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

Save Our State · Jul 20, 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

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

hoffmang · Jul 21, 2011

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

Sons of Liberty · Jul 22, 2011

hoffmang said:
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?

demnogis · Jul 22, 2011

hoffmang said:
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'.

Save Our State · Jul 23, 2011

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.

hoffmang · Jul 24, 2011

demnogis said:
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'.

I respond to the absolutists here. I think they should go carry open and loaded in Texas or without a permit in TN and report back on how that goes. Clearly those states aren't part of free America...

The right is to "bear arms." The minimum constitutional value is going to be that the state gets to choose the manner as long as you have a real right to bear. I would posit that my carrying a loaded concealed firearm in California under license is far closer to the right to bear arms than those here who keep claiming they're somehow more holy and apostolic to the right by carrying an unloaded box of parts.

I want a functional right to arms. All those of you who are "open carry in California first" don't have a clue about what private property owners in California will do if that's the progression. We all got a taste of that with California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's Coffee. Thanks to those who made it so I have to buy crappy coffee when I'm carrying!

-Gene

ConditionThree · Jul 25, 2011

hoffmang said:
Thanks to those who made it so I have to buy crappy coffee when I'm carrying!

Hold on a second.

If it is concealed, then the barista's at Peet's couldnt possibly know that you are armed and ask you to leave.

If you are boycotting their establishment for their stance on weapons, that is a voluntary expression of your 1st amendment rights.

In either case, the those who instigated the ban of weapons on private property are not making you buy crappy coffee when you are carrying, nor is Peet's denying you the pleasure of their product.

Do you believe that Peet's policy and their property rights are sacrosanct? And you would not carry there even if it is concealed from both view and their knowledge? Or is your 1st amendment expression preventing you from making a purchase with them?

While I would not darken their door based upon their stance on weapons- I wouldnt give it any consideration to conceal carry there...If they are no respecters of my right to self-defense, I'm certainly no respecter of their right to govern civil conduct on their publically accessable, private property.

Sons of Liberty · Jul 25, 2011

hoffmang said:
[SNIP]The right is to "bear arms." The minimum constitutional value is going to be that the state gets to choose the manner as long as you have a real right to bear. I would posit that my carrying a loaded concealed firearm in California under license is far closer to the right to bear arms than those here who keep claiming they're somehow more holy and apostolic to the right by carrying an unloaded box of parts.
[SNIP]

-Gene

So what you're saying Gene is that if the government didn't give you permission, you couldn't/wouldn't carry.

Seems to me that you're trying to lecture us from a "look at me I'm better than you attitude." You're the absolutist, the "my way or the highway" guy.

coolusername2007 · Jul 25, 2011

hoffmang said:
I respond to the absolutists here. I think they should go carry open and loaded in Texas or without a permit in TN and report back on how that goes. Clearly those states aren't part of free America...

The right is to "bear arms." The minimum constitutional value is going to be that the state gets to choose the manner as long as you have a real right to bear. I would posit that my carrying a loaded concealed firearm in California under license is far closer to the right to bear arms than those here who keep claiming they're somehow more holy and apostolic to the right by carrying an unloaded box of parts.

I want a functional right to arms. All those of you who are "open carry in California first" don't have a clue about what private property owners in California will do if that's the progression. We all got a taste of that with California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's Coffee. Thanks to those who made it so I have to buy crappy coffee when I'm carrying!

-Gene

I would argue just the opposite, carrying an unloaded firearm openly and freely is closer constitutionally than carrying licensed. The right to keep and bear arms isn't just about the loaded condition, its about doing so in a manner that is not subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat. So while the argument can be made as to which method is better tactically during situation specific scenarios, IMO carrying freely wins hands down...that's why I have not applied for a permit even though I am quite sure I could get one. Though I will submit to you that 626.9 puts a huge damper on the whole subject.

As for private property owners, let the free market decide. That's their choice and they should be free to make it, and not be burdened by my preferences or anyone else's.

The point being "functional, at the ready firearm" and when talking about legal avenues of least resistance 12031 is easy pickins' compared to shall issue...and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

Save Our State · Jul 25, 2011

When the second amendment was drafted and adopted, a functioning firearm was one that was ready to load. There were no bullet cartridges, no multi cartridge clips, etc. The right to bear was related to the king's willingness to deprive the colonists of powder and arms that could be a threat to his standing army, and to keep the colonists dependent upon the king's protection. I don't see how it transfers into a right to protect one's self from daily, immediate threats from criminals. I believe that if we insist upon making it a right to self-defense in a modern world, we just may lose.

hoffmang · Jul 26, 2011

ConditionThree said:
Hold on a second.

If it is concealed, then the barista's at Peet's couldnt possibly know that you are armed and ask you to leave.

So you're advocating that I ignore the private property owners clearly expressed wishes?

There is a right to carry. There isn't a right to carry loaded openly and without a permit where permits with objective standards exist that we can get applied anytime very soon. If there was, then why isn't it expressed in TX or TN? No one wants to engage with that do they?

-Gene

ConditionThree · Jul 26, 2011

hoffmang said:
So you're advocating that I ignore the private property owners clearly expressed wishes?

There is a right to carry. There isn't a right to carry loaded openly and without a permit where permits with objective standards exist that we can get applied anytime very soon. If there was, then why isn't it expressed in TX or TN? No one wants to engage with that do they?

-Gene

I'm not advocating you do anything besides that which you find convenient and necessary. If I must be there, I wouldnt be inclined to check my firearm at the door, otherwise I would elect not to go there at all.

I dont dispute that there is a right to carry. Or that there exists no right to carry in any haphazard method whatsoever- But any licensing scheme is going to have to be liberal and generous enough to issue to any non-prohibited person, without onerous fees, invasive questioning that presumes guilt, and is immune from the imposition of arbitrary restrictions (three gun limit, citizenship and residency requirements, and other bullsh*t issuing agencies can contrive) and is not revocable upon the whim of a Sheriff wishing to impose his will upon individuals acting completely within the law.
However, I dont believe licenced carry should be the only means to carry a firearm ready for the purpose of self defense. If the government wants to license one form of carry so they can impose their regulations, an alternative form should remain untouched by their infringement.

coolusername2007 · Jul 26, 2011

hoffmang said:
So you're advocating that I ignore the private property owners clearly expressed wishes?

There is a right to carry. There isn't a right to carry loaded openly and without a permit where permits with objective standards exist that we can get applied anytime very soon. If there was, then why isn't it expressed in TX or TN? No one wants to engage with that do they?

-Gene

Whoop! There it is!

Uuuhhhh...yes there is. I can't believe this needs to be explained to "the right people". No wonder we're in this mess. They won't challenge 12031 and they think we need permits. This is how we end up with bullet buttons, e-violations, and locked up unloaded concealed carry.

TX history is why open carry isn't allowed there today, some rogue judge a very long time ago made a bad ruling IIRC. Don't know about TN. But I'll take your TX and TN and raise you NV. They have concealed carry permitting and constitutional no permit necessary open carry.

Wow. Just wow.

1245A Defender · Jul 26, 2011

Wowwy!!!

Save Our State said:
When the second amendment was drafted and adopted, a functioning firearm was one that was ready to load. There were no bullet cartridges, no multi cartridge clips, etc. The right to bear was related to the king's willingness to deprive the colonists of powder and arms that could be a threat to his standing army, and to keep the colonists dependent upon the king's protection. I don't see how it transfers into a right to protect one's self from daily, immediate threats from criminals. I believe that if we insist upon making it a right to self-defense in a modern world, we just may lose.

nobody is addressing this guy?

where could it be said that the 2A talks about a right to carry an unloaded gun? wouldnt "unloaded" be infringing?
the way you are thinking, we only have a right to carry single shot muskets, and unloaded at that!
and the 1A only protects the free speech of MUTES!
doesnt the constitutional right to "life", backed up by the 2A, protect my right to be ready to protect my LIFE against immediate threats from criminals?

28 states recognize our right to carry the means to self defense, a gun, loaded, openly carried, without government approval.
even california is getting closer to following, "the supreme law of the land"!

Dont try to take back your rights. THEY will get mad, and take ALL of them away!!

Save Our State · Jul 26, 2011

1245A Defender said:
nobody is addressing this guy?

where could it be said that the 2A talks about a right to carry an unloaded gun? wouldnt "unloaded" be infringing?
the way you are thinking, we only have a right to carry single shot muskets, and unloaded at that!
and the 1A only protects the free speech of MUTES!
doesnt the constitutional right to "life", backed up by the 2A, protect my right to be ready to protect my LIFE against immediate threats from criminals?

28 states recognize our right to carry the means to self defense, a gun, loaded, openly carried, without government approval.
even california is getting closer to following, "the supreme law of the land"!

Dont try to take back your rights. THEY will get mad, and take ALL of them away!!

I'm not disputing the value of the second amendment as we'd like it to be. Just playing advocate for the 2nd amendment argument that most likely will be. Historically speaking, the second amendment was not about self-defense of an individual. There are other constitutional rights that speak to that, but not the 2nd. So my thinking is that framing our argument around that premise is likely to get our argument dismissed. The NY challenge is about the governments infringement upon the rights of a person to bear by placing a monetary restiction; If it were to be about a person's right to individual self-defense I doubt the court would rule in our favor

ConditionThree · Jul 26, 2011

Save Our State said:
I'm not disputing the value of the second amendment as we'd like it to be. Just playing advocate for the 2nd amendment argument that most likely will be. Historically speaking, the second amendment was not about self-defense of an individual. There are other constitutional rights that speak to that, but not the 2nd. So my thinking is that framing our argument around that premise is likely to get our argument dismissed. The NY challenge is about the governments infringement upon the rights of a person to bear by placing a monetary restiction; If it were to be about a person's right to individual self-defense I doubt the court would rule in our favor

You're dancing perilously close to the collectivist view on the 2nd amendment. I believe this 'historical' view- that keep and bear was exclusively a militia duty, completely ignores the clause 'right of the people' at the detriment of individual liberty.

