imported post
Nuttycomputer wrote:
I took these two paragraphs because I fundamentally disagree with the premise behind them. Law Enforcement is supposed to be assuming everything in that paragraph without needing to hand over papers to provide evidence for it. The problem is we've created a society in which we've moved away from innocence presumed to guilt presumed.
...
I agree that we have to earn our rights back incrementally but we do that by pushing the extremes. That's how they were lost. People wanted to outright ban guns and we "compromised" with restrictions.
So under that guise I think we should push as extreme as legally able so that we can "compromise" for less restrictions. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. In this case it's not even just gun rights we're pushing back for. It's the basic right of presumption of innocence and to be left alone absent reasonable suspicion.
We lost our rights by the other side advancing legislation that PUSHED the extremes. Had they been so stupid as to start locking people up based on what laws they thought should be on the books, before they actually were on the books, they would have likely lost the debate of ideas and never advanced incrementally.
Think about this, if, 30 or 40 years ago people had actually said that smoking should be illegal even in bars and private clubs how much traction would the effort to limit smoking have gained?
What about if 40 years ago those pushing for clean air and clean water rules had said their end goal was to shut down all oil drilling, make the US uncompetitive for all heavy industry, and give the federal government power to tell States and cities whether or not they could build a freeway off ramp in the middle of an urban area all based on how dirty air was? Or to impose national speed limits?
What would have happened to the homosexual political goals if 40 years ago everyone involved had said their goals were to enjoy full marriage benefits, full adoption rights, and the ability to act as scout masters and youth counselors?
What would have happened to Congress' and Reagan's plan for amnesty for illegal aliens n the 80s if everyone had made clear that they were never going to secure the border and 30 years later we'd have 30 million illegal aliens in our nation and be talking about amnesty again?
In about 1917 the 16th amendment was ratified on the premise that federal income tax would only apply to the top 1% of wage earners and only to the top of their income. If we had known then that all of us would be subject to 30%+ federal income tax would we have voted to ratify the 16th amendment allowing federal income tax?
I don't care where you come down on
ANY of these issues. I don't want to discuss what the "proper" political position is.
I want you to recognize that you win the political idea most often by proposing
LEGISLATIVELY or judicially a little more than you think you can get, accepting what you can get, and then coming back for more the next even as you live within the law as currently written.
Pushing the extremes means that people in New Mexico and Nevada were getting Utah permits to avoid the more costly and restrictive home State permits. Now, Utah permits are not recognized in Nevada or New Mexico.
Go tell your neighbors you think anyone should be allowed to carry a fully loaded gun into a grade school, without needing a permit. See how 90% of your neighbors--
voters--react to
that notion. A few years ago, suggesting that we allow people to carry a loaded gun in their cars without a permit was a non-starter. Today, it is the law of the land in Utah.
We got there not by "pushing the limits" in our conduct, but by demonstrating that loaded guns in cars--with permits--were not a problem. Then we were able to remove the requirement for the permits.
If your primary goals are to advance privacy rights or some ability not to carry ID, fine. But let's be clear, that is a somewhat separate issue from RKBA and conflating the two just makes life more difficult for both. Even most privacy advocates get nervous about anonymous gun possession.
Work on one thing at a time, win the battle, and move on.
I've spent a lot of my time at the capital, on the phone with legislators, and helping to craft pro-RKBA legislation over the last 15 years. And I think we've made some
tremendous progress. We will continue to do so, IF gun owners don't make themselves unsympathetic by being viewed as extreme in their conduct.
We have certainly shifted the definition of what is extreme conduct by shifting the definition of what is perfectly reasonable and acceptable conduct. But we didn't do it by engaging too often in what was then viewed as extreme conduct. We did it by making sure our conduct did not cause us to lose the support of voters.
I beg of you to consider how your actions affect our ability to advance needed legislation.
We push the limits legislatively most effectively by keeping our conduct well within the lines as it were.
Please, PLEASE think about this and consider it. Those of us who regularly carry guns are a tiny minority even in pro-gun States like Utah. Some 50,000 Utahns have permits to carry (the other ~50,000 Utah permits are held by non-Utah residents). Most of those with permits do not carry on a regular basis. Even if everyone with a permit did carry regularly, and even if we had that many more who carried legally without permits we're talking about 100k people in a State of 3 million. Exclude children and a few prohibited persons and we're talking about 100k people absolute max out of 2 million. That is 5%...
max. In reality, we might be 1/10th that.
Don't let your time on-line in these pro-RKBA chat rooms, or at OC dinners, or even talking to close friends (often selected and maintained because they share your view of the world) blind you to reality. We must win and maintain the hearts and minds of a lot of our fellow citizens who do not carry guns. We do not do that by being extreme in our conduct. We do that by being very moderate in our conduct and pushing the limits in changes to the laws. This is a crucial difference.
Charles