CCW Holder in TROUBLE in MA!!!!!!

[Gary Conner]

Quote: "MA did not pass a law that says he doesn't have the RKBA"

Yes, I think they did. And here is how I think they did it.

A State law requiring a "permit fee" previous to being allowed to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms (unless you pay the State a fee to do so) is enacting a law not only against the RKBA, it bars the right to free travel, should you want to travel and exercise the Constitutional RKBA at the same time.

Since that State is charging a fee previous to the ability to exercise a Constitutional right granted by God, that State's legislature passed a law barring the right, unless the State receives a fee.

Granted, a lot of folks might say most people ought to have a couple of hundred bucks to pay the State for a "permit" but it doesn't outweigh the fact that a person without the money is denied the right if they cannot pay the fee.

Such ideas as fees charged by States for basic rights, were the very reason the Founders wrote the document in the first place.

It clearly is not a Constitutional to charge someone to exercise their Constitutional Right. If all men are created equal, you should not have to pay for basic equality. I am not speaking of privileges. I am only speaking about rights granted under the Constitution.

I sure hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. I am not trying to be a smart aleck. I just think it is immoral to try and charge a fee for a right recognized by the Founders, by disguising it as an "Administrative Fee/Permit Fee", etc. such as is currently being done.

It bars the poor, from the RKBA, and it also bars the right to free travel and RKBA, at the same time unless you pay a fee to a State, or not travel there.

 

[Trip20]

Well, I'm not going to argue with you, Gary. You and I share a lot of the same views regarding the "rights and wrongs" of the laws and systems in place.

However, the world does not construct itself around my ideals (I've tried, trust me ). Unfortunately, the system in place - however crappy it may be - is the system we as citizens put in place by our own accord. We elect the legislators that write the law. This is why I feel ignoring the law, simply because we do not like it or because we "forgot," is a poor excuse.

So again, if we separate the idealistic view of how you and I may wish the system to work... and evaluate what is actually in place, and why it is in place... I think it's hard to determine (at least for myself) how it's justifiable to ignore the law.

I haven't taken you as a smart aleck at all. It's been a nice chat.

 

[Al Norris]

Ya know, I was willing to drop the whole thing. What with Rick calling me a virtual traitor and BluesMan getting ready to close this thread...

But since the thread hasn't died, I'll rebut the assumption of the right to carry concealed with a quote from another Constitutional Scholar from the 19th century:

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

Cooley's treatise on the Constitution was more widely accepted (and taught in almost all Law Schools) than Rawle's A View of the Constitution... Cooley's interpretation was used by many States Legislatures and Courts when they passed arms laws or adjudicated cases on such.

I am much more familiar with Idaho Law and Cases than the other states. In 1902 the Idaho Supreme Court slapped down the Legislature using Cooley's treatise. In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902) the Idaho Supreme Court held that while the State could regulate concealed carry, it could not regulate open carry:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-BEARING ARMS, VOID STATUTE.-The act of the
territorial legislature, approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits
private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or
confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the
provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution
and the provisions of section 11, article 1, of the constitution of
Idaho, and is void.

POLICE REGULATIONS-FIREARMS-CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.- While it
is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit
the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a
proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not
possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the
right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and
state constitutions.

And this back when Idaho was still part of the "wild, wild west!" - to rebut tyme's contention that concealed carry laws were the result of racism and selective enforcement. As to "why only a handful of states allow open carry with minimal restrictions and state preemption of more restrictive local laws," I can't answer that except to say that some states viewed the right as a right and others viewed it as a privilege.

Tyme, as for quoting you a survey, no I can't. It was an informal questioning of people I asked when I was running for mayor in 2003. Purely anecdotal.

As I said when I started this post, I was willing to drop it. But since the thread has taken on life again...

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear Trip20:

I appreciate very much what you are saying, and I agree with you, with one exception. I don't think it's idealistic to expect our Representatives to adhere to the Constitution when writing laws.

It's just their duty. (It's not the same as asking for "World Peace")

Stupid gun laws get passed because people constantly are sold the idea "Constitutional Study" is necessary to understand the meaning of a sentence consisting of twenty seven words, each of which are taught in elementary school. (Or at least used to be)

 

[CabinJohn]

Trip 20 - I think we are on the same page.

Gary Conner - I can't fault your logic, but then again, what politician was every accused of beint logical (at least in the past half century or so)?

 

[biere]

I have not posted since my last post where I was questioned as to how my next answer would show the level of my character and I forget what else.

If the man had not paid to have a ccw in his home state, had not gone to gun school and learned even more about following the laws, I would have zero problem with saying he could carry ccw in all states and I would vote as such on the jury.

My problem comes with the fact he knew what he did was wrong.

I am leaving ohio soon since it has many things that bother me, but to have tamara make a general statement as to why Ohio has such laws makes me really wonder about things.

Overall I live my life in such a way that I abide laws that can seriously change my right to have freedom and this includes paying for permission to have a ccw in a state.

I would prefer that all states were like vermont or alaska.

But when a man pays for a ccw in his own state and pays for training and education in ccw as well, I really don't know how I would vote on that jury because I am going off a single article and I was not on the jury.

I personally think the jury knew he would get X problems out of this decision and so they dropped the rest while keeping this one. Had this option not been open, maybe they would have gotten him for disposal of his weapon or something else.

I was not there and so far I do not think anyone else who has posted was there either.

Overall my answer is I do not know and I will take all flames and flak for offering that answer after a few days.

I just really question someone thinking that because something they do in their home state is something they can do in another state.

Do you draw a line when you cross the borders?

I do not know where to draw the line. I know I won't be telling others where to draw the line.

These days I observe what the laws and punishments are and I live my life bouncing between how I think life should be and abiding by laws with punishments that could seriously affect my ability to live life happily if I get caught breaking a law.

This man knew what he did was wrong. For a few trips previously he obeyed the law and on this one he broke the law.

As I said in my first post, he proved the problem with being judged by 12 instead of carried by 6.

I do not think it was right, however I question why he obeys the laws in his state and not other states.

 

[USP45usp]

My problem comes with the fact he knew what he did was wrong.

Okay, let's go with this.

Everyone knows the traffic laws in your state, most are the same. What would you do here? Obey the law, or break it?

1. You are waiting for the light, it's red, someone comes up behind you and points a gun in your direction. Will you:

a. Wait for the light. It's against the law to go through it.
b. Wait until they shoot at you, and then break the law.
c. Wait for the light while they are shooting at you and then get hit but you obeyed the law and even if you die, you are obeying the law.
d. (forgot d): Run the light and get the heck away, even though it's against the law.

Come on folks. You're basically saying that law overrides the right to life. And you're saying that breaking the law, knowingly or not, that results in you saving your own life (or your families), is wrong.

I don't think that those that agree with this man getting what he got are really looking at the bigger picture:

HE SAVED HIS LIFE AS WE WISH TO SAVE OURS AND OUR LOVED ONES.

Now, you will come back with:

1. He ran
2. He threw the gun away

Now why did he do this?... could it be that even through he used his Rights to save his life that he then remembered that it's against the law to do so in the state that he was in?

And those that say, "Well, why didn't he just get a permit"... you believe that we should have to do so? Pay a fee so we can have a Right?

My God, I haven't been very active on the board this past weeks because of this thread. Why don't you just say that you would rather his blood been spilled so you can protect your now privilege for carrying a gun? That little peice of plastic that you hold so dear that you would say that a good shoot isn't because he didn't have on his person.

I never fault anyone for protecting themselves, in anyplace or anywhere. I would be a hypocrite to do so. Who am I to tell someone that they are not able to do so?

And why did he run? Why did he try to get rid of the gun? I'll tell you, the state and it's laws that he was in. If the state didn't have laws against protecting your life by any means possible, then this would be a moot point. But no, the state laws made him a victim and looks as if they would have rather seen him dead, then to protect his own life.

And you agree with the state, and once again punish the true victim.

Wayne

 

[Al Norris]

Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic : Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform, Clayton Cramer (c) 1999.

