hearst Publishing company by their yellow journalism which branded ALL Italians as being somehow connected with the Mob. Almost every state gun control law was put in place to keep poor people and minorities from owning guns. This is historical fact. Gun control is racist, and we need to educate the American Public to this fact.

It's not a bunch of silly knee-jerk reactions of dumb politicians to the requests of hoplophobic people. Gun control has historically been based on a systematic, calculated program of keeping guns out of the hnads of the "wrong kinds of people".

And we all know what THAT phrase REALLY means...

When the good people of this nation start to realize just what an evil, racist, morally bankrupt agenda gun control REALLY is, and that this whole agenda of citizen disarmament is merely intended to do nothing more than re-establish and perpetuate a new form of slavery, perhaps they will come to their senses...

imported post

wolffe wrote:

Any time you agree to any form of permits or licensing you lose freedoms.

no law, federal or state can supercede, override, limit, restrict, indirectly affect, or stop me from protecting my life, my family's life, and all the while maintaining an ultimate check and balance against a possibly encroaching government.

We need a lot more people disregarding unconstitutional carry laws (in effect not laws at all) for it to work properly.

Click to expand...

1 - Agreed. We choose to pay off the local gang in their protection racket instead of risking life and limb by crossing them.

2- No law can stop you but Men With Guns can.

3 - I disregarded unconstitutional laws prohibiting concealed carry (among others) dailyfor five years in another state. It had no effect on the laws and their enforcement and neither checked nor balanced the encroaching government.

imported post

If people did not band together and break laws en mass, we would all still be driving 55 miles per hour on the highways. Thankfully here in Michigan, we can run around 85 with relative safety of not being robbed by the cops.

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

The Supreme Court is in support of laws regulating Concealed Carry. Concealed Carry laws do not prevent you from carrying, they merely regulate the manorby which you may carry. No amount of time in a law library will give you the tools or information you would require to over rule the US Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

SS1911 : The Supreme court isnt exactly known for supporting the constitution as it is written, nor does its power supercede trhat of the constitution.

Click to expand...

SS1911 : If the manner in which it regulates the mode of carry affects the ability tocarry a usable firearm that right has then been infringed. Exsample : it is illegal in Michigan to carry an accessible loadedfirearm in a vehicle without permission. This is in direct violation of both the US and Michigans constitutions.

Click to expand...

OP is right, I suspect that you are probably one of "them" based on your screen name.

Click to expand...

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

The Supreme Court is in support of laws regulating Concealed Carry. Concealed Carry laws do not prevent you from carrying, they merely regulate the manorby which you may carry. No amount of time in a law library will give you the tools or information you would require to over rule the US Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

SS1911 : The Supreme court isnt exactly known for supporting the constitution as it is written, nor does its power supercede trhat of the constitution.

Click to expand...

SS1911 : If the manner in which it regulates the mode of carry affects the ability tocarry a usable firearm that right has then been infringed. Exsample : it is illegal in Michigan to carry an accessible loadedfirearm in a vehicle without permission. This is in direct violation of both the US and Michigans constitutions.

Click to expand...

OP is right, I suspect that you are probably one of "them" based on your screen name.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Your suspicion-fu is weak...

Laws regulating carry have been around for around 200 years. The SCOTUS has yet to declare them unconstitutional. The verbage utilized in the 2nd Amendment was debated over and deliberately chosen. The verbage chosen was not about self defense any more than it was about hunting. The SCOTUS has only struck down outright bans on firearms, not EBR bans and not regulations on CCW.

Regardless if you are correct in principle, unless you can get the SCOTUS to agree with you, it isa matter of fighting for more ground instead of taking the hill in 1 fell swoop. Part of this ground taking isthe war forthe hearts and minds of the timid masses.We need a public outcry in our favorto counter the Brady Bunch, McCarthy and Pelosi etc gang...