Replies

dcwusmc: I will NEVER beg government permission to exercise a fundamental, God-given RIGHT. Why would you suggest such a thing? An American!: Why would I suggest following the laws of this land? Hmmm...that is a puzzling question...NOT!

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.
Questions: Is this prohibition lawful? If it is, why? If it is not, why should I submit to it?

Next, let us consider North Dakota:

Art 1, Section 1.
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.

and

Art 1, Section 20.
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.

Yet North Dakota apparently requires licensing for open carry.

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?