What's the difference between a RIGHT & a PRIVILEGE to bear arms?


PDA






grndslm
July 1, 2010, 07:12 PM
Just wondering if you guys know the difference between the two words.

If I have the Common Law right to travel, why in the world would I ask the government for permission to travel in my car[riage]??

Likewise... why in the world would I ask the government for permission to protect myself? It's quite clear that I have that RIGHT, according to the Supreme Law of the Land.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the difference between a RIGHT & a PRIVILEGE to bear arms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ash
July 1, 2010, 07:41 PM
You do not have the right to drive a car. You have the right to ride a horse, to walk, or to ride a bicycle. Hence the license for the car.

However, this does lend itself to the question that permits run counter to the 2nd amendment. Precedent should indicate that any license or permit to own a firearm are unconstitutional.

Of course, registration would be perfectly legal...

JellyJar
July 1, 2010, 07:49 PM
A right is a lawful act, something that the law says you may do. In old fashion language privileges and rights are really the same thing. In modern usage ( IMHO ) a privilege is a minor right granted to someone by the government like being able to drive a car on the public right of way, whereas other rights such as freedom or speech etc are considered basic human rights that exist independent of Governments.

Gura et al said in his McDonald brief ( see www.chicagoguncase.com ) that the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US as mention in the first clause of the 14th amendment includes all the rights mentioned in the first 8 amendments to the Constitution as well as all the un-enumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment.

General Geoff
July 1, 2010, 07:51 PM
From Bouvier's 1856:

RIGHT. This word is used in various senses: 1. Sometimes it signifies a law, as when we say that natural right requires us to keep our promises, or that it commands restitution, or that it forbids murder. In our language it is seldom used in this sense. 2. It sometimes means that quality in our actions by which they are denominated just ones. This is usually denominated rectitude. 3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself. Ruth, Inst. c. 2, 1, 2, 3; Merlin,; Repert. de Jurisp. mot Droit. See Wood's Inst. 119.

2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96.

3. Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.

4. But if a poor man ask relief from those from whom he has reason to expect it, the right, which supports his petition, is an imperfect one; because the relief which he expects, is a vague indeterminate, thing. Ruth. Inst. c. 2, 4; Grot. lib. 1, c. 4.

5. Rights are also absolute and qualified. A man has an absolute right to recover property which belongs to him; an agent has a qualified right to recover such property, when it had been entrusted to his care, and which has been unlawfully taken out of his possession. Vide Trover.

6. Rights might with propriety be also divided into natural and civil rights but as all the rights which man has received from nature have been modified and acquired anew from the civil law, it is more proper, when considering their object, to divide them into political and civil rights.

7. Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management of government. These political rights are fixed by the constitution. Every citizen has the right of voting for public officers, and of being elected; these are the political rights which the humblest citizen possesses.

8. Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sen-tence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

9. These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl. 124 to 139.

10. The relative rights are public or private: the first are those which subsist between the people and the government, as the right of protection on the part of the people, and the right of allegiance which is due by the people to the government; the second are the reciprocal rights of hushand and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, aud master and servant.

11. Rights are also divided into legal and equitable. The former are those where the party has the legal title to a thing, and in that case, his remedy for an infringement of it, is by an action in a court of law. Although the person holding the legal title may have no actual interest, but hold only as trustee, the suit must be in his name, and not in general, in that of the cestui que trust. 1 East, 497 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20. The latter, or equitable rights, are those which may be enforced in a court of equity by the cestui que trust. See, generally, Bouv. Ins t. Index, h. t. Remedy.

grndslm
July 1, 2010, 07:52 PM
You do not have the right to drive a car. You have the right to ride a horse, to walk, or to ride a bicycle. Hence the license for the car.

However, this does lend itself to the question that permits run counter to the 2nd amendment. Precedent should indicate that any license or permit to own a firearm are unconstitutional.

Ahem.... why would I drive in a car?? I am not partaking in any commercial activity.

Driving is a commercial activity. If I'm only traveling from my house to my friend's house... why in the world would I need a license? If I want to pick my friend up and take him back to my house, we're merely traveling together... not driving. I'm not a driver, and he's not a passenger; he's a guest!!

It's not logically sound in any way to say that I have the right to walk, bike, & horseback... but not travel in a car. Not in any way, other than the fact that a corporation, known as THE UNITED STATES, told you such a thing so long that you eventually believed it.

=====

It's not that any license or permit to own a firearm is unconstitutional. With the many rights you were granted by your Creator, you were also given the unlimited right to contract. If a corporation wants you to give up your right and turn it into a privilege... and you agree to it... I only feel sorry for you for not reading the documents that create the fictitious entity known as "THE Government".

=====

I'll give you guys a hint.....


