Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: If You Have To Ask Permission, It Isn't a Right

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    If You Have To Ask Permission, It Isn't a Right

    I think the author makes a number of excellent points in his article.

    http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...rmits-to-carry
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

    "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

    Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886)


    "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-6O.
    "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.


    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    +1000000000

    Open carry is the right, concealed carry (authorized by government permit) is a priveledge.

    I wish all carry was about rights, but I believe that much of the permit crap is about the means testing to obtain govenment permission slips.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120
    If permission is a violation of your right, then why are you carrying unloaded? People who assert that the right is to open carry loaded who then wuss out and carry an unloaded firearm are equally pikers. I'll hear your argument when you carry a loaded firearm openly along the lines of the right you so confidently assert.

    Yet those who carry unloaded want to convince everyone else of how courageous they are unlike those who are willing spend time and treasure to force the state to issue permits to carry loaded firearms...

    -Gene

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9
    Hoffmang has a point. By carrying unloaded, aren't you conceding that as the right? If not, then why aren't you carrying loaded?

    If you believe you have a right to carry loaded, then by carrying unloaded you are implicitly saying: "I'm willing to submit to a restriction of my absolute 2A rights." There's no other way it can be taken. If you weren't willing to submit, you'd carry loaded, end of story. Submission has occurred, regardless of the reason.

    The only difference between you and others is they're willing to explicitly say "The 2A is not limitless", whereas you implicitly say it with your unloaded handgun. Furthermore, it seems that their path ends with a superior carry method that's been accepted by almost every other state in the union.

    The other thing I don't understand is the "all or nothing" permitless mentality. It's like you're saying "We can't have it without permits? Well then, we don't want it at all! Take that!" It's almost like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Progress here will be incremental, just like with every other right (see: gay and lesbian rights, women's rights, the civil rights movement). AZ didn't suddenly go from no-issue to permitless carry overnight, which from what I have read seems to be what most people on this board want and expect. It went no-issue => shall-issue => constitutional carry. Why in the world do you expect it to be any different here, and why do you think that going after permitted CCW precludes us from going after constitutional carry at some point later when the time is right?
    Last edited by Reality; 07-17-2011 at 08:52 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    If permission is a violation of your right, then why are you carrying unloaded? People who assert that the right is to open carry loaded who then wuss out and carry an unloaded firearm are equally pikers. I'll hear your argument when you carry a loaded firearm openly along the lines of the right you so confidently assert.

    Yet those who carry unloaded want to convince everyone else of how courageous they are unlike those who are willing spend time and treasure to force the state to issue permits to carry loaded firearms...

    -Gene
    As far as I know, the permit to carry loaded is issued in the case of handguns, but not long guns (concealed carry permit). I don't know if there's any issuance of permits for loaded long guns. That said, it seems the time and treasure you spoke of risking is primarily for a partial remedy also. Unless I am missing something?

    As far as it being a right or a privilidge, I would turn to the fish and game laws for guidance. Fishing is a right in California, but you are also required to obtain a license. Pay for it too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Those who consent to statues waive their rights.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


    Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
    the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
    upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
    State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
    people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
    passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
    lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
    containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
    provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
    when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
    may be taken.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-17-2011 at 11:09 PM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    If permission is a violation of your right, then why are you carrying unloaded? People who assert that the right is to open carry loaded who then wuss out and carry an unloaded firearm are equally pikers. I'll hear your argument when you carry a loaded firearm openly along the lines of the right you so confidently assert.

    Yet those who carry unloaded want to convince everyone else of how courageous they are unlike those who are willing spend time and treasure to force the state to issue permits to carry loaded firearms...

    -Gene
    Gene, if carrying loaded concealed or loaded open is a right, why don't you do it without a permit? Or don't you recognize the 2A? Or are you a "wuss" and without "courage"?

    What type of leader are you? Do you beat people into your way of thinking or do you lead by example?

    When you are ready to lead us down the middle of Los Angeles loaded open carrying (without permits), then I'll follow.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    SNIP Hoffmang has a point. By carrying unloaded, aren't you conceding that as the right? If not, then why aren't you carrying loaded?
    You understand that by that logic, anything government does that you have not actively fought, ignored, etc. is by you conceded and validated? Tax hikes? Been paying them? Well, you've conceded; they're valid.

    And, by the way, having conceded and validated those things, you cannot possibly claim your rights on thsoe matters have been violated. Or, suddenly decide to start ignoring them, or fighting them, etc.

    Essentially, that line of thinking all but throws away the rational basis for reclaiming freedoms.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Advocating illegal acts violate the forum rules.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Is loaded open carry illegal in California?

