Skip to content

Infringing the Right to Bear Arms- you need a permit to do that

April 25, 2017

We hear a lot of shallow words about rights.  A right is a power you already have that you want the government to leave alone.  It would be nice if the government would protect your rights, but they should at least stop infringing on them.  When we consider the many layers of government, it is easy to see that they have a very difficult time leaving any aspect of our lives unregulated.  The power of a government to regulate a right is the power to destroy that right, particularly when it comes to our right of self-defense.  Governments infringed that right so badly that now tens of millions of us can’t get the required permits to bear arms.  Politicians rationalize their regulation of self-defense by wrapping their restrictions in the cloak of public safety.  In fact, that cloak has often been the white sheet of racism directed against minorities and the poor.

Sometimes the racism is blatant.  Sometimes it is subtle, like demanding long term residency before a law enforcement officer grants a carry permit.  

“You ain’t from around here, are ya.”

Some of us can’t receive the permits to keep and bear arms, and some of us can.  The exceptions are often politicians and their large political donors.  Even as a media celebrity you have to demonstrate the approved political leanings or you won’t get your permits approved.

Permits are granted as political favors.  Donors of this class often have their own security details anyway, so these purchase and carry permits are like vanity plates.  The people who really need a gun for self-defense the most, people like the poor single mom who lives in the bad part of town, they are least likely to have the required political connections.

Judges ignore that politically motivated bigotry every day.

Some politicians and law enforcement officers hide their prejudices behind rationalizations.  One excuse is called “demonstrated need” or “good cause”.  They ask us to show that we will face an ongoing threat of death or great bodily injury.  How do you prove what the future will hold since past injuries are no guarantee of future assaults?  Under this pretext, police chiefs and judges have denied rape and kidnap victims the “privilege” to bear arms for their own defense.

In the space below, cite documented police reports to substantiate your claim.

[______]

Some cities make it hard but technically possible for ordinary citizens to get a permit.  For example, they might demand a permit before you can touch a gun, let alone rent one, buy one, or get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public.  In the most infamous cases, cities demanded live-fire training to get a permit, and then denied businesses the permits necessary to build and operate a firing range inside city limits.  Affluent people simply drove to distant ranges in the suburbs and got the training they needed.  The poor were simply denied their right of self-defense.

Put not your faith in judges.

Judges let the police have a live-fire shooting ranges inside city limits, but those same judges accept the city’s blatant discrimination against law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.

This bigotry against honest citizens costs time, money and lives.  The costs for mandated permits and training can exceed the price of the gun.  It may take many trips to government offices to get and fill out their mandated permits.  More importantly, it may take many days off work.  The working poor are least able to take time off from work and from tending to their home and family.  The poor are disarmed by the cost of government regulations.

It may take months before government bureaucrats process your application and grant you the god-given right to protect yourself with a tool, or not.  Those who are at the greatest risk may not have months to wait.  Domestic abuse victims were murdered while they waited to receive their government permission slip.

I’ve never heard a government official step forward and accept the blame for these avoidable deaths.

The world isn’t fair.  Rich people hire subordinates to wait in line and deliver the required documents to government bureaucrats.  The wealthy have lawyers that will create the required documentation and fill out the permit applications so that they are acceptable to government officials.  The poor wait in line, wait their turn, and do their best, if they can.

So who qualifies for these rare government permits?  Some sheriffs will automatically grant the privilege of self-defense to judges, lawyers, and doctors.  These are the same professions that law enforcement works with on a daily basis.  Permits are sometimes given to dentists and pharmacists because of the pain medications they handle.  Sheriffs and police chiefs grant permits to some jewelers and bankers because of the valuables they carry.  Sometimes not.

Handling money on a regular basis may mean that bankers get permits.  Sometimes it means that apartment managers and vending machine operators get permits.  Don’t expect consistency when we’re plumbing the depths of human rationalization. The process is arbitrary, lawless, and capricious.  Vending machine operators may get a permit because they handle cash, but hairdressers may not.  Doctors can get a permit, but not nurses or physician assistants.