CREATOR (AKA: GOD)
\/
DIVINE LAW
\/
NATURAL LAW
\/
COMMON LAW
\/
MEN (AKA: WE THE PEOPLE)
\/
U.S. CONSTITUTION
\/
U.S. GOV'T
\/
U.S. STATUTES
\/
U.S. CITIZENS


A MAN has rights, endowed by his Creator. PEOPLE have rights, endowed by their Creator.

A CITIZEN has privileges, granted by his creator(s). PERSONS have privileges, granted by their creator(s).

Roswell_Kid
July 1, 2010, 07:56 PM
This is a pretty hot subject here in Costa Rica at the moment. The laws here clearly state that firearms ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Basic difference:

RIGHT
Given that you meet the basic requirement of age, you are legally entitled to own a firearm unless you have, through criminal or dangerous anti-social activity, lost that right.

PRIVILEGE (Costa Rica style)
You must meet all criteria which the government may dictate, that is if the government is still of a mind to allow firearms ownership at all. Presently this consists of a written test, shooting test, psychological exam, background checks, fingerprints, photographs, attorney affidavits and plenty of incidental fees. Sounds kind of like like DC... Having secured all documents and meeting all requirements, the Ministry of Public Security's Armas y Explosivos can still, at their whim, deny your application.

God bless the USA.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2010, 07:56 PM
Driving is a commercial activity. If I'm only traveling from my house to my friend's house... why in the world would I need a license?

Drivers licenses are issued by states, not the Federal Government. So you have that difference right off the bat.

The Second Amendment is a Federally protected right, now applied to states as well through MacDonald.

The Bill of Rights is not a recognition of things in common law, they are a recognition of rights given to man by God. That's what the founders intentions were anyway, whether one is religious or not.

Freedom of unlimited travel is not something that was believed to be given by God to man. Freedom of unlimited travel within the borders of the United States is therefore a privilege of citizenship, not a right. Privileges can be licensed, taxed, etc. Privileges can be regulated for all manner of reasons; safety, commerce, etc. Rights can't (or at least shouldn't be).

The ability to vote for example has been deemed a right, which is why poll taxes are gone.

Paying for a gun permit is (logically at least) exactly the same as a poll tax for exactly the same reason; it disenfranchises the poor from exercising a God given right.

Paying for a drivers license isn't the same thing at all.

The social contract between man and government is that we agree to give up some things so that the rule of law can work. The social contract does not require us to give up natural rights, or "civil rights" but it may require us to give up other things, such as driving a car unlicensed and unregulated.

grndslm
July 1, 2010, 08:03 PM
Gura et al said in his McDonald brief ( see www.chicagoguncase.com ) that the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US as mention in the first clause of the 14th amendment includes all the rights mentioned in the first 8 amendments to the Constitution as well as all the un-enumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment.I'm on a whole 'nother thought process right now, JellyJar... but your words did remind me of something else I forgot.

Article IV - The States

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

In itself... that means that if someone in 1 of the states has the "privilege" of open/conceal carry without filing paperwork.... then, by golly, I deserve that privilege as well.

No matter what way you cut it... "We the People" have the right to carry a gun without asking for permission. Of course, this right comes with the duty to uphold Common Law and not pick fights or start other conflicts with our fellow man, our brothers & sisters -- the children of God, Our Father.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2010, 08:07 PM
In itself... that means that if someone in 1 of the states has the "privilege" of open/conceal carry without filing paperwork.... then, by golly, I deserve that privilege as well.

I like the argument :) Never thought of that one before. That's good!

grndslm
July 1, 2010, 08:11 PM
Drivers licenses are issued by states, not the Federal Government. So you have that difference right off the bat.Except that you cannot get a "state-issued" drivers license unless you admit to being a "U.S. Citizen". All states require that you admit that and that you'll follow all traffic devices, stop for police, and of course, you will comply with all field sobriety tests.

You can be a citizen of Mississippi but not a citizen of THE UNITED STATES. It is possible. There are plenty of court cases that prove this (belongs to the issue of free speech -- only you can decide where your citizenship and loyalty lies, similar to how only you can decide you are a smoker or not... even if somebody saw you smoking yesterday and called you a smoker. ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE WHO YOU ARE!!).

In such an instance, this citizen would be committing fraud if he got a drivers license, admitting that he were a U.S. Citizen, when he actually wasn't.

Gungnir
July 1, 2010, 08:34 PM
Except that you cannot get a "state-issued" drivers license unless you admit to being a "U.S. Citizen". All states require that you admit that and that you'll follow all traffic devices, stop for police, and of course, you will comply with all field sobriety tests.

You can be a citizen of Mississippi but not a citizen of THE UNITED STATES. It is possible. There are plenty of court cases that prove this (belongs to the issue of free speech -- only you can decide where your citizenship and loyalty lies, similar to how only you can decide you are a smoker or not... even if somebody saw you smoking yesterday and called you a smoker. ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE WHO YOU ARE!!).

In such an instance, this citizen would be committing fraud if he got a drivers license, admitting that he were a U.S. Citizen, when he actually wasn't.
Sure you can, before I naturalized I had a state issued drivers license. I had it when I was on a temporary work visa, before I had one when I had a Green Card.

You can't be a citizen of Mississippi without being a citizen of the US.
14th Amendment Citizenship clause
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2010, 08:37 PM
Except that you cannot get a "state-issued" drivers license unless you admit to being a "U.S. Citizen"..

You don't have to be a citizen of a state or the US to get a drivers license. Resident aliens get them all the time.

Residency and citizenship are different.

grndslm
July 1, 2010, 10:04 PM
Sure you can, before I naturalized I had a state issued drivers license. I had it when I was on a temporary work visa, before I had one when I had a Green Card.

You can't be a citizen of Mississippi without being a citizen of the US.
14th Amendment Citizenship clause
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.There's several ways you can tackle the 14th amendment issue.

The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War and the country went bankrupt, turning "the united States of America" into a corporation, with the legal name -- THE UNITED STATES. From that point on... anything the "government" did is not de jure (or, of law). They no longer had the people in mind and were only concerned with the bottom line. Nothing past the 13th Amendment is de jure, so it's void ab initio (void from the beginning).

Even if it were valid... the 14th Amendment just grants you dual-citizenship, and it doesn't exactly define what citizenship is, or even what the "United States" is. If you glance over some of the tables and previous court cases found in this PDF, "Why you are a National, State National, and Constitutional, but not Statutory Citizen" (http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf), particularly the table explaining the three meanings of the phrase "United States" (starting @ pages 18/19), you'll realize that a citizen of Mississippi is obviously a member of the united States of America. Even if I were granted citizenship to the 2nd understanding of the United States, the federal government, whose only jurisdiction is D.C. and its territories, possessions (HINT: States are not possessions; states are sovereign! States are not fictitious entities, nor geographical boundaries; states are "We the People"! We the People are sovereign, and not subject to federal jurisdiction until we claim we are U.S. Citizens, consenting to a subservient status that our creation created, all in a CONTRACT! P.S. - How can a creation control it's creator?), alongside my state citizenship... nobody can make me stay a U.S. Citizen forever. And nobody can kick me out of the country for clarifying that I am a National, with allegiance to the people of this country, not the corporation that people think is this country!!! If anything, I'm only fulfilling my duty that comes along with that huge list of God-given, un-a-lien-able rights, which I will claim every day until I'm dead.

But yea... the intent of the 14th amendment was for what? So that slaves could have a safe haven. Also, so that slaves couldn't go out right away and get a gun to kill his owner. Also, so that slaves couldn't go out right away and marry whoever they so choose, of any skin color, because interracial marriages and children would be just hideous.

The 14th Amendment is a crock.

You don't have to be a citizen of a state or the US to get a drivers license. Resident aliens get them all the time.

Residency and citizenship are different.Right you are, on the last part. You should really check out that PDF I linked to above.

But in the vast majority of the states (perhaps all but one or two), you must claim to be a U.S. Citizen to get your license. Take Mississippi's DL application for example -- http://www.dps.state.ms.us/dps/dps.nsf/webpageedit/dlinfo_ApplicationsForms_Application/$FILE/DriversAppliction.pdf -- "Are you a United States Citizen?"

How do you think they'd treat me if I answered no?

Ever since the Restoration... all of the states (i.e. - corporations, such as THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, not to be confused with Mississippi) have claimed to be subservient to THE UNITED STATES.

The people, however, still retain their sovereignty whenever they exercise their rights in the form of a claim. But how can you claim your rights if you don't know them?

hugh damright
July 1, 2010, 10:21 PM
if someone in 1 of the states has the "privilege" of open/conceal carry without filing paperwork.... then, by golly, I deserve that privilege as well.
Article IV, Section 2 means that if you go to another State then they have to treat you as equal in some respects. It doesn't mean that if one State has CCW then it is legal in every State. I don't think CCW is within the scope of the P&I, I think it is considered to be a P&I of State citizenship i.e. varying from State to State as opposed to a P&I of US Citizenship.

JellyJar
July 1, 2010, 10:54 PM
Thinking this over I believe I have found a simple way to explain the difference between rights and privileges.

All rights are lawful acts, if you have the right to do something then you have the right to do that. However, there are two basic types of rights; what we call our basic/constitutional rights and privileges. In the first instance you do not need any permission from any person or government to exercise your basic/constitutional rights. With privileges you need permission either from another person or the government.

Cosmik de Bris
July 1, 2010, 11:15 PM
In our law, a privilege is a right protected by law. In our country laws do not *allow* you to do things, they stop you. We probably have similar roots for our legal systems. We start from the position that everything is allowed and then society decrees that you shouldn't do some things.

Most people think of privilege as being allowed to do something (common language use), whereas in law it is a right protected by the law.

ldcarson
July 1, 2010, 11:19 PM
Hmmmm, last time I checked you do NOT need a licenses to drive a car if you do it on your own property, only required if your on public land. Technically a rich 10 year old could buy a car and drive it on his estate till the cows come home.

grndslm
July 2, 2010, 12:14 AM
Article IV, Section 2 means that if you go to another State then they have to treat you as equal in some respects. It doesn't mean that if one State has CCW then it is legal in every State. I don't think CCW is within the scope of the P&I, I think it is considered to be a P&I of State citizenship i.e. varying from State to State as opposed to a P&I of US Citizenship.You might not think it, but it is. It's written in clear English:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This clause is located in the Supreme Law of the Land. As long as you are standing on land... the government must abide by it. If you say you're a Mississippian, then you're a Mississippian. It's that simple. If I'm currently standing on land in Mississippi, but I like the gun "privilege" statutes (notice how I didn't say laws) better in North Carolina... what's your reasoning, as a gov't official, for not upholding the Supreme Law of the Land?? You cannot prove I'm a resident without my permission. Likewise, you cannot prove I'm not a resident of North Carolina.

At any point where a gov't official steps outside the boundary of the Constitution (to protect and maintain individual rights to life, liberty, property, etc.)... that gov't official is acting unconstitutionally, and obviously, unlawfully. Do not be afraid to call these gov't agents out when they are the ones violating their OATH, which can also be found in the Constitution. Only they are bound by anything.

In our law, a privilege is a right protected by law. In our country laws do not *allow* you to do things, they stop you. We probably have similar roots for our legal systems. We start from the position that everything is allowed and then society decrees that you shouldn't do some things.

Most people think of privilege as being allowed to do something (common language use), whereas in law it is a right protected by the law.Now you're getting somewhere. I have all the rights in the world, until I join your society. So... why in God's name would I remain a part of your society?!?

Everybody will claim that the U.S. is a free society... the freest society, even. Now who will claim that I cannot remain on this land unless I belong to your society? If you did claim the society to work in such a way, it would neither be free, NOR WOULD IT BE A SOCIETY!!

A society is "a group of people, joined by mutual consent, to deliberate for the good of the group".

MUTUAL CONSENT!! Everybody who bitches about how they don't have rights willingly consented to give them up.

I'll go ahead and move along with step 2. What is a statute?

A statute is "a legislated rule of society, given the force of law by the consent of the governed".

Soo... all you have to do is stop consenting, and then these statutes (aka: acts) will not have the force of law over you. Statutes are NOT law!!!

Law applies to every man. Statutes apply only to persons in a society. Get it yet?

Hmmmm, last time I checked you do NOT need a licenses to drive a car if you do it on your own property, only required if your on public land. Technically a rich 10 year old could buy a car and drive it on his estate till the cows come home.That's mostly correct, and a really good start. But who is it, exactly, that owns that public land?? Here's another hint...

"This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me"

Men and women are the creditors for THE UNITED STATES, along with China and some other countries. Laborers are the only true source of any economy in our debt-based system. We are the creditors. The gov't is the debtor.

Every service that the gov't offers you, is for your benefit, is it not??

If the gov't catches you with a pound of weed in your car, then they confiscate ("unlawfully remove your property") it and toss you in jail to eventually go before a judge, who then sentences you to a heavy fine and more time in jail... ALL OF THAT IS A BENEFIT PRIVILEGE FOR YOU!!!

Since you are the creditor, all you have to do is say, "I reserve all my rights, and I waive the benefit privilege."

(if you can remember to say that, FIRST THING, to a judge... you should never have a problem in court)

If you say that the roads belong to the gov't, you're only seeing half the picture. Who owns the gov't? THE PEOPLE!!!

It's not a privilege for me to travel on my own property. IT'S MY GOD-GIVEN, UN-A-LIEN-ABLE RIGHT!!

Sam1911
July 2, 2010, 10:45 AM
This is a lot of fun, but we're pretty far from a practical discussion of legal firearms ownership. I'm not denying (or agreeing with) any of these points, but this is a discussion of political theory, not of gun law under the common usages and understandings of State and Federal law (and the Constitution) as they will be applied for or against a gun owner in today's U.S.

If you want to make a statement, or fall on your sword, trying things like this:
Since you are the creditor, all you have to do is say, "I reserve all my rights, and I waive the benefit privilege." -- more power to you, but that isn't of practical benefit for our members looking to understand and follow the law as it is practiced in the real world today.

If you want to continue this very high-minded discussion, feel free to take it to PMs or to another site. (I recommend www.armedpolitesociety.com.)

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the difference between a RIGHT & a PRIVILEGE to bear arms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!