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's 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. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

    http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    Those who consent to statues waive their rights.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


    Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
    the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
    upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
    State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
    people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
    passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
    lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
    containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
    provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
    when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
    may be taken.
    Yeah Lawful Aim, I knew about this one 15 years ago.
    I think they think they can get around this by giving the 2 days a year free fishing days.
    This last year they are now giving 2 free hunting days.
    The only catch to that is the "Unlicensed" one must go or be with w licensed hunter.

    I would like to know if anyone has any court cases, on winning this one !
    The only Authority is how many fish one can have caught, and the species, and
    the season when to fish.
    That Article 1 section 25 was put in before the F & G codes were put together around 1909-1911.
    Article 1 Section 25 was put in ,in 1879.
    And of the F & G codes, 1-89 number 3 said's "Any laws passed before this code are still in force".

    What a con job we have been getting over the last 100 years. Its sad ! Robin47

  13. #13
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Yeah Lawful Aim, I knew about this one 15 years ago.
    I think they think they can get around this by giving the 2 days a year free fishing days.
    This last year they are now giving 2 free hunting days.
    The only catch to that is the "Unlicensed" one must go or be with w licensed hunter.

    I would like to know if anyone has any court cases, on winning this one !
    The only Authority is how many fish one can have caught, and the species, and
    the season when to fish.
    That Article 1 section 25 was put in before the F & G codes were put together around 1909-1911.
    Article 1 Section 25 was put in ,in 1879.
    And of the F & G codes, 1-89 number 3 said's "Any laws passed before this code are still in force".

    What a con job we have been getting over the last 100 years. Its sad ! Robin47
    Thus far, I have not found a case where fishing without a license was fought on constitutional grounds. There were a few commercial battles, but I haven't found one for an individual. The reason might lie in the very nature of fisherman. In my discussions and forum exchanges with them, the general thought pattern seems to be that we should all buy a license because it's a good idea and is good for the cause. Bringing up the constitutional argument seems irrelevant to them.
    Now there has apparently been a change in the license that may have an impact on this issue, and I'm off to verify that today. But I'm also going to attempt to obtain a free license, apart from the described exclusions for native american, blind, etc, just to see what the response is. I've been drafting up my application this morning.
    It's not much of a right if you have to pay for it and be licensed, that's for sure. How does that work for other rights.? Right to jury trial...if you pay? Right to 1st amendment if you get a journalist license?

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Advocating illegal acts violate the forum rules.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    Calling someone out on their hypocrisy isn't the same as advocating for an illegal act.

    Mr. nichols once again attacks what he has little understanding of. Getting constitutional carry is purely a numbers game. If you can't win justice kennedy, you lose...period.

    The appropriate time to challenge is after a challenge on charging a fee. When a small minority of states are left which still licenses (most will drop after the can't charge fee), then go for the kill as it were.

  15. #15
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    If permission is a violation of your right, then why are you carrying unloaded? People who assert that the right is to open carry loaded who then wuss out and carry an unloaded firearm are equally pikers. I'll hear your argument when you carry a loaded firearm openly along the lines of the right you so confidently assert.

    Yet those who carry unloaded want to convince everyone else of how courageous they are unlike those who are willing spend time and treasure to force the state to issue permits to carry loaded firearms...

    -Gene
    I assert it is a right to openly carry a loaded firearm without infringement. I also assert that if you do so in violation of the unconstitutional laws that forbid such activities you will go to jail. I further assert that once in jail you will not get help from the 2A rights organizations fighting for said rights. Wusses.

    ETA: And yes, I open carry loaded, in incorporated areas no less...legally. Doesn't everybody?
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 07-19-2011 at 11:54 PM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    I assert it is a right to openly carry a loaded firearm without infringement. I also assert that if you do so in violation of the unconstitutional laws that forbid such activities you will go to jail. I further assert that once in jail you will not get help from the 2A rights organizations fighting for said rights. Wusses.
    That isn't necessarily true.

    ETA: And yes, I open carry loaded, in incorporated areas no less...legally. Doesn't everybody?
    I don't see how you can do so under the language of PC12031. Explain yourself.

  17. #17
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    I don't see how you can do so under the language of PC12031. Explain yourself.
    I'm guessing that this would be on/in private property with restricted access.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  18. #18
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    That isn't necessarily true. Which part?



    I don't see how you can do so under the language of PC12031. Explain yourself.
    From PC 12031...
    (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.

    (i) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from carrying a loaded firearm in an area within an incorporated city while engaged in hunting, provided that the hunting at that place and time is not prohibited by the city council.

    (j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  19. #19
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

    "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party[SIZE=3]. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
    I'm not sure that this case law is applicable to 2nd amendment or the right to fish. There's lots more to the case than one excerpt.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    I have noticed that the fisherman forums treat those who bring up the constitutional rights issue the same way that gun forums do in open carry. There's hostility, suspicion, and outright revulsion. Just questioning the propriety of charging a fee for a right was not something they wanted to entertain. One person told me that I talk to much and just pay the effin fee. another suggested that that part of the constitution was effectively negated by legislation (that was not a constitutional amendment)

    The MLPA is legislation and therefore voids this section of the Ca constitution. The only way the "right to fish" is valid is if it is within a public lake, stream river or other body of water where fish have been planted for the specific purpose of recreational fishing unfortunately the ocean is not stocked so therefore we do not have the "right to fish." Sorry, I do not agree with this either but unfortunately it is the way the state constitution is written.
    But more importantly that law school failures, is that so many people are willingly surrendering their rights, and take issue with those who don't.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Yeah Lawful Aim, I knew about this one 15 years ago.
    I think they think they can get around this by giving the 2 days a year free fishing days.
    This last year they are now giving 2 free hunting days.
    The only catch to that is the "Unlicensed" one must go or be with w licensed hunter.

    I would like to know if anyone has any court cases, on winning this one !
    The only Authority is how many fish one can have caught, and the species, and
    the season when to fish.
    That Article 1 section 25 was put in before the F & G codes were put together around 1909-1911.
    Article 1 Section 25 was put in ,in 1879.
    And of the F & G codes, 1-89 number 3 said's "Any laws passed before this code are still in force".

    What a con job we have been getting over the last 100 years. Its sad ! Robin47
    More to the point, it appears that fishing has been declared a privilidge by the state legislature without actually having to amend the constitution:

    7149. (a) A sport fishing license granting the privilege to take
    any fish, reptile, or amphibia anywhere in this state for purposes
    other than profit shall be issued to any of the following:
    I'm going to lodge a formal complaint to the governor's office this week, and to the Department of fish and game as a prelude to asking a judge for a writ of madamus. this isn't right at all...literally

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120
    I carry a loaded SIG P229 with 16 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber every day I'm not in NYC, Chicago, or Boston.

    PS. I'm legal.

    -Gene

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    I carry a loaded SIG P229 with 16 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber every day I'm not in NYC, Chicago, or Boston.

    PS. I'm legal.

    -Gene
    What makes you legal?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  24. #24
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    Yet those who carry unloaded want to convince everyone else of how courageous they are unlike those who are willing spend time and treasure to force the state to issue permits to carry loaded firearms...

    -Gene
    Quite a throwing-down of the gauntlet there Gene...

    Maybe you're avoiding the issue entirely, but a majority of us carry within the confines of the (unconstitutional law) because it is better than the alternative - being deprived of life or liberty for exercise of one's natural right.

    The state has the monopoly on 'force'.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    I spent a couple hours digging through the archives library today on this "Right to fish" issue. I mean, if we have a constitutional right to fish, but then they apply language making it a privilidge by statute, but not constitutional amendment, seems to me the right has been infringed. Fleshing through this might give us some ideas as to how our gun rights have also been weakened.
    For one, the amendment that brought us section 25 of the constitution began in the assembly in 1909. It went through many changes, some of which had language specific to oceans and tidal bays. also versions that excluded places such as prisons and sanitariums, and another version that made the state buy up lands for this purpose. But the final bill, ACA 14, became a proposition on the ballot, and enjoyed very wide support at the ballot box. It was referred to in both houses as the "right to fish". Here is some information from the ballot argument:

    The ballot argument stated: "The inland streams and coast waters of the State of California abound in a great variety of fish, and aside from the sport of taking them, they furnish a very large portion of the state's free food supply. That the fish may not be exterminated and this great item of popular food depleted the people of the state are spending large sums annually for its protection and propagation.
    "For many years the people of California have enjoyed the right to take fish from the waters of the state pretty generally, but since the vigorous development of California's natural resources by individuals and large corporations, many of the streams have been closed to the public and trespass notices warning the public not to fish are displayed to an alarming extent.
    "The people are paying for the protection and propagation of the fish; for this reason if for no other they should have the right to take them. It is not fair that a few should enjoy the right to take the fish that all the people are paying to protect and propagate.
    "To reserve the right to fish in a portion of the waters of the state at least, for the people, Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 14 was introduced and adopted at the last session of the legislature of the State of California, and as an evidence of its popularity it was unanimously adopted by the assembly and by the senate with but two dissenting votes.
    "If the people of the state vote favorably upon this proposed amendment to the constitution it will give them the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the state and in the waters thereof, and will prevent the state from disposing of any of the lands it now owns or what it may hereafter acquire without reserving in the people the right to
    Now we have a license law, and several other expenses to take things like Abalone. More importantly though, the the license law now states that "taking" fish is a privilidge. This hardly seems compatible with the intent of this legislation, or the final adoption of this section of the constitution.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •