Second Amendment purist vs. me. Who's right?

[Monkeyleg]

Since the CCW fight has heated up here in WI, I've been getting a ton of emails. Most are encouraging, but occasionally I get one along the lines of the one below, one of three that the author has sent to me. Many years back, when my brother got his PA permit, I viewed the issue along the same lines of the writer below. Now my perspective has changed, at least for the moment. The reason my position has changed, I guess, is that I now view our chances of having legal concealed carry as extremely possible. It would be refreshing to not have heart palpitations every time I hear a siren.

Please read his email to me, and my response. I'd be very interested in hearing opinions from all sides.

His email:

> You make no sense at all you are happy about giving up your birth right
> for a permit proccess that can be taken away from you at any time. You
> don't understand when you sign on to that permit proccess you waive your
> right to the second amendment. You are saying that you would rather
> have a permit than your birth right to the second amendment. Tell me
> which one do you want to give up next. You make no sense at all you have
> all been brain washed by the biggest gun grabbing folks in this country
> the NRA. When have they ever taken a law off the books? You better hope
> that Doyle vetoes this bill or we are all in a lot of hot water.


My response:

Robert, I'm afraid that you and I can't seriously debate your point anymore. I agree with your position 100%. However, from a practical viewpoint, your position is untenable.

If you are willing to go out in pubic, carrying concealed, get arrested, get an attorney who is willing to challenge your case in the state supreme court on the grounds of our recently-passed RKBA amendment, and who can make a more compelling case than did the NRA attorneys in state vs. Hamdan, then I will ask our group to contribute every dollar possible to your case.

The chances of your case getting past a state appellate court are, at best, slim.

Our chances of getting shall-issue concealed carry are entirely in the political arena. Our chances of getting true Second Amendment "Vermont-style" carry are also in the political arena.

One comes before the other.

Yours is not the only email I've received where the writer said that we have a right under the Second to carry in any manner in which we choose. And I agree with all of those writers, including you.

If you're willing to give up a good part of your life behind bars for what you believe in, I can guarantee you that our group will help in every way possible with your legal defense fund. We will enlist the best qualified attorneys to defend you. We will have volunteers deliver to your cell all manner of cookies, cakes and other treats. We'll do everything possible to make your prison life enjoyable.

Last year, I offered myself up as a similar "sacrificial lamb" to some of the gun groups. I had nothing to lose at that point. The attorneys advised me that the odds of my spending a full sentence behind bars were much more likely than my winning a constitutional challenge in the courts.

I'm willing to put everything I have on the line for this cause; in fact, I've already put most of what I had on the line already in terms of savings, etc., and it's gone. However, I'm not willing to leave my wife alone while I rot in some jail or prison for a position that I know I cannot win.

Again, if you're willing to do so, please let me know.

Thanks,
Dick

 

[oldfart]

You're in the strange position of being right-- and wrong too.

You're right in your estimate of what would happen if you or any other person were arrested for carrying concealed without a permit. But you're wrong by not considering what would happen if ten thousand people were to blatantly and with plenty of prior publicity, carry concealed, all at the same time.

Think of it... Every docket of every court would be totally bogged down with these cases. And if, while the court were trying to sort out some method to deal with the sudden increase, even more cases were brought to them. Prosecutors would put on their best serious faces and go in front of TV cameras to tell the viewers how harshly these evil perpetrators were going to be treated. Off camera though, they'd have to be wondering where they were going to get the time to deal with the murderers, rapists and carjackers they get normally. It would only be a matter of time before state legislators felt the pressure.

That was the exact tactic used by civil rights advocates in the 60's. Police arrested them, turned dogs and fire hoses on them, ridiculed them, villified them and eventually gave in to them when the politicians felt the heat and came out on the side of the black demonstrators.

It won't happen though. Too many of us are too law-abiding to ever take such a pre-meditated step. We prefer to trade a right for a permission slip. Eventually, when we've traded enough of those precious rights for state permits, and when those permits are revoked-- possibly to help combat terror-- the statists will have what they've wanted ever since they lost the first constitutional debates.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Take heart, Monkeyleg.

You're absolutely right.


The Founders were bold, but they were not rash, and fighting from a position of strength rather than weakness is the sign of a true warrior.


Although I'm a purist at heart myself, I also know that accepting a permit, a FID, a FOID, or whatever other permission slip that is required to evade jail does not invalidate our birthrights, and we all reserve and retain full rights to ourselves.


What I said in this thread

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.

 

[TheeBadOne]

I concure with Geek, and thus with you Monkeyleg

 

[ARperson]

I think we all forget that we can vote with our feet and our tax dollars and get the heck out of the states that infringe upon our rights.

I honestly have to say I don't feel sympathy for anybody that knowingly and willingly stays in a state that doesn't recognize inalienable rights. If they are truly that important to an individual, said individual will find a way to live in a state that recognizes them.

But, aside from that. I'd have to say you work within the framework of the existing judicial/legal system until such time that said system becomes unworkable. Kinda the way the FF did it, if I recall my history lessons correctly.

 

[Preacherman]

Again, we encounter the fundamental difference between the "purists" and the "realists" on the gun control issue. The "purists" say that a right is a right is a right, that everything connected with the issue is a black-or-white choice between defending a universal, fundamental right and compromising that right, and that only they have the True Faith. The "realists" (including yours truly) agree fully that a right is a right is a right: but they realize that every court in the USA, and our legislature, have universally acted on the principle that a right is subject to reasonable regulation, provided that this regulation is not so severe or restrictive as to negate the right in question. This reality introduces a whole range of "shades of gray" into the black-or-white argument...

I sympathize with those who stand on the "purist" side of the equation: but I also realize that there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that the "purist" reasoning will prevail in the current political, social and judicial environment of the United States. If it takes a permit for me to exercise my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, OK, I'll go with that, rather than the alternative of being arrested, tried and jailed for failing to go along with the regulations and insisting on the pure interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, if the regulations ever become so restrictive as to negate the Second Amendment, then I'll be manning the barricades along with most of the rest of us: but I don't see this happening.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Your purist is 100% wrong on the idea that signing a permit card waives your birth right to the second amendment. If he were correct, then carrying and carrying concealed would be legal for those who do it without permits, and with just a couple of exceptions, that isn't the case.

Having a permit does not waive your rights. In reality, it lets you have a taste of the rights you/we should be having.

Interesting how the guy argued that the permit could be taken away from you at any time. Technically, as the 2nd Amendment is part of our legal system and by the fact that it is an amendment to the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights are not birth rights per se, but rights that can be modified, changed, or removed. The amendment process is there to allow our system to be modified to remain functional and relevant. There is nothing at all that says that any of the rights dictated in the Bill of Rights and amendments can't be changed. They can.

 

[Hypnogator]

I agree that a CW permit is, by its nature, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. However, it IS a legal means of carrying your weapon right now, not at some utopic time in the future. Those who claim to be absolutists on the 2nd really aren't -- does anyone believed that a condemned murderer has a right to keep and bear arms on his way to the execution chamber?

Those who blather about the NRA being ineffective, or worse, aiding the gun-grabbers simply don't understand what politics and government are all about. It is they, rather than the NRA, who are the real dangers to our gun rights. Not that the NRA is perfect, or has done everything right in the past, but they ARE the 800-lb gorilla of the gun freedom movement.

While at times it may not seem like it, the pro-gun freedom movement has turned a corner, and is making real progress in this country. Witness the recent CCW initiatives in MN, MO, and WI. The number of states that outright prohibit CCW are shrinking to an insignificant few, and are finding it harder and harder to justify their prohibitions, since blood isn't running in the streets where there are CCW laws.

To get back on topic, applying for and obtaining a CCW permit doesn't abrogate your 2nd Amendment rights, but it does make it practical to protect yourself without having to worry about huge legal bills and prison time. That's not to say that CCW legislation is the end of the line. When it passes, sit back and let the dust settle for a few years, so that opponents can see that blood doesn't run in the streets. Then work on Vermont-style legislation. Ideally, I would like to see any state-issued picture ID have a block (perhaps coded so only law enforcement could read it) indicating if the bearer was ineligible to own a firearm (convicted felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent). All persons legally in this country would have the right to keep and bear arms whenever and in whatever manner they desired, with few exceptions (e.g., prisons) unless they were convicted felons or mentally incompetent. Possession of a driver's license or state-issued picture ID card without a disqualifying code would be considered proof of the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Armed persons without IDs could be detained only until a records check indicated they were not felons or mentally incompetent. This, to me, is "common sense" gun control that wouldn't set our ancesters spinning in their graves, as some proposals at both extremes of the spectrum undoubtedly would.

Just my $.02 worth.

 

[BigG]

Agree with all of the above.

 

[CasualShooter]

What Hypnogator said.

Look to Alaska. Now, there are TWO States that allow concealed carry without permits (Alaska changed their law a few months ago - they still issue permits to residents who want them so they may use them to CCW in other states but permits are NOT required to CCW in Alaska).

That's Progress! And it has been brought about by hard work by people willing to work within the system. The system IS working.

A wise man will pick his fights. It is folly to initiate engagement in a fight he knows has little or no chance of success. That doesn't mean 'give up'; but rather, save your resources and choose fights which have reasonable chance of success. That's how you win. Building one success upon another.

 

[tyme]

Getting a permit may not invalidate claims to rights you may have.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94979

But IMO licensing is fundamentally opposed to any notion of a right to bear arms. If it weren't bad enough that citizens have to be licensed (except in two states), the state also keeps a database and gets paid, in some cases far in excess of what it should.

The only benefit of a permit process on the RKBA is it shows the sheeple that (in places that currently don't allow normal people to get licenses) armed citizens don't result in blood-drenched streets. This may make it easier to move to VT/AK-style permitless concealed carry. Or it may not. Who's to say whether the AK VT-style carry bill would have succeeded if they hadn't had a permit process.

 

[XLMiguel]

I'm with the fuzzy guy with banana-breath. The right to self defense is God-given, the state can't take it away, but pragmatically, I'd play along with the permit game.

 

[oldfart]

From double-naught spy: "...the Bill of Rights are not birth rights per se, but rights that can be modified, changed, or removed."

It is generally accepted that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are NOT granted by that instrument, only guaranteed. Most scholars hold that, even if the government of The United States were to fall to some other entity, the rights listed would continue to exist. Practically, of course, they might be impossible to exercise.

As I tried to point out earlier, we and an increasing number of legal scholars, hold the view that government has no right to dictate when or how a free citizen may carry a gun. That they have substituted 'power' for 'right' is a fact of life we now have to live with.

Even if the NRA were to suddenly grow a set of balls and inspire the membership to-- one and all-- carry a concealed weapon, they would quickly find themselves declared a 'terrorist organization' and the raids would begin. Of course, the NRA would never do anything like that. Some say it's because they are too politically savvy, other think it's because they'd stand a chance of winning and thus cutting off their sole reason for existance. I don't know about that, but I know it won't happen.

But that's what it would take. If four million people were to strap on their guns and simply go on about their normal business the courts couldn't possibly handle the traffic. Legislators would have to take notice that many of their financial contributors were suddenly on the wrong side of laws they had passed. Police officers would simply look the other way when they saw a local banker sitting in a coffee shop with a Glock peeking out from his waistband. Best of all, a lot of crooks would suddenly seek honest gainful employment.

But it won't happen. Instead, we'll continue to apply for permission to exercise a right. We'll continue to put our names on lists of gunowners. Anybody remember the opening scenes of that old movie "Red Dawn?" Remember the commanding officer of the invading army telling his men to confiscate the lists of gunowners from the police and the local gunshops. That's what the Nazi army did in Europe. The various governments had maintained lists of gunowners for years and when the Nazis moved in all they had to do was ask for those lists.

Will that happen here? Again, I don't know. But, to paraphrase one of the judges in the Ninth Circuit, it's a mistake we only get to make once.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I predict more states will follow the lead of Vermont and Alaska. It's the right thing to do.

 

[Delmar]

would like to see any state-issued picture ID have a block (perhaps coded so only law enforcement could read it) indicating if the bearer was ineligible to own a firearm

Why not just bring back "The Scarlet Letter?"
Did you ever hear of the "spin" code they used to put on DD214's when soldiers were discharged? The whole idea was tossed because because a whole bunch were given the wrong spin code, identifying them as homosexual.

With the government passing laws which prohibits misdermeanor violators from ever owning firearms, you sure that you want to give them this kind of power? Where would their power stop?

I'd bet your intent is honorable and very likely makes sense, but there are too many cases of the government not in possession of clear thinking.

I do not want the likes of Feinstein/Schumer/Kennedy and their kind to have this kind of authority, and would bet my Gold Cup against a pink handled Raven they would find ways to abuse the crud of of the laws intent.

The Second Amendment means exactly what it says. We unfortunately have to work within the governmnent to remove all of the unnecessary restrictions which have been placed on it.

 

[Hypnogator]

Why not just bring back "The Scarlet Letter?"

Why not, indeed! A big red "F" branded in the middle of each violent felon's forehead.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about felon's rights. Criminal records are and have always been public records. "Branding" felons by forcing them to be identifiable to law enforcement officers would make things easier for those who haven't committed felonies, and would also serve to protect LEOs by identifying up front those who are likely to be a danger to them.

 

[Delmar]

Well, if we are going to brand people, what will yours be?

Ever make a mistake, even once in your life?

How would you like to pay for those mistakes for the rest of your life with no redemption, even if you have paid your debt for the mistake and have become a valuable member of society and your family.

Understand, I don't believe in rehab for everyone-but bunching people who make a mistake along with people who have no intention of changing doesn't sound like the American way to me, either.

If they are not safe enough to be on the streets, they should be wormfood or in prison.

Living in a democratic republic is a hard thing to do, but if you wish to take away the freedoms you enjoy, do not demand all of us to do the same. There are too many people who would like us to sacrifice our freedoms for a little mental security. 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment-name one which is not under attack by someone.

 

[Ryder]

If you're willing to give up a good part of your life behind bars

Five years isn't all that large a part of a person's life and that's all they can give you for illegal possesion of your own property. The bigger sacrifice as I see it is forfeiture of your rights after your release from having been branded a felon.

 

[oldfart]

As a kid, I didn't have much contact with the criminal justice system, so my recollection may not be perfect. We did have a 'shirt-tail' relative who had spent some time in prison, though I was never told why. Still, he wasn't considered a 'felon.'

In later years, after he had lived a few years without getting into trouble, I heard Grandma talk about him in such a way as to signify that he had paid his debt to society.

I don't remember when we started branding people with life sentences for relatively minor offences. I guess we're just more enlightened nowadays.

 

[Delmar]

I'm sure there are people on this board who have a better grasp of the details than I, but IIRC, a retired Navy man in California moved into a neighborhood which was under the thumb of some reckless bully, and despite complaints to the LE's, was pretty much allowed to do whatever.

Apparently, said bully drove up to the vet's house and threatened his and/or the lives of his family.
The vet had no reason, based on past performance of law enforcement that they would do anything to the bully.

So, he jumped into his car and followed the bully, got him pulled over and shot the man-the proscecutor did not like the fact that the vet reloaded his pistol, and said vet now sits as a convicted felon in the pen, forfeiting his rights to ever own a firearm, and giving up his military retirement while he is in jail. The vets neighbors even gathered together to tell the LEO's what the real situation was, but with little result. This man should have been given a steak dinner at a nice place instead of balogna and cheese in the pen.
Yet, by some peoples definition, his ridding the neighborhood of a dangerous person, and his service to the country mean nothing-lets make sure he cannot defend himself or his family, and make sure everyone knows he's a "violent felon".

That is what can happen when the government decides what is best for the people. And why I do not trust the government to safeguard our "unalienable" rights. THOSE-as the Constitution so correctly states, are reserved to the People.

 

[JPM70535]

While it would be great to have unfettered concealed carry rights (any time, any place, by anyone, as a practical matter, that just isn't going to happen. Possibly a few enlightened States may come close to that ideal, but the majority are going to enact exceptions. I may not agree with some of the exceptions, such as carrying into a place where alcohol is served even if the primary function of said establishment is to sell food. Or how about the prohibition against carrying in to a Post Office? Assinine is the word I use to describe them.

On the other hand, prohibitions against certain individuals having the RKBA, in some cases have merit. I certainly don't want a mentally deranged psycho running the streets armed to the teeth. As to the loss of RKBA by convicted felons, to say that once a Felon has served his time his rights should be restored automatically is wrong. Do we really think that a Felon convicted of Armed Robbery should be given the right to buy and carry firearms. Seems to me that is kind of like offering a drink to an Alcoholic. Non-violent felons, (drug offences, unoccupied residential and commercial burglaries, Check Fraud etc.) constitute another class of criminals who should be able to have their RKBA restored as a matter of course.

