Why do you feel the need to ask the govt for permission to defend your life?


PDA






Drjones
May 16, 2003, 03:02 PM
Well?

I always hear people saying, "Well, we can't carry in National Parks" or, "we can't carry in restaurants" or whatever. (This of course is barring the obvious: I can fully understand avoiding metal detectors and the like)

Concealed means concealed the last time I checked, and the only gun law that means a thing to me is the Second Amendment.

I've become an absolutist on this matter.

Anyone else?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you feel the need to ask the govt for permission to defend your life?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longeyes
May 16, 2003, 03:08 PM
Those who say don't know, those who know don't say.:)

sonny
May 16, 2003, 03:10 PM
Doc,
That's a loaded question and I think you know it.We as citizens weigh out the options ,pros and cons and make decisions.
Often we have more to lose than to gain in any given situation,In spirit I'm with you.....but sometimes spirit will land you in the big house and leave your family in need.......decide for yourself ...I admire your spunk!

Drjones
May 16, 2003, 03:17 PM
That's a loaded question and I think you know it. Pun intended?

What caliber? ;)

Yeah, I can definitely see how it is a loaded question... sorry!

SADshooter
May 16, 2003, 03:32 PM
Two points from my perspective:

1) Convenience. Having a CHL after a justifiable shooting will (hopefully) make dealing with the aftermath easier (no illegal posssession charges, etc.)

2) Acculturation. I understand that this cuts both ways, but govt/antis have put us in the situation we face today by demonizing firearms and gunowners. By presenting ourselves as law-abiding, responsible citizens, we stand a better chance of turning the debate around and returning firearms to their place as acceptable, necessary tools instead of evil incarnate.

That being said, I agree with you, and if a discussion warrants, I'll say so. CHL/CCW is a compromise of my absolute God-given rights. Then again, not having one seems an ineffectual form of protest, given that I don't drive without my driver's license or proper insurance.

Baby steps.

Poodleshooter
May 16, 2003, 03:41 PM
As a theoretical matter, I should not need to ask for government permission to carry.
However, as a practical matter, the will of the majority of the people in the United States (my state, my city,etc) dictates that anyone who fails to obtain a permit,and carries a handgun, will be arrested and detained. Unwillingness to comply with the will of the people, is seen as hostility towards the will of the people, and is suppressed by force of arms per the laws generated from the will of the people. In order to avoid this hassle, I get a permit.
You "have" rights, however in many cases, your philosophical "right" to exercise your rights is taken away by your neighbors at the polls. They sacrifice your freedom for their safety. They have the power, if not the philosophical right, to do so.

oldfart
May 16, 2003, 03:43 PM
"Then again, not having one seems an ineffectual form of protest, given that I don't drive without my driver's license or proper insurance."
(SADshooter)

But there is no mention in the Constitution of either driving or insurance. While the loss of either of those might be an inconvenience, the loss of your life could (should?) be of_more consequence.

SADshooter
May 16, 2003, 03:56 PM
oldfart:

I agree. My obtaining a CHL is an expedient. That doesn't mean I won't take steps to protect me and mine without governmental permission. It just gives me better leverage in persuading people who think the U.S. Constitution is a ship.

Gordon Fink
May 16, 2003, 04:03 PM
Strati, if I were you and carried “illegally,” especially in a state like California, I would be very careful not to advertise that fact in on-line discussion forums.

I agree with you that we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, that right has been widely suppressed. Until we achieve a truly free society, I would still opt for the get-out-of-jail-free card whenever possible, however immoral and unconstitutional CCW permits may be.

~G. Fink

SemperFi83
May 16, 2003, 04:04 PM
Yup

whoami
May 16, 2003, 04:36 PM
I always hear people saying, "Well, we can't carry in National Parks" or, "we can't carry in restaurants" or whatever. (This of course is barring the obvious: I can fully understand avoiding metal detectors and the like)

Concealed means concealed the last time I checked, and the only gun law that means a thing to me is the Second Amendment.

I've become an absolutist on this matter.

Anyone else?

I always get a chuckle when this comes around. But even before that.....it's funny. There seems to be this striving to put ourselves forth as a upstanding and respectable people, but this seems to be one of the advocacies that gets a slight pass. I don't think I'll ever find the concrete line deliniating advocating the violation of which laws is considered being 'absolutist', and the violation of which laws is considered being 'evil drunken skinhead miltia nutcase'.

Every man or woman needs to balance things out based on the lay of the land. For me its simple. Read posts on a gun board about getting 'painted' when carrying concealed. If you think it will 'never happen to you', well....you know what they say about assumptions. Well, round where I am getting painted means five years in the cooler, at least 10k in fines, and say bye bye to ever owning a gun again for the rest of your life. Is it worth that? I opt to defend myself with what means I can devise that are still within the bounds of legality. So that if, and I pray this does not occur, I am forced to defend myself I will be able to be judged by six and not end up sharing a cell with 'bubba' for the next 5-10 years for a raft of criminal charges that WILL be laid down and of which a jury WILL find me guilty.

Art Eatman
May 16, 2003, 05:30 PM
whoami, I follow your point which derives from "There seems to be this striving to put ourselves forth as a upstanding and respectable people, but this seems to be one of the advocacies that gets a slight pass."

The problem is that the normal deal for most folks in "upstanding and respectable" doesn't involve self defense and the issue of living or dying.

As a generality, traffic laws aren't particularly out of line. I have no difficulty in making sure my checks will clear. I don't lie, cheat nor steal. Easy enough to not start fights or beat my wife. Easy enough to do a good day's work for a day's pay. All that sort of daily living in a style which is upstanding and respectable.

The problem is that the vast body of law concerning guns and self-defense is loaded against those who are upstanding and respectable.

"Slight pass"? My top priority is the survival of me and mine. Selah.

Art

shooten
May 16, 2003, 05:43 PM
I've become an absolutist on this matter.

Anyone else?
Absolutely! I find it interesting that anyone could interpret "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any other way. People want to take our guns away because they're afraid of criminals with guns. They would be much less afraid if they could exercise their own right to keep and bear. They would value it too.

Scott :banghead:

rrader
May 16, 2003, 06:25 PM
Sorry:

Edited to remove bogus quote that Thomas Jefferson never made.



Here's a real one:

"There is no shortage of bogus crap on the internet"

rrader, May 17, 2003.

Pendragon
May 16, 2003, 07:59 PM
So as an absolutist, I presume you are willing to resist arrest for illegal CCW - up to the point of death?

Gordon Fink
May 16, 2003, 08:26 PM
Rrader, interesting “quote” from Jefferson. Can you provide us with a citation? I find it somewhat odd that, in 1824, Jefferson would have mentioned a knife that didn’t become associated with Jim Bowie until almost a decade later.

~G. Fink

Pendragon
May 16, 2003, 09:07 PM
The whole time I was thinking - why dont the Antis pitch this out when they oppose CCW reform...?

HBK
May 16, 2003, 09:28 PM
I agree with Jones, to a point. I think the 2nd ammendment is pretty clear, but I think hell will freeze before it is interpreted as our forefathers intended.

Soap
May 16, 2003, 10:48 PM
If one is not concerned with violating the law, one may do whatever they please so long as it doesn't harm others right to life or property.

rrader
May 16, 2003, 10:48 PM
Gordon Fink:

Sorry, I should have checked that before posting it. I have deleted the earlier post. It isn't a quote from Jefferson, but instead is a bad cut and paste out of:

The Handbook of American Constitutional Law, by HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A., Author of Black’s Law Dictionary, and of Treatises on judgments, Tax Titles, Constitutional Prohibitions, Etc., ST. PAUL, MINN., WEST PUBLISHING. CO., 1895

*************************************************
From: CHAPTER I: DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS:

144. The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms.

[SAF Note: This is very similar to the following quote:

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; ... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. see more Founders' Quotes HERE]

<<Black's commentary begins here, not Jeffersons-- rrader>>

This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be denied or infringed by congress or the other departments of the national government. The amendment is no restriction upon the power of the several states.[33] Hence, unless restrained by their own constitutions, the state legislatures may enact laws to control and regulate all military organizations, and the drilling and parading of military bodies and associations, except those which are authorized by the militia laws or the laws of the United States.[34] The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier. They do not include dirks, bowie knives, and such other weapons as are used in brawls, fights, and riots. The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance.[35] And a statute providing that a homicide which would ordinarily be manslaughter shall be deemed murder if committed with a bowie knife or a dagger, is valid. It does not tend to restrict the right of the citizen to bear arms for lawful purposes, but only punishes a particular abuse of that right.[36] This right is not infringed by a state law prohibiting the [Page 404] carrying of concealed deadly weapons. Such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals.[37] But a law which should prohibit the wearing of military weapons openly upon the person, would be unconstitutional.[38]
[33]. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165.
[34]. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580.
[35]. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473.
[36]. Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394.
[37]. State v. Wilforth. 74 Mo. 528; Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564; Wright v. Com., 77 Pa. St. 470; State v. Speller, 86 N. C. 697.
[38]. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly (Ga.) 243.

***********************************************
Here's a link to the text of Jefferson's letter to Cartwright:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl278.htm

Sorry for the confusion, the text I quoted was from Black, not Jefferson.

You are right, the Bowie knife wasn't invented untill ~1831.

sonny
May 16, 2003, 11:23 PM
The main problem that I see many times in cases like this is that people do not do enough within the law to assure themselves safety.
Common sense rules in all but a very few circumstances.
#1 beware of your surroundings and if you don't feel safe get the hell out of there.
#2 learn to fight with your hands and other "legal" weapons,I mean it....there is more than meets the eye when I say that.
Confidence shows ...I don't mean cockiness.......I can't tell you how many times I've been in a bad neihborhood and I mean bad
someone will say mockingly "how ya doin officer" and I just look at em an laugh.
#3 have you ever been in jail?.....do you realize the horror that it is.
#4 Why am I listing this stuff by numbers? :confused:

I don't know,but my point is to weigh out the risks realisticly and make your choices.....good luck and think about it.....especially the prison part

Marko Kloos
May 16, 2003, 11:29 PM
Why do you feel the need to ask the govt for permission to defend your life?

I don't, and I don't.

I do obtain a permit whenever I can, to reduce the likelihood of being incarcerated for exercising my constitutional right.

However, I wouldn't lose much sleep if all carry permits were revoked nationwide tomorrow...it wouldn't change my habits one bit.

Ryder
May 17, 2003, 05:54 AM
I've got the permit. It has some benefits, it's not all bad.

I've got a couple warnings for speeding after showing my permit in a must disclose state. I hear this happens frequently. The permit has easily paid for itself in that regard. Not that I expect warnings, I've paid for many a speeding ticket in the past, it's just the cost of freedom and is of little consequence to me. I guess that they warn me after seeing the permit so they can get on to doing more important police business figuring they've better things to do than hassle an honest citizen. The permit helps to certify you as honest in their eyes. The background search is extensive. A speeding stop is more often than not a fishing trip for the police, it is their justification for pulling people over to look for things more serious. Like warrants!

Yes there are some very stiff maximum penalties for illegal carry but that doesn't mean they are automatically dished out. Judges are fairly reasonable people in my experience. Assuming you are an honest person who would be eligible for a permit anyway you may get probation. It depends on a lot of things. The judges temperment, how many lies the police tell, additional charges, your previous record, intent, how good your lawyer is, your relation to the judge or prosecutor, etc...

IF you do get caught it's going to make it quite a bit more difficult to get a permit in the future. Choose wisely. Peace of mind comes with that little card. It is better to bend than to break in a strong wind. Why protect yourself against criminals yet open yourself up to police subjection? They are both a danger to you. I recommend full coverage. :D

No carry zone have little meaning to me. I am an absolutist about boycotting those places.

txgolfer45
May 17, 2003, 05:24 PM
Interesting thread... Not being a lawyer......

If the Constitution or amendments to the Constitution express a right such as to keep and bear arms, are laws that infringe on those rights really enforceable? Especially since changing those rights is only possible through additional amendments.

Scott

Sir Galahad
May 17, 2003, 06:01 PM
In many cases, the law is an ???. Now, to that weight to which we give "The Law", we ought to also bear in mind that "The Law" at one time made it a crime to aid runaway slaves. Those running the "Underground Railroad" were breaking the law. These days, we see those people as fighters for human rights. The Law in many states says it is illegal to have a regular poker game in your home with high stakes (yet one can play the at the government's faro table and play lottery with all the money they care to wager.) Why? The Law says people cannot use or possess marijuana; a flowering plant (yet one can possess and grow datura.) Why? The problem is the ease by which laws are passed. Laws that in the stroke of a pen creates whole new classes of felons where none existed prior. Some politicians raise the issue of something they deem "bad", hystericize it with no scientific data (or they use junk science), get the masses whipped up, then pass bad laws that soon become yet another burdensome wain which the people must be yoked to.

Tamara
May 17, 2003, 06:21 PM
;)

Nightfall
May 19, 2003, 01:40 PM
Why do I walk around unarmed, and much less prepared to defend myself or those around me should the need arise?

Because, though I'm old enough to drive a few thousand pounds of metal at high speeds only a few feet away from other people, though I can go to war and die for my country, though the government considers me an adult, and though I have not so much as a traffic ticket in my entire life... I'm not old enough to carry an evil wittle handgun legally. :rolleyes:

That said, why do I obey this law? Quite simple. If I get caught, my entire life is probably ruined. I dunno about you, but there really is no way for me to go about my own way obeying the only absolute gun law (the 2nd), and be ready to fight off a hundred Agents as they come to drag me away to prison for who knows how long, with monetary losses and a record following me around forever. This isn't the Matrix, after all. :p

On the flip side, this leaves those around me and myself at danger as undefended. So I compromise, and stay out of those situations most likely to present those circumstances I can't respond to adequately.

Bad solution, I know...

Oleg Volk
May 19, 2003, 03:23 PM
Following even an evil law whenever practical reduces the probability of having to get into combat against JBTs at the time not of your choosing. The definition of practical varies so much that it is up to you to figure out the specifics.

If the stakes of carrying illegally are too high, move to a locale where carrying is legal. If you can't, then you just might have to weigh the risks and hope that you either don't get caught or that you can fight your way out of being caught in court or by other means.

anchored
May 19, 2003, 03:50 PM
If you're willing to act criminally on any point of the gun control laws, then no, the 2nd amendment doesn't mean anything to you either. It's called a society, and societies have rules, and rules for making rules. Personally, I obey the laws because they're there. Professionally, I do so because I took an oath to do so, but had I not, I'd still follow my personal mores. If there's a place where I'm not allowed to carry, and I'm unconfortable going tehre without protection, I don't go there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you feel the need to ask the govt for permission to defend your life?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!