Current Quarter Expenses.
Donate Today!
Posted on 05/15/2012 7:57:12 PM PDT by DTogo
Often when I speak about the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and what actions we need to take in order to preserve our rights, I am rebuked with the apathetic response, “From my cold dead hands.”
While this is very poetic expression of an admirable sentiment, it is unlikely to ever happen, and unlikely to be effective. But there are things we can do today that are far less costly, far less poetic, and drastically more effective.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Excellent.
This MA FReeper has had one for several years.
Very difficult to obtain in MA?
“Very difficult to obtain in MA?” More of a pain the a$$.
Mandatory to take a state-approved class (I paid $100, normally $150). It consisted of 2 Saturdays, 6 hours total.
Another $100 for the permit.
For your initial license, you must have 2 letters of recommendation, preferably from residents of the city/town where you live.
They make you jump through hoops to discourage you for applying.
And then, after all this, you can only buy “approved”, per the MA AG, pistols. And typically, the “MA-compliant” pistols you can buy have the trigger pulls cranked way up and the magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.
So, in MA, you cannot buy new:
Colt
Kimber
Taurus
etc.
Unless someone moves to MA from another state, then the guns are “grandfathered” in. That's how my friend got a Taurus Judge .410/.45LC combo pistol.
Roadblocks at every turn...
That’s one of the few things I am happy about in CT, it has “reasonable” gun laws in comparison to it’s surrounding states. Not perfect by a long shot (pun intended) but far better than MA, NJ, or NY.
“Not perfect by a long shot (pun intended) but far better than MA, NJ, or NY.”
Even RI isn’t as bad as MA (I was surprised to learn that).
We don’t call it “The People’s Republic of Massivetwoshitsstan” for nothing.
grrrr
Ah, but there is a question that you are leaving unanswered, what if the statute/rule/ordinance is itself unlawful?
Let me give two examples.
New Mexico's State Constitution says, in Art II, Section 6, the following:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)In Las Cruces, New Mexico, if you were to go to the municipal court there would be a sign on it stating that weapons are prohibited. As the bolded portion indicates, the municipality cannot do so. Furthermore, the state is forbidden to use any law to abridge the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as per the underlined portion.
Next, let us consider North Dakota:
Art 1, Section 1.and
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
Art 1, Section 20.Yet North Dakota apparently requires licensing for open carry.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
Questions: If the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as inalienable [bold portion] and guaranteed and infringement prohibited [underlined portion], then by what right can they require licensing thereof? Furthermore, if those rights are excepted from the general power of government [italic portion], then how could any reasoning allow the government lawful jurisdiction/authority over it?
Excellent and thoughtful response! Wow!
my 2 cents...
I don’t think a law can be unlawful by definition. I think it can be unconstitutional although I am not sure what it is called when two laws are in direct conflict with each other. The determination of whether a law is constitutional is not normally decided at the individual level, although we may all have strong opinions on it. A law in most jurisdiction is rendered mute by either the legislature branch changing/removing it or by the judicial branch in determining it is not constitutional.
There are instances where an individual stood up to a law, was incarcerated, appealed on grounds of the law being invalid due to constitution etc and finally ‘won’.
So yes as an individual you are welcome to not submit to or follow the law and go through that arduous process. Best of luck as sometimes even a group a judges (supreme court) get it wrong and try to interpret the constitution instead of just reading the English words that are on the paper.
For myself, I believe the better approach would be to follow the law until such time as you can work through either the legislative or judicial processes to remove it. Part of this process is to group together to present a united front. Some advocate using membership in groups such as the NRA. I was advocating becoming a “member” in the Concealed Carry club. The politicians (legislature guys and gals who can actually undo the mistakes you point out) do indeed recognize this group as a viable voting bloc. Votes are what they live for unfortunately. Being a provocateur by thumbing my nose at laws that were duly passed and signed however right or wrong does not strike me as the best approach to try first.
The problem, as I see it, is that such "laws" were not duly passed. If the Constitution places restrictions on a legislature that it establishes, and then the legislature does something forbidden by that Constitution with votes, and records, in Legal* (as opposed to 'Lawful') manner then that does not make such action valid.