At some point in the future common sense tells me that RKBA, Vermont style will be the rule rather than the exception, and just as surely there will always be States like NY, NJ, MD, and the peoples republic of California where RKBA will be virtually unknown. if this right is important to you, vote with your feet and leave for friendlier venues. When these States have no one left to pay the bills but the gun grabbers and the sheeple, cooler heads may then prevail.

For the present, I will be content to play the game when it is convenient and let common sense dictate when to not play.

CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED. ie NO ONE SEES

 

[atek3]

i used to be an absolutist on the CCW issue... until alaska passed vermont carry. With unequivocal evidence incrimentalism re: CCW issuance works I think its a good idea. On the other hand I know many people who won't submit fingerprints to get a CCW permit. What they do beyond that, so long as they don't hurt others, is none of my business.

atek3

 

[Monkeyleg]

Actually, Ryder, the penalty here for illegal CCW is a Class A misdemeanor. The potential penalty is nine months and a $10,000 fine. The reality is that, if you have no priors, you'll probably pay a $500 fine, spend $1000 on a lawyer, and never get your gun back.

But even that seems a high price to pay.

The Milwaukee Police Department has been lobbying heavily to have illegal CCW changed to a felony, which means that anyone who's trying to protect himself/herself just may wind up being the "girlfriend" of Big Bubba.

Our CCW bill is going to be vetoed, or the veto overriden, in less than three weeks. If we win, we'll become state #46. If we lose, we won't have another shot at this until 2007, when Governor Doyle leaves office. If he gets re-elected, we won't have another shot until 2011.

My God, folks. Isn't this enough to make you want to rally your friends and relatives to make just one phone call? Isn't the idea of Doyle trampling on your God-given rights enough to make you want to pick up the phone?

A call to your legislator takes maybe two to five minutes. The absolutely free toll-free number to contact your legislators is 1-800-362-9472. All you or your friends have to say is "support concealed carry." No speeches to give, no lengthy press statements.

This fight has been going on for over ten years, and we're one or two votes close either way to overriding Doyle in both the assembly and the senate. We could get 23:10 in the senate, or 22:11, or lose by 21:12. We could get 68:31 in the assembly, or 65:38. It's so damned close that not even Las Vegas oddsmakers would put money on this one.

It's all up to the gunowners. You and your friends will decide what happens.

Please..please make the phone call. Please get your friends to call as well.

I've done the gun shows in Antigo, where the Michigan permit holders walk by and flash their permits, as if to say "what's wrong with you stupid Cheeseheads?" I've had the same experience in La Crosse and Onalaska with the Minnesota permit holders.

Every WI hunter who puts his rifle/shotgun in the passenger compartment of his vehicle--cased or not--is breaking current CCW laws. Every person who carries a knife with a blade longer than 2.5" in his pocket is guilty. Every gunowner who has his firearm "out of sight"--whether it's in the trunk, in a safe, or anywhere else--is guilty.

In other words, the law is crazy. We need to fix it, and fix it now, or we will be forced to bow before Governor Doyle for four or even eight years before we can fix the law.

The margin of votes to override a Doyle veto is much too close to call. If you don't make that phone call, and we lose, will you live the rest of your life wondering if your one phone call could have made the difference?

You do not need to be afraid of the staffers who will answer the phones. They're afraid of you, and the power that your felllow gunowners possess in this state. We have the numbers, we have the votes, and we have the clout. All we need to do is flex our muscles.

Please pass this message on to every gunowner you know in WI. We're just a sliver away from winning a ten-year fight. There's no time to waste, and no excuses: you are either a gun owner, or you're just a pawn of the Doye political machine.

 

[Delmar]

I wish you and yours all the best of luck, Monkeyleg. Imagine, a FELONY charge for carrying something to defend your life with

 

[Jim March]

First, yes, there's a lot of good tactical reasons for going with shall-issue where that's all that's possible.

Beyond that, let me address what the guy quoted in the first post said about "signing your rights away".

It doesn't work like that.

When the government requires you to get a permit to do something, going ahead and getting the permit does NOT prevent you from complaining about the situation.

The government can't "make you sign your rights away" in that fashion. I don't have the cites in front of me but I've read USSC cases to that effect.