Description:
Cramer's work examines the motivations and legislative history behind the nation's first laws regulating the carrying of concealed deadly weapons and establishes a previously unexplored link between these laws and efforts to suppress dueling in the southern back country. Earlier attempts to analyze these laws focused upon efforts to maintain slavery by severely restricting the rights of free blacks: if free blacks could not possess arms and lacked other basic rights, slaves would be less inclined to seek their freedom. Cramer rejects such thinking by demonstrating that the concealed weapon laws of the early republic were not racially-motivated. He further supports the work of other scholars who have lately examined the role of Scots-Irish immigrants in creating a distinctive southern back-country culture of "honor violence" including dueling and brawling. It was the attempt to control such violence, Cramer argues, that led to the concealed weapons laws. Thus, rather than considering gun control laws primarily as legal or constitutional history, this study starts from a cultural and historical viewpoint.

Southern state legislatures sought to improve the morals of their back-country population through increasingly severe punishments for dueling. When judges and juries regularly refused to convict duelists, these legislatures created extrajudicial punishments by requiring elected and appointed officials, as well as lawyers, to swear oaths of non-participation in dueling. Young men, obsessed with honor and reluctant to perjure themselves for fear of damaging their public reputation, soon took to carrying Bowie knives and handguns with which to kill those who insulted them--a perfectly honorable action to much of the population. The state legislatures then severely regulated carrying of concealed deadly weapons in the hope of suppressing the bloody results of what had been, until then, an accepted practice.

The earliest known adoptions of concealed carry laws are:

Kentucky, 02/03/1813
Louisiana, 03/25/1813
Indiana, 01/14/1820
Georgia, 12/25/1837
Arkansas, 1837-1838 Legislative Session (exact date unknown, and may be a restatement of a previously existing territorial law)
Tennessee, 01/27/1838
Virginia, 02/02/1838
Alabama, 02/01/1839

Please note that these laws all came into effect well before the civil war and emancipation. As Cramer claims, concealed carry is more about society than about racism.

Just a note for the history of right to carry. On April 12, 1871, Texas became the first State to deny its citizens the right to self defense (outside of the home or the workplace) by prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons. A statute that remains in effect today, excepted only by the concealed carry law.

The rationale that preceeded these laws has changed. It is no longer a valid rationale... Yet the perception remains. It's the old, Blood in the Streets, mantra we hear time after time by the Brady Bunch. Until we can counter that perception, we can not hope to change the laws, so that we can all enjoy the right to defend our selves and our loved ones in what has proved to be the most effective manner yet devised.

Until that time, good men will continue to be persecuted and put in jail. Ranting about the injustice won't change the way it is. What will change things is for each and everyone of us to become politically involved.

When I ran for mayor, I showed up at every meeting and photo-op wearing my 44. Not because it's a big honking gun, but because a six-gun makes a political statement, here in Idaho. The incumbent won by a mere 30 votes. She won't be so lucky come 2007...

 

[tyme]

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

That sentence you quoted is footnoted and reference is made to what I think are several state court decisions. It seems to me that Cooley was indicating the current situation dictated by case law, not (necessarily) his view of the constitution.*

If open carry were legal in Mass., maybe that point would be valid.

There is no such thing as a weapon suitable only for "deadly individual encounters." If Cooley didn't think carrying arms for self defense was protected, why would he think carrying arms at all was protected, except perhaps when hunting? It's not as if people needed to carry rifles, much less handguns, all day back then just in case the country was suddenly invaded.

While Cooley focuses on the reasons he perceives behind the 2nd amendment, he doesn't even try to explain where he thinks State governments get the power to prohibit the wearing of arms. Of course the state has the power to regulate people shooting at each other, or shooting unsafely, or possibly even handling guns with gross recklessness, but the manslaughter charge adjudicated the "shooting at others" concern, and neither of the other concerns were at issue.

A constitutional commentary written after the Civil War is highly suspect, because the common view of the rights guaranteed by the constitution changed for the worse during the mid-19th century. By the late 19th century, there was wholesale disregard of rights of statehood as well as individual rights, which were pretty much left to the discretion of police officers.

There is contravening caselaw, both before and after Cooley's text: In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902) and
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822 . Both found concealed weapon carry prohibitions to be unconstitutional under state law, and both states later adopted constitutional amendments in an attempt to legally restrict the right to carry concealed weapons.

In any case, very few states have a constitutionally specified power to regulate open carry. Massachusetts' constitution doesn't specify a power to regulated either open or concealed carry. Furthermore, even those states that have adopted such provisions in their constitutions cannot avoid the fact that the federally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms has no such restriction and has never been amended.

* They might be in L/N... here's the footnote:
Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165, found also with notes in 1 Green's Cr. Rep. 466, and 8 Am. Rep. 8; State v. Shelby, 90 Mo. 302.

 

[Hal]

Lesson learned -

It's an easy question. I would have voted to acquit. You?

Same.

 

[Trip20]

Wayne, your red light example puts someone in a position where they have a choice to break the law, or obey it, at the exact time they're being threatened with deadly force. Bob wasn't being threatened with deadly force when he chose to break the law and carry a concealed weapon in the state of MA.

You're saying people aren't looking at the big picture and then in point out that, "HE SAVED HIS LIFE...........".

Well, he didn't get in trouble for shooting someone in defense of his life. So the big picture has already been dealt with. The only charge for which he was convicted is illegally carrying a concealed weapon in a state which requires registration --- just like your state does, Wayne.

Do you have a WA permit? If so, why? Is it because your choosing to do it the legal way?

 

[Al Norris]

That sentence you quoted is footnoted and reference is made to what I think are several state court decisions. It seems to me that Cooley was indicating the current situation dictated by case law, not (necessarily) his view of the constitution.

Here's the entire quote from Cooley on the second amendment:

"The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

"The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

"Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)

Now contrast Cooley's text with that of Justice Story:

"The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

The two Constitutional Scholars essentially agree with one another, except that last provision on concealed carry by Cooley. I would argue that in Joseph Stories time, police power to curtail concealed carry was not at issue, because it was a non-starter to begin with. Some things were just taken as granted and were not commented upon. That is the history of our Constitution itself. Was Story was aware of the early movement of States enacting prohibitions on concealed carry by some of the southern States (see post #88)? If he was, then it proves to be a non-starter. One could say that perhaps he wasn't aware, but that would tend to denigrate the knowlege of this Justice and Scholar, don't you think?

There is contravening caselaw, both before and after Cooley's text: In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902) and Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822. Both found concealed weapon carry prohibitions to be unconstitutional under state law, and both states later adopted constitutional amendments in an attempt to legally restrict the right to carry concealed weapons.

I haven't had the time to read the Kentucky case yet, but as regards In re Brickey, you are wrong. I quoted the relevent holding back in post #83, where the Idaho Supreme Court found that the police power extends to concealed carry but not open carry.

You are correct to say that the Idaho Constitution was amended, but you are wrong as to why. In 1972 the amendement modified Art. I section 11 to reflect the decision of Brickey, not to include it as a police power, as Brickey had previously decided it was within the power of the State.

Prior to 1972, the right read: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

The court found that the reasonable regulation of this right was in concealed carry. Nothing more. The Court held that the State may not strip the right to carry completely, only the manner, concealed or open.

The right as amended: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

The underlined portion above, was the compliance to Brickey. The rest of the amended text was made to come into compliance with accepted procedures and current statutory law. As a protection, you will note that the police may not confiscate your arms unless you have been convicted of a felony and then only the arms used in the felony so convicted.

Tyme, whoever, wherever you got your information about Idaho Law is simply wrong. This gives pause to what you might bring to the table as regards Kentucky... But I will withold judgement until I read the case cited.

 

[biere]

And those that say, "Well, why didn't he just get a permit"... you believe that we should have to do so? Pay a fee so we can have a Right?
Usp45usp said the above.

The man had a permit for his state and paperwork for the state that charged him sitting on his desk. Either you ask for permission or you don't. It seems to me this guy wanted to play percentages with his cost for the permit for the neighboring state because he was rarely there. And yet the article says that 3 times previous he had chosen to leave his gun home.

Somewhere in here is what is causing me to question his actions.

And even if all the states in the USA had vermont style carry laws, what happens when you cross the border into mexico or canada?

Do you obey the laws of mexico or canada and go unarmed?

And if you do obey the laws of mexico or canada why are the laws a neighboring state has in place of less importance to you?

I was not on the jury and did not learn all about the specifics of what the article barely touched on.

But I really start to wonder why people think state rights are so easily trumped and I wonder how they treat the rights of other countries to dictate what is legal and what is not.

I honestly do not have a final answer on this.

I am simply trying to point out why I have a problem with this.

The guy knew how to legally do what he was illegally doing. He had the paperwork on his desk. He had left his gun home 3 times during past visits.

Like I said, I don't have the final answer for where I stand. I am just wondering why it is ok for a guy to get permission in his home state but decide to go against the permission needed in other states.

 

[USP45usp]

Do you obey the laws of mexico or canada and go unarmed?

Bad anology. Canada and Mexico aren't, or even in, the United States of America. MA is in the United States of America so therefore should obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As a citizen of America, I find it hard to believe that just because a citizen crosses an invisible line that is drawn on a map, that they should lose any Rights that they enjoy in their state of residence.

I believe that the Founders put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first 10, on paper due to these were the Rights that EVERY American should have and enjoy when they are in the Republic. ANYWHERE in the Republic. That these Rights couldn't be taken away just because you cross into a member state of the Republic.

We ourselves, the gun owners, have been brain washed as well, just not as badly, as the rest of America.

You notice that I used the word Republic earlier, and I bet some of the younger members automatically thought of things like the "Republic of China", or "Korea", or some other communist country. Many here don't even know that we are a Constitutional Republic, we are NOT a democracy.

I don't think that most that have responded are in the same thinking as I, that is fine. My thoughts are that it shouldn't have mattered if he had a permit or not, in any state. If the Law of the Land, and not the law of man, had been obeyed then there wouldn't have been any problems or any indepth discussion on this thread.

Yet most it seems likes the law of man and not the Law of the Land. That man's law trumphs everything else, including life.

Me, I don't agree. But that is my Right (for now) as a private individual. I'll not change my opinion on the matter so therefore after this post, I will have nothing else beneficial to add to this discussion .

Wayne

 

[Trip20]

My thoughts are that it shouldn't have mattered if he had a permit or not, in any state.

Really?

I asked earlier:

The only charge for which he was convicted is illegally carrying a concealed weapon in a state which requires registration --- just like your state does, Wayne.

Do you have a WA permit? If so, why?

I thought "it shouldn't matter" if one has "a permit or not, in any state." So, why do you have one, Wayne?

 

[biere]

Law of man is what creates borders. I personally feel that your concept that state borders should mean nothing yet mexico and canada and their borders should mean something is showing that you apply the law of man outside the USA.

Depending on what you consider the constitution and bill of rights that could make your opinion that both those items should be applied to MA interesting. Either you want law of man applied to MA because you agree with those laws, or you believe the constitution and bill of rights are law of the land.

If they are law of the land I wonder why they should not apply at the mexican or canadian border?

Personally I would not be conflicted if this guy had illegally carried in his home state and MA. He would have made a choice and lived by it. Since he chose to have paperwork in one state I think he should have had paperwork for the other state.

Now I don't want this to wander off into a discussion of where rights and freedoms come from. That has been discussed and I don't believe I ever saw an answer. I saw beliefs.

I understand that this guy most likely figured he was covering most of his possable problems by having a permit to carry in his home state, I just dislike how he flaunted the rights of another state to do things differently.

I personally wish states rights were stronger and the federal gov. weaker.

I believe the border to a state should be considered as carefully as the border to mexico or canada.

If you live by the law of the land, a line on a map should not change your habits and choices.

If you live by the law of man you should know to follow the laws when you cross a border. And this guy knew he was breaking the law. He chose to pay for permission and obey the law in his home state. But a neighboring state meant less to him.

And that is why I am conflicted.

Sorry you won't be participating any more. I feel this has stayed rather civil and it has made me think about things as well.

 

[USP45usp]

The only charge for which he was convicted is illegally carrying a concealed weapon in a state which requires registration --- just like your state does, Wayne.

My state doesn't require registration. If you mean a permit, then yes, it does require one.

Do you have a WA permit? If so, why?

I don't live in WA, I live in OR. I've been to WA and to CA and no, I don't have a permit for either.

I thought "it shouldn't matter" if one has "a permit or not, in any state."

It shouldn't matter. What is wrong with having that mindset? Why is a piece of plastic (or whatever they are made of there) so important to you? What makes having a permit so important? If one has a permit, or not, in his/her state of residence what makes them become "different" or not trustworthy if they cross an invisible line?

All a permit shows is that you paid some money to the state and begged for permission to carry a firearm which was a Right long before it became a privilege.

Now here we are, thinking gun ownership and the Right to bear (carry) is a privilege and not the Right that it once was. That the state has the right to tax you on your Right and many feel that it's okay and just because this man didn't pay a tax, get a card, that he did wrong.