Consider, for instance, a Captain posting a guard (say a Private) with instructions not to let anyone pass, until some condition occurs. Later the Captain's Lieutenant comes along and orders the Private to allow him passage. Whose order is the Private bound to obey?
Now, let's alter the scene by filling in details: the place where the Private was posted was a murder scene, the Captain needed to keep the scene clean until investigators got there. (Does this change the answer you gave above?) The Lieutenant was the there to erase certain evidence. (Does this change the answer you gave above?)
But given that it is the military, and the question is about authority, the details here do not matter; the premises were not changed, therefore the conclusions [answers] should be consistent.
To consider "laws" "that were passed" as though they were valid, even when the such is expressly prohibited by the Constitution (say prohibiting people from running a printing operation unless they had a license; counter to most State Constitutions I've read) as though they were legitimate is to make the Constitution of no effect. The legislature could pass a law saying "no person may vote for a non-incumbent" and, according to that theory, would have to be held as valid until a) repeal or b) the court throws it out.
A "But until then, abide by it" attitude is, if I may quote the TN State Constitution (Art 1, Sec 2):
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
* - Legal: Having the appearance of official procedure/format.
IE The difference between legal and lawful is that one is about form, the other is about validity (or function, if you will).
Educational and excellent points. Having served I recognized the private’s dilemma...one we all face actually on a daily basis (To what shall I hold myself true? To self, To God, To the Laws of Man, to those in authority over me, or is all of the above ‘to self’?) Morals.
OneWingedShark, my knowledge of such constitutional details as you describe is severely inadequate for me to be able further contribute positively to this debate, thus I abstain. And will be left with living within the bounds of the government that is “absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”.
I will however continue the ‘fight’ to put representatives in place that follow the constitution under which they serve and work to remove laws that don’t pass the ‘common sense’ test or the constitutional test.
The question I ponder: What is the true end of our republic and representative democracy?
Is it that we get the leaders who are most like us, for all our flaws...leadership magnifying these flaws and destroying all in the process?
Ahhh, but the exercise of a fundamental right is not subject to anyone else’s consent, in any way, shape or form...
Spare me your cliches'. Or better yet, try exercising your fundamental right in front of that nice man with the badge.
You flout "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" when you claim unrestricted license to something the vast majority of your countrymen accept as measured.
Just exactly WHAT do you suppose the phrase, “...shall not be infringed” means???
I suppose it means exactly what you think it means.
That is not the problem.
The problem is that as a postulate of public policy, it has been tempered by both practice and consensus. And whether you approve or not, I'm not so doctrinaire as to refuse the recognize that fact.
Just as the body politic has refused to grant First Amendment protection to kiddie porn, so it has seen fit to truncate the scope of the Second Amendment. And might I add, without denying the utility, necessity, and sanctity of either Amendment.
First, your example of kiddie porn isn’t valid because the making of it violates the rights of the kids involved and parental rights (in most cases). The exercise of YOUR rights may not involve violating the rights of others.
Second, the legitimate exercise of your rights is NOT subject to a vote of ANYONE. EVER.
Third, the exercise of your rights may not ever involve the coerced participation of a third party, such as a doctor. (There is NO RIGHT to health care at the expense of others.)
Fourth, your willingness to subject my rights to limitations imposed by others tells me that you have areas that YOU want controlled in other people. Never yourself, of course; it’s always your neighbor or the guy down the block whose non-coercive behavior needs controlling.
Fifth, the ONLY legitimate restriction on RKBA is a LOCAL regulation regarding where and when a firearm may be discharged in a NON-EMERGENCY situation. That’s it and that’s all.
Really? Where are those rights enshrined? And who are you to impose limitations on what is and is not a right based on accidental (in the Socratic sense) characteristics?
Furthermore, don't presume to discern my intentions: that gradation of analysis is way over your head.
Finally, I'm done with you. It is clear to me you'll reach up your poop chute to pull out any convenient, not to mention arbitrary, contrivance to maintain your doctrinaire, albeit impracticable, posture.
OPEN CARRY should have been listed.
The only way to change perceptions is for people to see guns on the hips of law abiding people. I OC whenever I get the chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.