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

Sons of Liberty · Jul 6, 2011

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

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-a...s-should-reject-licenses-and-permits-to-carry

Lawful Aim · Jul 12, 2011

"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.

Thundar · Jul 12, 2011

+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.

hoffmang · Jul 17, 2011

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

Reality · Jul 17, 2011

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?

Save Our State · Jul 17, 2011

hoffmang said:
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.

Lawful Aim · Jul 17, 2011

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.

Sons of Liberty · Jul 18, 2011

hoffmang said:
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.

Citizen · Jul 18, 2011

Reality said:
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.

bigtoe416 · Jul 18, 2011

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.

Lawful Aim · Jul 18, 2011

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

Robin47 · Jul 19, 2011

Lawful Aim said:
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

Save Our State · Jul 19, 2011

Robin47 said:
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?

Gray Peterson · Jul 19, 2011

bigtoe416 said:
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.

coolusername2007 · Jul 19, 2011

hoffmang said:
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?

Gray Peterson · Jul 20, 2011

coolusername2007 said:
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.

ConditionThree · Jul 20, 2011

Gray Peterson said:
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.

coolusername2007 · Jul 20, 2011

Gray Peterson said:
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.

Save Our State · Jul 20, 2011

Lawful Aim said:
"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.

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.

Save Our State · Jul 20, 2011

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.

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

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Founder's Club Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member