Carry concealed Permit a Lie?

[nodaywithout]

I agree with the following statement all with the exception of #2 and 5 of what to do.



The following statement is from http://www.jpfo.org/ccwlie.htm

Rights are defined by Black's Law: "A right of. free action. Rights are "inherent" and cannot be extracted from a person. A right is something that you can do without permission. A privilege is something that cannot be done without permission.

Rights are granted to me by my creator.

Rights and privilege are opposite.

Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Every right implies responsibilities and the only limitation on those rights, is the equal rights of others.

The right to defend and protect myself even to the use of deadly force is granted to me by my creator and guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That right extends to the carrying of a firearm for the purpose of self defense.

A right cannot be licensed or permitted. A license/ permit can be granted/ revoked at any time, at the will of the government that granted the license/ permit or by a higher form of government.

Concealed Carry permits/ license (CCP) laws have been passed by over 35 states nation-wide. There is pending federal legislation that would make states recognized other state CCP as they do their own, just like drivers license, marriage licenses, etc.

CCP licenses/ permits are nothing more than gun registration. If I have a license/ permit granted by a government, then that government knows that I am carrying a concealed weapon and they can check on me, at any time, to see what I am doing and if I am complying with their dictates. If I have a CCP then the government also knows that I own at least one weapon.

The state of North Carolina passed a CCP law in the late 1990's, stating the county sheriff would be the only ones to have any records on who had a CCP. Within three years after the law went into effect, they changed the law and put all CCPs on a state wide data base. Telling every government law enforcement person in the state who is carrying and owns at least one weapon.

Now the federal government wants to be real nice and kind and wonderful and tell all states that they have to acknowledge all the other states that allow CCP. Once this law is in place, then the federal government will have a data base of all those who have at least one weapon. GUN REGISTRATION.

FACT: if you have a CCP, then you own at least one weapon and with a state permitting/ licensing system and the federal government acknowledging it. Then the federal government will not have to go through a lot of paper work to start it's confiscation of all weapons when the mood hits them.

Law enforcement people will not be exempt; if law enforcement (federal, state, local) do not go along with the system then they will give up their rights and their status as the elite. Remember: "we are all equal, some more equal than others".

When states passed the CCP laws, it was just a way to keep the sheep off guard and a lot of us fell for the betrayal and lies that were told to us by the elected freedom takers. The lie was: just ask for a permit/license because we want only the law bidding and the good people to have a permit/ license to carry a weapon. Would a criminal apply for a permit/ license?? That was the first lie; telling us to prove that we are innocent is in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The next lie: The license/ permit will be just paper work and there will be no data base kept. They changed the law a few years later with no fan fare and the watchdog pro-gun groups missed that one. Then we got betrayed again. The next lie: Now they want a federal law that will make all states recognize other states' CCPs, so that we can go about our lives and not be concerned over legal issues, which will lead to a federal database. And the rest will be history.

There are states that allow people to carry a weapon open but then there is a law that say, you can be charged with "going in terror of the public", catch 22.

Then there are the states that do not required a license/ permit if you want to carry a concealed weapon. Remember: "an armed society is a polite society" and "a safe society is one where the criminal does not know who is armed", the criminal/ enemy can be the government, federal, state, local, it does not matter.

Until we get elected people who will not make new laws but repeal and/or modify old laws that would make it a right for all decent citizens to be able to carry a weapon, without the need of paperwork; anyway, anywhere, anyhow and the right of the use of deadly force without the fear of prosecution. We will be under control of the government and we will be their slaves and they will be our masters.

When was the last time that you got a permit/ license to go to church, read a magazine, write a letter to the paper, voice your opinion? Do you need a license/permit to remain silent?

The government must know who is carrying. Licensing/ permitting is a ploy by government to know who has the weapons and knowing who has a CCP; the government does not have to collect all the paper work that was used to buy the weapons. The government just checks the CCP data base and these will be the first who will have their weapons taken away, when the gun confiscations starts, by hook or by crook, by will or by force. Then there will be the ones who will rat out others just to save their skins, the first ones will be the politicians, law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and government employees and others will follow. All these people will have to do is rat you out and they save themselves from a possible prison time. They will still give up their weapons but they will not be in prison, just slaves.

What can you do?

1.
Find out what are all the laws and rules are in your state related to CCP and weapons ownership.
2.
Destroy your CCP, advise your local, county, state law enforcement that you do not have a CCP. Make sure that your information is off any and all state data bases.
3.
Work to get people elected that will alter/ change laws that will make it legal to carry without a permit/license.
4.
If you must carry, be very careful, with the search rules that are in place by the courts, you will be taking a chance.
5.
Advise others of the CCP lie and what is going on in your state.

We must work together to bring back the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is not just a piece of paper and it is not a living document. It is the law of the land.

Remember the Trojan horse, the unintended consequences of laws, regulations and rules and how, when passed they appeared good but later they were twisted and the back page was learned and the truth came out about their real intention, Patriot Act I & II, National ID Act, RFID chip Act.

A lot of laws that have been passed within the last ten years looked good, sounded good and were meant to be good, but what could'a, should'a, would'a, wasn't.

Wake up people, the coffee is boiling over.

[Bill of Rights]

I can agree with the whole thing in principle, and only in principle. Operating outside the law, while exactly what our Founders did, in our current day and age is just a fast way to get yourself busted and charged with a felony, such that you cannot ever carry within the unConstitutional laws again.
I am convinced there will, in the not too distant future, be a day when the people will say, "Enough is enough! I've had it with these MFin' snakes on this MFin' plane!" or words to that effect, and those in office will have to answer for the violation of their oath of office, not at re-election but at the door of their offices, their cars, their homes.. And when it happens, if they survive, the only ones they'll be able to blame are the people they see in the mirror every morning. I fear that only once that happens will the CCW laws go as they should. I pray that I am mistaken and that SCOTUS uses Marbury vs. Madison and Miranda vs. Arizona as precedents in the Heller (was Parker) vs. DC case.

Blessings,
M

[junglebob]

St. Michael, It sounds like you've read Unintended Consequences. I am sure they founding fathers would have opposed licensing the right to keep and bear arms. Here in Illinois they license the right to be an arms keeper with the Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) and the law is vary similar to what Nazi Germany had for gun registration. Illinois got the FOID card in the 60's I understand. There was apparantely a racist reason behind it, the politicians in Chicago didn't want inner city blacks to have guns. There surely racist reasons behind concealed carry prohibitons in many states. The Unintended Consequences book mentioned that though it was illegal in Missouri to carry a concealed handgun until the 60's (or after) a white man had never been convicted of the offense.

Here in Illinois when our Governor Rod Blagojevich was in the legislature he introduced a bill to effectively increase the cost of the FOID card 100 times the cost is $5 for 5 years he proposed to make card valid for 1 year and raise the cost to $100. Was this a racist idea to ensure fewer inner city blacks owned firearms, maybe. Then again it may have been his way of insuring that there were less firearm owners in general. Has he talked about this since running for governor, of course not. It would be political suicide when campaigning outside Chicago, though he may not get reelected again anyway. He's made numerous enemies in his own party this year.

A state carry permit allows you to excercise the right to bear arms, that sounds like an oxymoron. If your state decided to raise the fee to $2000 a year then what. I saw a post somewhere about ownership of pit bulls in the U.K. the politicians decided they wanted to get rid of pit bulls. They required a license to own one and someone said the cost was around that. Then they passed further restrictions, dogs needed to be muzzled and nuetered. Finally many people turned their dogs over to the government. This person noted that many people kept them for home protection and after several people in his neighborhood got rid of theirs their homes were brokent into. Of course they had no firearms to protect themselves.

Maybe after the last two "right denied" states have carry permits we can work on Vermont style legislation nationwide. Alaska did go from "right denied" to "permit required" to "no permit required".

[VegasGeorge]

It's been my experience that politicians react to whichever group is making the most noise, creating the most publicity, and donating the most money. I have no respect for professional (multi-term) politicians. But, I'm not beneath using them. Understanding how they operate, we gun rights, 2nd Amendment advocates simply need to organize more effectively, and concentrate on buying the politicians we need. The NRA goes a long way toward achieving that goal, but not far enough. We need to pull together, literally, and demonstrate block voting potential, campaign financing potential, and mass demonstration potential. Then we will start to get more respect from our elected representatives. Remember, elections often turn on small percentages, and politicians are well aware of that fact.