If we are to restore the right as it ought to be, we cannot hang our arguments of false interpretations of the past. Heller and McDonald have forged the way back to the founders intent, and every step in bringing us back to that origin must be from these cases.

Save Our State · Jul 26, 2011

ConditionThree said:
You're dancing perilously close to the collectivist view on the 2nd amendment. I believe this 'historical' view- that keep and bear was exclusively a militia duty, completely ignores the clause 'right of the people' at the detriment of individual liberty.

If we are to restore the right as it ought to be, we cannot hang our arguments of false interpretations of the past. Heller and McDonald have forged the way back to the founders intent, and every step in bringing us back to that origin must be from these cases.

How I view the 2nd amendment is mostly irrelevant, The court will not rule based upon my wishes. I don't know that the militia is at the heart of the 2nd amendment either. What I believe is that the 2nd isn't about individual self defense. I don't think that asking the court to rule that the individual has a right to have loaded arms in possession for self-defense at whatever times they chose, based upon the 2nd amendment, is a sound strategy. Although the right has been ruled an individual one, I don't think the court was applying that to self defense as the key.

ConditionThree · Jul 26, 2011

Save Our State said:
How I view the 2nd amendment is mostly irrelevant, The court will not rule based upon my wishes. I don't know that the militia is at the heart of the 2nd amendment either. What I believe is that the 2nd isn't about individual self defense. I don't think that asking the court to rule that the individual has a right to have loaded arms in possession for self-defense at whatever times they chose, based upon the 2nd amendment, is a sound strategy. Although the right has been ruled an individual one, I don't think the court was applying that to self defense as the key.

Now if they were applying the founder's full original intent in their ruling, the discussion would really turn some people'e hair white... because if they did, the application of the right to keep and bear arms to people like you and me would be so that the people would have the means and authority to maintain our liberty all the way up to and including altering and abolishing destructive governments.

Does this interpretation rule out, having arms for personal protection?

I would argue that individuals (being the weakest minority) need the protection of the 2A more- as they are more susceptable to the encroachment of those who enforce the will of the government upon them without due process. If we should be free of oppressive governments and their agents, we ought to be free of those who would deprive us of life, liberty and property as well. It makes no difference whether they have the authority of the government behind them or simply the will to harm another person- you can neither be free or secure if others are imposing themselves upon you.

Save Our State · Jul 26, 2011

ConditionThree said:
Now if they were applying the founder's full original intent in their ruling, the discussion would really turn some people'e hair white... because if they did, the application of the right to keep and bear arms to people like you and me would be so that the people would have the means and authority to maintain our liberty all the way up to and including altering and abolishing destructive governments.

Does this interpretation rule out, having arms for personal protection?

I would argue that individuals (being the weakest minority) need the protection of the 2A more- as they are more susceptable to the encroachment of those who enforce the will of the government upon them without due process. If we should be free of oppressive governments and their agents, we ought to be free of those who would deprive us of life, liberty and property as well. It makes no difference whether they have the authority of the government behind them or simply the will to harm another person- you can neither be free or secure if others are imposing themselves upon you.

I think you were on the right track in the beginning. Does it rule out the other?...not necessarily, but that's not at the center of the right.
Back in them daze the colonists had other hostile forces to contend with. Injuns for one. Individual wars didn't erupt until much later, mostly in the west over water, grazing, and land disputes. Now we have individual wars all over(gangs). Obviously I'd like to see us all able to protect ourselves, but if we attack the 2nd amendment battle with that as our primary argument, I think we're had. If we proceed on the basis of protecting ourselves from the standing army, our chances are much better. After securing that from licensure, privilege, and fee infringements, we can claw our way to individual protection because the anti-gun lobby will have suffered a catostrophic loss that might be a hundred years from overturning. With their back broken like that, I think we can have our way with legislation a lot easier down the line. If we lose or don't secure the basic right to keep, we'll have given the anti's hope that they can win a protracted battle

RetiredOC · Jul 26, 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.

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.

How come these can't be use to support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. They use the word RIGHT. In 2008 the SCOTUS affirmed the RIGHT of individuals to keep and bear arms. That combined with this should mean everyone can bear arms and carry a copy of these rulings on them. Where is that one court ruling talking about licensing and fees for rights?

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran