[suijurisfreeman]

Do you exercise your 'right' to keep and bear arms, or is it a 'licensed privilege' for you? Personally I believe that the right of self-defense is probably one of the most fundamental rights of a free Human Being, and I exercise it as a right on a daily basis! How about you, is it a 'right' or a 'licensed privilege'?

[Graystar]

The problem with a question like that is that you are talking about several concepts, each of which needs to be clarified and understood BEFORE you can ask a question that relates those concepts together. There are four concepts you introduced…

Right to self-defense
Right to possess a firearm for self-defense
Right to keep and bear arms
Licensing

We have a right to self-defense because we are alive. That’s pretty basic and applies to all living beings. That is a natural right.

We have a right to possess a firearm for self-defense because it is the best form of self-defense available. It provides a means of self-defense to every person on the planet regardless of size and stature, and regardless of whether you live on a deserted island or as part of a society. This is a fundamental right.

We have a right to keep and bear arms. This right is an extension of our right to possess firearms for self-defense. It means that, as a society, we can come together and fight side by side to meet the enemy. This is a societal right, as it has no meaning on an individual basis. Also, such a right is also part obligation. That is why the Founding Fathers considered language in the 2nd Amendment to the effect of people having to find a replacement for themselves if they had a religious objection to fighting. That language was ultimately rejected as unnecessary, but the underlying concept of obligation still exists. That is why a draft can be legal.

Licensing conveys a privilege upon meeting some requirement. However, licensing is a little more than that. When cars were first invented, you didn’t need a driver’s license. The driver’s license came about when the state was called upon to do some about all the people getting hurt in car accidents. Then, licensing became necessary to protect the rights of people. Generally, that is the reason for a license or permit to be issued. A permit to have a parade on Main Street is permission to violate others’ right to use Main Street, for a specific amount of time. The people, through their elected officials, have decided that allowing such violations is beneficial to the community. And so a permit system is created and the violations allowed in a controlled fashion.

So how do these relate? I believe that while non of the three rights listed above can be infringed upon, any act can be regulated by licensing IF, and only if, it is required for the protection of the rights of others.

At this time, I see no evidence that licensing of firearms protects the public in any way whatsoever.

So to answer your question, I believe that the carrying a firearm for protection is an exercise of my right, even if I needed a license to do so, as I believe the license to be a check, deemed necessary for the protection of others’ rights.

But as I said, currently I don’t see any way that carrying a firearm violates others rights. Some might suggests that training is required, but I don’t believe that to be true because your own character will determine whether you use a gun responsibly, not some 3 hour training course. And no amount of training can prepare you for the moment when you must defend yourself, certainly not some rinky dinky 2, 3 or 5 hr course.

[Art Eatman]

I have a strong belief that CHL is a violation of the constitutional right to be armed if one feels the need.

Howsomever, since I'd just as soon not go bankrupt in the court costs of pursuing my belief, I go along with the game. I've noticed that efforts to excercise a right, rather than accept it as a privilege, can get one in serious trouble with the community at large, and the badges in particular...

It seems to me to be shameful that in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you first must break that law and put yourself at physical risk. It seems to me that if you think a law is unconstitutional and have the money, you could just walk in to state or federal court and file suit to challenge.

Art

[Graystar]

It seems to me to be shameful that in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you first must break that law and put yourself at physical risk. I'm hoping that the courts are changing their view of this. In the recent Gratz vs. Bollinger decision, the Supreme Court found:

The Court rejects JUSTICE STEVENS’ contention that, because
Hamacher did not actually apply for admission as a transfer student,
his future injury claim is at best conjectural or hypothetical rather
than real and immediate. The “injury in fact” necessary to establish
standing in this type of case is the denial of equal treatment resulting
from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain
the benefit. So here we see the court finding standing in an *imposition of a barrier*. So one could argue that a law that denies firearm possession or concealed carry should be viewed the same way.

[geekWithA.45]

Very long story short:

It is right inherent in our existence that is currently under infringement by our government.

Such infringement goes well beyond what is morally and ethically permissable.

I choose, for the time being, to obey these "laws" for pragmatic reasons without predjudice while reserving the right keep and bear arms as I see fit should my considered judgement lead me to believe it is necessary to do so for any of a number of morally and ethically legitimate reasons.

[Standing Wolf]

I choose, for the time being, to obey these "laws" for pragmatic reasons without predjudice while reserving the right keep and bear arms as I see fit should my considered judgement lead me to believe it is necessary to do so for any of a number of morally and ethically legitimate reasons.

That's well said!

[Ed Brunner]

If I pragmatically obtain a license to carry, will this work against me when I later allege that such a requirement is an infringement?

[suijurisfreeman]

When my number 2 son wanted my help with 'Constructive Notice' (perhaps will be changed to Actual Notice!) which states that he was carrying a weapon in the open that is protected by Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1, Number 7, I had to tell him that I couldn't. Why? Because he already had a CCW issued to him from the State of Indiana. I personally don't believe that you can ask permission (obtain a license, permit) to do something that you already have a right to do and then state that you are in fact exercising a right without first revoking the license, permit! To me you're either exercising the rights of a free Human Being or you're asking permission from government to go about life's daily activities. I made my choice 10 years ago, I'll never go back to asking permission again!

I kinda view myself as another Johnny Appleseed, planting seeds today for tomorrow's apple harvest! :evil:

[TamThompson]

Good thread topic. It's quite a quagmire for me.

On the one hand, I believe that the 2nd amendment codifies a natural right to not only defend, but to own, carry, and use firearms if necessary. I agree with others that I probably shouldn't *have* to ask the government's position and have them vet me with a CHL to carry. I've read horror stories about gun owners/dealers who've committed minor infractions and had their rights to own firearms PERMANENTLY taken away, which I view as unduly harsh and a possible death sentence.

On the other hand, I can see the logic in denying access to firearms to people who are mentally unstable (which, admittedly, is one of those where-do-you-draw-the-line things), alcohol/drug abusing, criminal, or who are young children (or known terrorists.)

On yet another hand (my third!), it should be obvious to all that the gun control we have in place right now, which is quite strict in Chicago, Illinois, does not work. In fact, in the recent Chicago shooting, it failed spectacularly on all three levels: local, state, and federa.

If I knew how to reconcile all this, I'd be in politics, but I don't.

One question I have: how on earth did the cities of Chicago and New York manage to ban handgun ownership in the first place, or are the residents allowed to own them in their own homes? I think any out-and-out ban of handguns, or all guns, clearly violates the 2nd Amendment. How did they do this?

[WAGCEVP]

The 2A is our basic fundamental human RIGHT to defend our lives, property AND freedom ---- UNINFRINGED! basic fundamental human RIGHT

[Roper]

I carry , I have no ccw. I just don't have the stones to carry open,yet.

[Art Eatman]

Tam, ever read "The Anti-Federalist Papers"?

Your comment, "On the other hand, I can see the logic in denying access to firearms to people who are mentally unstable (which, admittedly, is one of those where-do-you-draw-the-line things), alcohol/drug abusing, criminal, or who are young children (or known terrorists.)" is almost directly taken from those 1790s writings.

The line I recall is (roughly) that bearing of arms would be denied to "the insane, or those of ill repute". Ill repute, of course, meant those whose reputations were bad due to criminal activity. Near as I can tell, common sense and community values ruled the day.

Common sense ain't real common, nowadays...

Art