Few of us have lived perfect lives, and fewer still can perfectly fill out a government form where we ask to have our right to self-defense respected.  Anything can be used as an excuse to deny our request.  Did you have a speeding ticket, a DUI, or a non-violent felony like a bounced check in your past?  Perhaps you have not lived here long enough.

Some jurisdictions will let you pay a lawyer thousands of dollars so you can stand before a judge and ask to have your rights restored.  Some individuals can’t get their rights restored because of their financial situation.  Unfortunately, some states don’t allow appeals or restoration at all.  Similar people living under similar situations receive vastly different legal treatment depending on their means and where they live.  Judges look the other way at this injustice.

Judges and government regulators have long recognized the racism of denying jobs, insurance, and financial loans to minorities.  We routinely examine school acceptance rates and then work to eliminate disparate treatment of the poor.  Unfortunately, judges look the other way when police chiefs deny poor minorities the right to bear arms for their own defense.

Separate and unequal is the rule of the day.

Some judges and political pundits would tell us that the right to self-defense is respected.  That is theory.  In practice, government officials deny the right of self-defense to millions of law abiding adults.  The right to bear arms is infringed.
~_~_

This is a three part series.  Restrictions on where we are allowed to carryrestrictions on who may carry, and restrictions on which guns we are allowed to own.

 

I gave you 1000 words.  Please give me a rating, a like or a share.

Advertisements
10 Comments leave one →
  1. Rich permalink
    April 26, 2017 10:41 am

    The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.
    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+%22supremacy+clause

    Like

  2. Rich permalink
    April 26, 2017 10:42 am

    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

    Like

  3. Rich permalink
    April 26, 2017 10:43 am

    moderation is censorship on this site

    Like

  4. MarkPA permalink
    May 2, 2017 3:53 pm

    OK, so, all of this is true. That conceded, what course of action on our part is likely to make a difference?

    Too many of us, the People of the Gun, can only think of “Constitutional-Carry”. That is the only answer that will satisfy them; and, since that’s not immediately available, they have nothing more to contribute to the discussion of “How to”. Wishful thinking isn’t going to restore the Right to Bear Arms.

    First thing to do is figure-out what efforts divert our energies toward small improvements vs. what efforts would have the greatest impact. Would making PA’s $21/5-year permit go-away be worth the effort? Or, should we rather figure out how to get Shall-Issue in the last 10 Won’t-Issue jurisdictions? Personally, I think these last 10 jurisdictions – with their large populations with lots of Congress-critters – are the bigger threat. I can afford $21 every 5 years.

    Once we agree on a worth-while objective – I suggest Shall-Issue in the last 10 jurisdictions, or National-Reciprocity – what incremental goals might move us toward that objective? Can we do any novel thinking?

    E.g., we have a US Department of Justice that has historically used its investigatory and prosecutorial power to advance the Progressive agenda; e.g., to persecute policing that isn’t perfectly PC. Why wouldn’t President Trump and AG Sessions be amenable to using those powers to investigate the 10 jurisdictions for Civil Rights violations concerning denying the Right to Bear Arms based on political favoritism, bribes or other distinctions not warranted by principles of equal justice? Why is the money of a man-of-means worthy of armed defense (in the body of an armored car driver) whereas the money of a 7-11 clerk (in the purse of its owner) not equally worthy?

    Until November 9’th, 2016, we have had no reason to speculate about any such possibility. Heretofore, no President or AG would have been interested in the Civil Rights to life of a 7-11 clerk. But, things have changed. Why can’t we begin to imagine a vigorous program of enforcing 2A Civil Rights from today’s Executive branch?

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Infringing the right to bear arms- You can’t carry here | SlowFacts
  2. Infringing the Right to Bear Arms- you can’t own a dangerous gun | SlowFacts
  3. Infringing the Right to Bear Arms- you need a permit to do that | ORP Trading Post
  4. GUN GRABBERS: Their Dizzying Rules And Restrictions Are BEYOND Stupid ⋆ Doug Giles ⋆ #ClashDaily
  5. Infringing the Right to Bear Arms- you need a permit to do that – Patriots 1776

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: