I am posting this here as not to create a S**t storm over on the PAFOA site.
I have been doing some thinking after the encounter last evening at Dick's (Yes, I know this can be dangerous). The folks that always CC say they are exercising their "Rights" under the Constitutions. I have come to the conclusion that the only thing they are doing is exercising a Government privilege and not a "Right". Once you have to license a "Right" it becomes a revocable privilege because you are asking permission to do something and is revocable to the whims of the licensing authority. When you are applying for a LTCF you are asking permission to carry a firearm
The only true way to exercising your "Rights" on any activity is to do that activity without asking permission from anyone.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have spent 10’s of thousands of dollars on so called memberships to protect my Constitutional Rights over the last 30 or so years and I am tired of it. With the monies I have spent they could have easily been used to defend myself as a test case.
Just something to think about
Ed
U.S. Supreme Court
Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972
Supreme court rules there is no distinguishable difference between a right and a privilege.
From Merriam-Webster Online
privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
right: often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics
There IS a distinguishable difference between a "Right" and a privilege.
A privilege you must ask permission i.e.: license, permit, etc. (ask permission) to engage in an activity which is revocable by the issuing authority.
A "Right" can NOT be revoked by any authority it can only be given up by the individual.
Ed
(12-07-2008 04:36 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]There IS a distinguishable difference between a "Right" and a privilege.
A privilege you must ask permission i.e.: license, permit, etc. (ask permission) to engage in an activity which is revocable by the issuing authority.
A "Right" can NOT be revoked by any authority it can only be given up by the individual.
Ed
Felons 2A rights and right to vote, two examples of a right being revoked. Sadly, even our rights are merely priveliges that can be denied to us for violating the strokes of a legislators pen.
(12-07-2008 04:59 PM)MJFletcher Wrote: [ -> ]Felons 2A rights and right to vote, two examples of a right being revoked. Sadly, even our rights are merely priveliges that can be denied to us for violating the strokes of a legislators pen.
Even felons had their rights restored after they served their punishment until the 1950's or 60's
Pennsylvania: Automatically restored upon release from confinement; felon must register to vote; however, if a felon was not registered to vote at the time of his or her conviction, the felon may need to wait 5 years from the date of release from incarceration in order to vote.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/el...rights.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/faq.php
Ed
(12-07-2008 03:51 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]I am posting this here as not to create a S**t storm over on the PAFOA site.
How DARE you use this forum for part of it's intended purpose!?
(12-07-2008 03:51 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]I have been doing some thinking after the encounter last evening at Dick's (Yes, I know this can be dangerous). The folks that always CC say they are exercising their "Rights" under the Constitutions. I have come to the conclusion that the only thing they are doing is exercising a Government privilege and not a "Right". Once you have to license a "Right" it becomes a revocable privilege because you are asking permission to do something and is revocable to the whims of the licensing authority. When you are applying for a LTCF you are asking permission to carry a firearm
The only true way to exercising your "Rights" on any activity is to do that activity without asking permission from anyone.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have spent 10’s of thousands of dollars on so called memberships to protect my Constitutional Rights over the last 30 or so years and I am tired of it. With the monies I have spent they could have easily been used to defend myself as a test case.
Just something to think about
Ed
I agree completely. To stoke the controversy level a little, are you saying that CC
should be a privilege, or simply that it's been wrongfully turned into one through the progression of our society?
My own (admittedly libertarian) opinion is that I have no issue with free men concealing their weapons without government permission. I certainly don't encourage such actions in today's society because of the serious potential legal repercussions, but philosophically I don't see the problem. Criminals just ignore the law anyway, so what's the point. Further, if we would enact and
apply stricter penalties for crime, there would be no need to stack charges in the hope of arriving at a 'just' sentence.
I'm a member of the NRA, but certainly not their biggest supporter.
That's an issue for another thread, but I bring them up here because of a pet phrase they use: "Right to carry permit". To me, this term is very much an oxymoron, because as you've said, no permission is required to exercise a right. Don't get me wrong, I think the push for 'shall issue' is an important fight, and I'm glad that's the way it is here in Pa., but it still bastardizes the concept of the "right" to carry a firearm.
Even given our state constitution, and recognition that OC is legal (even by many who think it shouldn't be), our current laws regarding "carry in a vehicle" have most certainly infringed on the last and purest form of our right to protect ourselves wherever we go.
(12-07-2008 06:46 PM)gnbrotz Wrote: [ -> ]How DARE you use this forum for part of it's intended purpose!?
Quote:I agree completely. To stoke the controversy level a little, are you saying that CC should be a privilege, or simply that it's been wrongfully turned into one through the progression of our society?
My own (admittedly libertarian) opinion is that I have no issue with free men concealing their weapons without government permission. I certainly don't encourage such actions in today's society because of the serious potential legal repercussions, but philosophically I don't see the problem. Criminals just ignore the law anyway, so what's the point. Further, if we would enact and apply stricter penalties for crime, there would be no need to stack charges in the hope of arriving at a 'just' sentence.
I'm a member of the NRA, but certainly not their biggest supporter. That's an issue for another thread, but I bring them up here because of a pet phrase they use: "Right to carry permit". To me, this term is very much an oxymoron, because as you've said, no permission is required to exercise a right. Don't get me wrong, I think the push for 'shall issue' is an important fight, and I'm glad that's the way it is here in Pa., but it still bastardizes the concept of the "right" to carry a firearm.
Even given our state constitution, and recognition that OC is legal (even by many who think it shouldn't be), our current laws regarding "carry in a vehicle" have most certainly infringed on the last and purest form of our right to protect ourselves wherever we go.
I am not saying any such thing. As a free and sovereign person I can and will carry a firearm or any other device for my own and my family's protection without asking for permission. As that is my "Right" as spelled out in the several Constitutions. I am also wondering what the precedent for constitutionality is of the LCTF and the restrictions placed on it? Is there a PASC decision that affirms the constitutionality or is it just Circuit Court rulings?
What I'm saying is that people CC (I call them CC bigots) claim to support the 2nd Amendment as well as the Pa Constitution yet will not put their ass on the line to really stand by OC'ing while undermining our "Right" to do so. They only support the Freedoms spelled out in the several Constitutions as long as it fits their needs and comfort levels.
I to am a Life member of the NRA but it is not for the purpose of letting them stand for my "Rights", it is to keep my instructor certifications current.
Remember, It is not in the best interest of the NRA to have the issue of the 2nd Amendment settled as they would loose 10's of millions of dollars in revenue from the sheeple who think the NRA is standing up for their “Rights”
Ed
(12-07-2008 07:30 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]I am not saying any such thing. As a free and sovereign person I can and will carry a firearm or any other device for my own and my family's protection without asking for permission. As that is my "Right" as spelled out in the several Constitutions.
I figured as much. Me too.
(12-07-2008 07:30 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]I am also wondering what the precedent for constitutionality is of the LCTF and the restrictions placed on it? Is there a PASC decision that affirms the constitutionality or is it just Circuit Court rulings?
I really don't know. I remember seeing a "
History of LTCF" thread over at PAFOA. I hadn't read it until just now. It's far from a historical primer, but the first dozen posts provide a little insight for someone like me (middle-aged and fairly new to the legal process required to carry a firearm).
(12-07-2008 07:30 PM)edstephan Wrote: [ -> ]What I'm saying is that people CC (I call them CC bigots) claim to support the 2nd Amendment as well as the Pa Constitution yet will not put their ass on the line to really stand by OC'ing while undermining our "Right" to do so. They only support the Freedoms spelled out in the several Constitutions as long as it fits their needs and comfort levels.
I to am a Life member of the NRA but it is not for the purpose of letting them stand for my "Rights", it is to keep my instructor certifications current.
Remember, It is not in the best interest of the NRA to have the issue of the 2nd Amendment settled as they would loose 10's of millions of dollars in revenue from the sheeple who think the NRA is standing up for their “Rights”
Ed
I completely agree with these points too.
(12-07-2008 06:46 PM)gnbrotz Wrote: [ -> ]My own (admittedly libertarian) opinion is that I have no issue with free men concealing their weapons without government permission. I certainly don't encourage such actions in today's society because of the serious potential legal repercussions, but philosophically I don't see the problem. Criminals just ignore the law anyway, so what's the point. Further, if we would enact and apply stricter penalties for crime, there would be no need to stack charges in the hope of arriving at a 'just' sentence.
Exactly. There's no reason to make laws against law abiding citizens. But I think there's no argument with anyone on this board about that. If they would simply enforce the laws that are there, we never would have had to ASK permission for any of our rights. We could saw off the barrel of a shotgun without having to wait for the ATF to say it was ok. We could carry a full-auto silenced with AP rounds OC or CC without having to drop more than 10k to do so. The Pic says it all.
I got no problem with it. I think we should be allowed to as it is our right as our founding fathers intended it. I personally might require all kids under 12 to use a tripod for that heavy of a machine gun tho (not as a law, but my own rule). Every law is a slippery slope. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to live in DC, so they can't make so many laws. Every time they want to hold a meeting to make a new law, everyone has to come in from their own states. I think Hawaii and Alaska would definitely start voting against new laws and discouraging anyone bringing up new ones.
(12-08-2008 10:22 PM)nepawolf Wrote: [ -> ]I got no problem with it. I think we should be allowed to as it is our right as our founding fathers intended it. I personally might require all kids under 12 to use a tripod for that heavy of a machine gun tho (not as a law, but my own rule). Every law is a slippery slope. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to live in DC, so they can't make so many laws. Every time they want to hold a meeting to make a new law, everyone has to come in from their own states. I think Hawaii and Alaska would definitely start voting against new laws and discouraging anyone bringing up new ones.
I hope you meant vermont.
HI is almost as bad as PRNJ........
(12-10-2008 08:19 PM)fingers Wrote: [ -> ] (12-08-2008 10:22 PM)nepawolf Wrote: [ -> ]I got no problem with it. I think we should be allowed to as it is our right as our founding fathers intended it. I personally might require all kids under 12 to use a tripod for that heavy of a machine gun tho (not as a law, but my own rule). Every law is a slippery slope. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to live in DC, so they can't make so many laws. Every time they want to hold a meeting to make a new law, everyone has to come in from their own states. I think Hawaii and Alaska would definitely start voting against new laws and discouraging anyone bringing up new ones.
I hope you meant vermont.
HI is almost as bad as PRNJ........
No I was referring solely to the distance that they'd have to travel to DC for the votes. Sorry, probably should have clarified that originally.
This is the way I see it.
If you need to be issued a license, permit or any other documentation saying that you can do something, then that's considered a privilege. If you can do something without having to first ask if you can, then that is a right.
A LTCF is no different then a DL, both are issued by the state and can be withdrawn anytime an infraction occurs. ie: privilege