No wonder the anti's are winning more fights than we. I guess the people in Morton Grove and in NYC that saved their lives with a firearm are scum also for doing so, they didn't have "permission" from the state either.

So, why do you have one, Wayne?

Good question. I guess that I got caught up in the "get a permit, it's the law" mentality. I guess for me I did so because I am in the state more then in WA or CA and I didn't want the harressment. But since I don't believe in the permit system I am working with grassroots, OFF, to turn Oregon into an Alaska/Vermont type system. I guess my having renewed makes me a hypocrite in some peoples eyes, that's okay, at least I'm doing something to change it and I will refuse to be unarmed if I do have to go into another state that doesn't honor my permit.

As I grow older, learn more, and read the boards my thoughts and opinions on these matters have changed. I still disagree with the negative posters in this thread and my past actions and thoughts are just that, the past. What I decide to do in the future, obey man's law or the Law of the Land, is up to me.

I guess the real flux of the question is this, should a state or the federal government decide who lives because they paid a tax, or dies, because they didn't. Should a jury of people, in a state that has fed them so many lies that they believe that guns and the use of in defense is so bad that the person is disbarred of life (freedom of movement) and liberty for as long as they live.

Should a person, an individual be so afraid of the government that they would run and try to hide the means that they used to protect themselves. Should an individual who only wishes to make a living, and protect themselves have to shell out hundreds of dollars just for the Right to use the best tool available to them. Should a person, an individual, forego their Right to life just because the state or the federal governments will not allow them.

I will say that if I am in the position that this man found himself, and I was "illegal" due to not having permission, I would have done the same with the exception of throwing away the gun. I would have gone back home and thank God that I was still alive to be able to worry about being caught. Most states, even with doing the right thing which is to stay on scene and turn yourself in will make it a felony to defend yourself with the best tool for the job. No matter how one looks at it, you are going to lose your Rights one way or the other. You will lose the ability to posses and maintain that very tool that allowed you to continue life. And if something were to happen in the future, your chances of survival are greatly diminished, because the government(s) have basically taken your Right to defend your life.

And if you are cool with that, with the deaths of those that have been striped of their Rights as Americans as well as human beings, then so be it. As I mentioned before, you will not change my mind, I am a firm believer that everyone, American or a human being, deserves the Right to protect themselves with the best tool possible. You will stand firm that anyone that protects themselves with the use of such a tool without permission should be strung out to dry. Fine, that is your opinion.

You believe that law trumps life and the ability to protect one's life. I disagreed. And I will continue to disagree. When I read about a murder or an assault in those states that do not allow the Law of the Land, I don't blame anything except the governments that have chosen to allow the criminals to have the upper hand and that don't allow the victims the choice of obtaining and bearing the best tool for self defense.

Wayne

 

[Andalucia]

Which is more important, natural justice or the letter of the law?

There is such a thing as natural justice and all of us know it when we see it. Our laws are an imperfect means to codify what we all know deep in our gut. The right to protect your own life and the lives of those close to you against unwarrented aggression, is a natural law, it is fundamental. Except in this case it runs up against man-made laws. So the question really is, which is more important?

The problem in this case is that while the victim did what every one of us would do in the crisis situation, in doing so he violated a licencing law. Yes he should have paid $100 for the relevant permit and, no he shouldn't have paniced and left the scene, but should he have to lose a year of freedom for defending himself?

Surely the whole point of the jury system is that 12 of your peers can take a dispassionate view of the whole event and can apply their own innate sense of natural justice. The problem is that jurys are too often instructed to apply the letter of the law when their real function is to deliver justice.

All the more so if the two do not coincide.

 

[brnforce]

In the jury system you decide a case based on the facts that are given on that particular case. In the case of whether or not he was justified in shooting the punk with a "knife", he was found not guilty(rightly so). He had a right to protect himself and the jury agreed. In the next case, he was tried for not holding the correct permit. He was carrying a firearm without a permit in a state that required one. While we want to be sympathetic to his cause, if he had been pulled over for speeding (before the shooting) and the police found his firearm, he would have been found guilty for not having the permit. We all choose to live in this country, and by doing so we choose to abide by its laws. If you don't like them, change them(there are legal ways to change laws), or move!!!