Exercising your privilege

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by opaww, Aug 23, 2010.

  1. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    When one has to ask for permission from a governing body then what they are doing is excepting something as a privilege.

    So when a governing body says you must acquire a Firearms Identification Card (sometimes referred to as a FOID), You are asking permission to exercise your privilege and not your right.

    Firearms ownership is a right not a privilege, but many towns, counties, states, and federal governing bodies are turning it into a privilege. How? By requiring you at ask for permission through a CCWP, FOID, or some other permission slip to buy, posses, use, firearms and/or ammunition. We can even take this further by saying that any competence test required before you receive permission to exercise your right to have a firearm is actually permission to exercise your privilege.

    This does not mean you fully support the turning of a right into a privilege, but unless people stand up to the anti-gunners and demand it be changed back to a full right, we will have to go along with it being perverted into a privilege.

    Now to piss in someone else’s bowl of wheaties, hunting is not a right. It is a privilege how one may ask? And yes you may ask. Because you have to ask permission to hunt, (Hunting License). So next time a hunter says we don’t need Assault Rifles and they should be banned, then tell him/ her that hunting is not a right so they should give up hunting.

    opaww
     
  2. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    You're right! After 40 years of "You can't fight City Hall" attitudes, we're finally starting to make an attempt at getting our rights back.

    And it ain't going to be easy!!!:mad:
     

  3. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    I'm lucky I realized this at my young age.
     
  4. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    SPOKEN FOR TRUTH Opaww

    WE MUST KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!
     
  5. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    Well said opaww, but it's an uphill battle.
     
  6. fastbandit

    fastbandit New Member

    4
    0
    0
    Hello All.
    It is a up hill battle, the problem is the younger generation has been brain washed to think guns are bad, fathers dont take the time like they use too and take their sons or daughters out and hunt, the govt has been trying to brain wash the younger crowd that guns are bad, it is really sad that we have to fight for something that should be ours to begin with. the longer we sit quite the more the govt will take away and we have ourselves to blame if we dont stand up and voice our thoughts.

    fastbandit
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    I would argue that hunting is a right inasmuch as gathering food in order to stay alive is a right. You don't have a right to take someone else's food or shoot their livestock, but from a purist's perspective you certainly have a right to hunt on your land or public land.

    Great post, Opaww. You're correct -- when we have to pay a fee to get a permission slip to exercise our "rights", they have turned into privileges that can be denied. That doesn't flush with me.
     
  8. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    As far as I'm concerned, all laws restricting the ownership of firearms is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment says " . . . shall not be infringed" and yet laws like this do just that. Change them? LOL! Hell no you ain't never going to get them changed, gut use to it subject for you lost your rights long time ago. :eek:
     
  9. MrGrumpy89

    MrGrumpy89 Member

    52
    0
    6
    I completly agree with kimber45. all laws agaist firearms is an infringment. having to pay for a ccw is an infringment. The right to bear arms? guess the government thinks it's a privlege.
     
  10. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    It is very true it has turned into a privilege. I think many of these gun laws are sold in the name of safety. In Illinois you have to have a FOID card to purchase or possess guns. With Chicago and East St Louis having as many violent episodes as they do, the average person is led to believe that type of thing is a good idea. They are told that the requirement of a FOID card will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The same with cpl's. The public is told that the requirement of a cpl to carry a concealed pistol will stop criminals from getting guns and thus everyone will be safer. We here at FirearmsTalk know that is not true. John Q. Public however, is still in the dark.

    Chicago's handgun ban has been ruled unconstitutional and what was the first thing that came out of Daleys mouth....keeping Chicago safe. Despite the fact that since 1982, when the handgun ban took place, Chicago has seen thousands of shootings, some committed with shotguns and assault rifles, but the most with handguns. How has a handgun ban made Chicago any safer? It hasn't. After 28 years of a handgun ban, are we supposed to believe things will magically get better in year 29 or year 30? Just give the handgun ban time to work, right?

    We have laws against drunk driving, yet we dont ban cars or alcohol in the name of public safety. I drive a car way more than I fire a gun, so if I was to kill someone, it would probably be by hitting them with a car. Most people drive cars more than they shoot guns, yet cars arent banned. We dont say only police or military can drive cars that are past a certain horsepower. We just enforce laws against drunk driving.

    All that public safety crap is nonsense. The police job is to enforce the law, not act as personal bodyguards for private citizens. There is no law that requires a cop to personally protect you. And they know that. Here in Michigan you will get a minimum of 2 years in prison or a $2500 fine if convicted of carrying a concealed pistol at trial, no matter what your reason. If you don't have that ID card from the state of Michigan that gives you permission to carry a concealed pistol, you've committed a felony. No in between. It doesnt matter how many times you've been raped, robbed, or assaulted and how many times the police have failed to prevent it.

    However, I must admit, here in MI, they have taken a step in the right direction. Prior to 2001, we used to be a may issue state, now we are a shall issue. However, we need to be a constitutional carry state. Not only do we have the U.S. constitution, we also have the Michigan constitution which gives the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self and state.

    People need to quit falling for this public safety nonsense that falsely leads them to believe that they are safe because a new gun control law was passed.
     
  11. Eastex_Guns

    Eastex_Guns New Member

    25
    0
    0
    I'm not in disagreement with your statement, but I do disagree with your belief that making application to carry a concealed weapon is asking permission.

    The law here in Texas is quite clear. The state SHALL ISSUE a permit to those that are not disqualified. There is no question. The state cannot deny a permit arbitrarily. To be denied you must meet one of the disqualifying factors. Otherwise the state is going to issue the permit.

    Payment does not constitute asking permission either. Payment merely meets the administrative costs involved. Otherwise taxes would have to pay the costs involved.

    Not much different than getting a drivers license.


    But, I do agree there are some laws still highly restrictive and bordering on unconstitutional, and some down right unconstitutional.
     
  12. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    Well in that case, whats wrong with constitutional carry? Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona have it and it seems to work there. If the purpose of a cpl wasn't to ask permission, shouldnt they just have constitutional carry, that would cut the administrative costs and the only cost would involve buying the gun.
     
  13. Eastex_Guns

    Eastex_Guns New Member

    25
    0
    0
    I don't particularly disagree with open carry. I actually feel safer knowing that some amount of proficiency is graded when someone obtains a carry permit. I believe that 'friendly fire' is a real possibility either way, but would be more so with open carry, unless some proficiency is demonstrated with that as well.
     
  14. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    Open carry is different from constitutional carry. Open carry is carrying your pistol in a visible manner. Constitutional carry is the right to carry your pistol concealed or openly without a government license or permit. Those states that allow constitutional carry have cpl systems, but they are optional not required to carry a concealed pistol.
     
  15. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    1,601
    0
    0
    I respectfully disagree with much of your statement.

    First, ANY PERMIT is an INFRINGEMENT of a RIGHT that we all have, we are not granted this right by the government, therefore it cannot be taken away by the government, if it could then it would be a PRIVLEDGE and not a right!
    The only "qualification" to the right is to be alive and an American Citizen. If an individual is convicted of violent crimes with a firearm, well they STILL have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms! The only thing is they don't have access to them because they should be locked away or get the deep six!
    This is VERY different than a drivers license, driving is a privledge, not a right acknowledged by the Constitution. Fees for "permits" are just a tax. It is illeagal to put a tax on a right that is constitutionally acknowledged.
    As Clip11 stated, the gun controllers try to play it off as a safety issue, it is not and never has been about safety. It is ONLY about CONTROL!! An unarmed populace is easier to control than an armed one, and control is what our government has become all about.
     
  16. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    This statement contradicts itself. BEcause there are ways to disqualify it's is not a shall issue. It's a shall issue as long as you meet standards set by people that believe you are not smart enough to make a decision on this matter without their assistance.

    Until someone can tell me honestly that they know that every permit holder in every state that requires some form of qualification actually adheres to those standards. I'll bet you know at least one person that obtained a carry permit that probably shout be walking around with a loaded weapon on their person. A test is a test. Know the material and you can pass it. Think about it.One mall ninja or just flat out idiot that has a permit. I know a few just in my little corner of the country. But still have permission from the state to have a weapon on their person. So there is not much real argument to be made for laws controlling carrying a weapon.

    And what about the states that do not require a permission slip from big daddy government to carry concealed? Are there more gun crimes in Vermont? Alaska?I wont talk about Az. yet because it's still too new. But I can't see any failure in states allowing Constitutional Carry. Unless we are willing to say there are too many people that can own a weapon legally but they are just too dang stupid to be allowed to hide it on their person. I'm not willing to make that statement. To me to do so means I"m willing to curtail another citizens rights.

    Now don't get me wrong....I'm all for getting training and to keep up training to stay sharp. And for the most part I see that from anyone that does carry. Most take the responsibility very serious and they should! But just like those with an advanced degree in stupid that have found a way to pass the requirements now there will be some without the laws.

    A right is a right...period. And as the piece of paper says...Shall not be infringed. As long as we are willing to allow those that believe we need saved from ourselves to ration our rights to us we will be controlled by the very people we hire to do the work for us. I don't know but it seems a little bas-akward to have the employee telling the boss what to do.
     
  17. MrGrumpy89

    MrGrumpy89 Member

    52
    0
    6
    But what makes me mad is that you have to pay for a ccw permit. I don't know how it is in Texas but here in missouri you have to be at least 23, take a class which cost money, apply which cost money, then pay for your permit which cost money. So paying for a right? maybe appling could be ok, but paying? do you have to pay for the right to free speech or freedom of religon? I think you should not have to pay for a right, which would make having to pay a dime for a ccw unconstitutional.
     
  18. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    What disqualifying characteristics are listed in the Texas State Constitution about owning and carrying firearms? If they spell it out, then fine -- I have no problem with whatever they do. But if they don't say that convicted felons, folks up on felony charges, folks unwillingly committed to mental institutions, etc. don't have this right, then they most certainly do have this right.

    Up here in Monroe County in New York, you have to get two passport photos, get fingerprinted, and submit the application. By the time you're done with travel expenses and everything, you're looking at nearly $200. That's one heck of a "fee". It costs that much to be a deterrent, not because processing the paperwork costs that much. And you don't need to take any class proving your proficiency.

    After you submit your application with four references, you can sit back and wait up to a year or more to find out if you may carry concealed (which is the only way you're allowed to carry in NYS).

    Different states have different laws, and that's fine. But if your state constitution acknowledges you have a right to own and carry arms, then that's a done deal and state legislators can't go tacking on qualifying legislation that steps on people's rights.

    That's an entirely different animal.

    Once 2A is acknowledged as being incorporated against the states, all gun control laws become illegal. Period.

    There is no room for "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions. If the law you live under understands that it's your right, knock yourself out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2010
  19. k2000k

    k2000k New Member

    79
    0
    0
    Hearing what you have to go through in New York to get a CCW makes me glad the Washington state hasn't completely gone down the drain. It was a relatively painless trip to the courthouse that involved a payment of $55, a background check, fingerprinting, and my signature. What does make me frustrated is that I had to wait nearly three months for my permit in King County, but a friend of mine in a different county got his in 7 days.