[Lady Di]

Ronald Reagan didn't think too much of professional politicians either. :lol:

“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.” -Ronald Reagan

[Bill of Rights]

concentrate on buying the politicians we need.

The saddest part of the whole thing is that few if any of us will deny, let alone be surprised by this phrase. We have the numbers in terms of votes, but with rectal orifices like George Soros, the other side has the money, and money buys not only politicians, but also private enterprises such as those that make voting machines.

I'm just sayin'...


Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[larryarnold]

I would prefer Vermont carry as well. However: In the mid 1980s Marion Hammer was doing well to manage a shall-issue law for Florida. Had she insisted on Vermont carry we would still have Vermont and one or two shall-issue states (not including Florida) today. Florida's shall-issue law started a trend of obtainable shall-issue laws. These shall-issue laws were the first trend away from the gun control agenda since 1968. The people who signed up for concealed handgun licenses formed an easily-researchable group of gun owners, and by their actions proved that gun owners are reasonable people. No other group of folks has played a comparible role in exposing the Brady lie. The resulting resurgence of the pro-gun movement was a major factor in the Democrat bloodbath of the 2001 election, without which we could easily have lost all our gun rights. As a result of the spread of shall-issue states, law-abiding gun owners can carry concealed in forty out of fifty states. The success of the concealed carry movement made it possible to pass carry laws for airline pilots and off-duty or retired cops. We are now, for the first time since 1968, seriously debating students carrying on college campuses and teachers carrying at other schools.Licensed carry is far from perfect, but it has gotten us a whole lot closer than anything else could have. Given the current political climate, now is not the time to throw away this extremely valuable tool.

[HairyEyeball]

While the above arguments are valid and reasonably accurate, the 'permit' system is firmly buttressed by the twin pillars of money and power.

As long as an issuing authority demands - and receives - a constant flow of revenue from the issuance and renewal of 'permits' to exercise a right, it will continue to maintain such system. When the cost of maintaining such bureaucracy escalates, or funding is needed for unrelated issues and cannot be otherwise obtained, rates will increase, and the majority of 'law-abiding' citizens may grumble, but will pay the increased fees, suffer shorter expiration dates, and comply.

As long as the government - at any level - has the power to determine who may or may not exercise a 'right' (which no longer is a 'right', but becomes a 'privilege' through voluntary abrogation), and to only grant such privilege after the supplicant petitions and submits a bribe to that government (or its agency), and maintains a file of who the individuals who may, presumptively on their whim constitute a 'threat' to that government, bureaucracy or agency, it will maintain that power.

The argument that 'rights' need be 'regulated for the public good' (am I the only one to whom that sounds suspiciously like "...for the children..."?) is specious: If every citizen has the same 'rights' as every other citizen, then by definition those 'rights' are self-regulating. To paraphrase Mr. Justice Holmes, 'Your right to swing your fist ends at the point I have the right to swing mine'.

The argument that this is not the same nation it was in the era that saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights drafted is empty. While the Founding Fathers may not have been prescient to the point that they imagined today's technology, they have an almost perfect record in predicting human nature. Criminals may be somewhat more sophisticated (or not) now than then, but they still exist, and still practice the same crimes. 'Rulers', whether they take their posts through election, through conquest, through assassination or through accident of birth still strive to increase and consolidate their power. And an armed and aware citizenry is - or would be - a check on either.

The individual has rights - unless and until he surrenders them - and as pointed out, responsibilities. Governments have power. Your rights come to a screeching halt when they impinge on mine. Government power should also end when it impinges on the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, too many have abrogated their rights, causing the rest of us to 'lose' ours. This can be reversed, but only if we take them back the way they were stolen from us: Little by little, one nibble, one small bite at a time, by dedicated individuals who take over, and work within, 'the system'. It will not be easy by any means, but it will be both easier and more effective to elicit change from within 'the system' than from within the penitentiary - a probably destination for those who violate 'the law', no matter how illicit such be.