RANGER AGAINST WAR: Million Man Permits <

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Million Man Permits


 Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I needed money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won 
--I Fought the Law, 
The Clash

Pancho was a bandit boy,
his horse was fast as polished steel
He wore his gun outside his pants 
For all the honest world to feel 
--Pancho and Lefty
Townes Van Zandt

 The right of the people to keep and bear...
arms shall not be infringed 
--James Madison
 _______________

Florida just issued its millionth Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit, which means it has charged 1,000,000 people $135 each to exercise their constitutional right to carry a weapon.  

For that, they get a laminated card saying they may legitimately tote their guns (independent of the cost for the required class and fingerprints, which are also required.)

Is it even a right if you have to pay for it?  What is next -- Freedom of Speech permits?  CCW's create two classes of citizens -- those who can afford to exercise their constitutional rights, and those who cannot.  Members of one group may pack heat legally, while those in the other are in criminal violation of the law for doing the exact same thing.

If our vaunted Rights are accorded to all citizens, regardless of race, creed or economic level, then why are some rights abridged on any of those criteria?  How is this democratic?

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I have debated this same point throughout this summer of my malcontent with dozens of people who were from all different positions on the subject and it seems, from my sample of american pie, that the majority opinion is that the permitting is only for *handguns*. Therefore the second amendment is alive and well because one can still own a long-gun sans permit.

My response is that the 2a doesn't specify or limit to type or class. Therefore, the any law that requires one to beg for permission to own (as NY law certainly does) and/or pay as most state's laws certainly do, is Unconstitutional.

What I get back is that *obviously* there must be limitations to what kind of arms can be owned. Otherwise we'd have private citizens carrying military assault rifles (M16, AK, etc). Belt fed machine guns? Why not RPGs? Thermo-nukes.......you get the drift. Which is kind of a decent retort and one that pisses me off because I don't have a realy good answer for it other than, "sure. why not allow private citizens to have all of those weapons systems?" because, in practical reality, who can afford a nuclear weapon? Who could even afford a howitzer and shells? And if they could afford it, where could they even fire it without violating a bunch of other laws and ordinances?

Of course, a lot of people could afford shoulder fired automatic weapons and even belt fed machineguns. So does the 2a speak to these? What does it say about it? If it says "NO" then we easily slip and slide down to handguns which then might be more of a priviledge than a right as well.

Right?

avedis

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 8:14:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually my better half answered my above question more intelligently than anyone I've discussed with yet.
1: when the Constitution was written the framers intended the 2a to literally mean that any American could be as well armed as any soldier. This is proven by actual behavior and law back in the day. An individual citizen could (and did often) have a war horse, saber, brace of pistols, rifle and even cannons (if so desired). If the individual was wealthy enough he could privately own a ship as fast and as heavily armed as any in the US Navy. An individual was seen as having the right to the capability of inflicting as much damage, via ordnance, as any soldier.
2: The framers were not stupid. They lived at a time when technology was on th cusp of rapid advancement. They foresaw that weapons would improve in lethality. If they intended for individual citizens to fall behind the govt in the arms race, they would have written some clause into the Constitution to cause this. They did not.
3: Thus, today, individuals should be able to lawfully own belt fed machine guns - and certainly handguns - with complete lack of interference from the govt.
4: The permitting process is an illegal racket to raise $s for politicians special little funds. Who knows where the money goes. Probably into some LE's back pocket.
5: The argument that times have changed, we are more civilized and private citizens don't need automatic weapons is spurious and unconstitutional. If you don't want private citizens to have these things, then, first of, that's is just an opinion and opinions are not laws and you must hold a Constitutional convention and alter the law of the land. You don't get to set the Constitution aside every time it becomes inconvenient.

avedis

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 9:01:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Ael said...

.. well *regulated* militia ..

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 10:58:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Blakenator said...

I think this argument is too often over complicated. I'll go with #4 as a prime motivator. Revenue generation is behind all sorts of "licensing and permitting" in all of the states I am aware of. Want to work at McDonald's? Need a "food handlers" permit. Want to sell used cars? Need a "car selling licnese." Oh, you'll have to pay for that. I will concede that there is some licensing that should be done but many states and municipalities have gone far beyond reasonable.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 11:54:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ael, are you saying Jim (with all of his experience) needs to be regulated? By a qualified whom? Are you saying that his payments into the system and the little plastic card are sufficient regulation?

I'm afraid I just don't see it.

Yes, it is a simple thing that gets overcomplicated by those with alternative agendas.

"....the right of the people..shall not be infringed.."

The people = you and me.

Again, you don't like? Work to change the law, but don't cast it aside and pretend it doesn't exist.

avedis

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 12:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Sigh.

This is SUCH troll-bait. But I'm just that stupid, so here goes.

1. "when the Constitution was written the framers intended the 2a to literally mean that any American could be as well armed as any soldier."

Given the actions that those very framers took against the Whiskey Rebels I would argue that they had no such intent, or, if they did, they changed their mind soon afterwards. Regardless of what the 2A says, the acts of the Federal government leave little confusion about the supremacy of private versus public weaponry.

But on the practical side, any settled polity is settled BECAUSE the government has a monopoly on deadly force. The entire notion that individuals should be able to lawfully own belt fed machine guns - and certainly handguns - with complete lack of interference from the govt is the "governing philosophy" of Somalia.

I'd just as soon not go there.

Would you, really?

2. All the Second Amendment says is that the government has a valid interest in ensuring that armed citizens are available for a militia. It says nothing about what those weapons should be or what "infringement" consists of. I would say that is entirely consistent with many of the other acts of the Framers; they laid out the governing principles in broad terms with the assumption that their successors would enact legislation to refine those principles to deal with the changing times.

The modern U.S. is obviously different from the sparsely settled frontier of 1789. Times have changed, so why shouldn't the type of private weaponry compatible with the modern nation?

3. In this particular case, how is having to pay for a license to carry a weapon concealed on your person different from being required to pay for insurance for your car to drive on a public street, or for a license to prepare food for a public restaurant?

Even moreso; this isn't a license to carry a weapon - it's a license to carry one CONCEALED. I'd argue that any municipality has a valid interest in knowing who is walking around strapped to prevent their coppers getting caught by surprise.

But on the specific question of $$$ I'm with Blakenator; the current mania for "tax cuts" has left most municipal and state governments strapped. These fees are the result. Not sure that all the 2nd Amendment philosophy in the world will change that. If there's something a city or county can slap a "fee" on, they will.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 10:08:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, it *is* troll baitish, but what the hell.....Chief, come one now, the law is the law and whiskey rebellion and changing times/vanished frontier be damned.

Like I said, if you don't like the law and/or think it is no longer appropriate then hold a Constitutional Convention and change it. Otherwise, live by it.

What if someone in govt decided that the times had changed and due processes is an antiquated concept and just went about summarily executing US citizens suspected of some crime or another because the govt found this to be more expedient than obtaining warrants and holding trials and all that old fashioned BS?

What if someone in govt decided times had changed and the original concept of free speach was inconvenient to the new world order and arrested people ( without due process, of course)for trying to peacefully assemble or speaking out against govt atrocities?

Oh wait, the govt *is* doing that and getting away with it......You're right. Times have changed and the Constitution is irrelevant. Like George Bush said, it's just an old piece of paper.

Guess I need to get on the train to the re-education camp.

avedis

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 11:32:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home