Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
JPFO Order Line
Note - (July 2011) We notice sometimes that out of the thousands of alerts sent out, there can be rather high numbers of "bounces" - on checking with our provider it would seem that now and again an ISP makes some change to their email settings and that can result in non-delivery to those using that ISP.
If it happens to be something like Hotmail, Yahoo or even gmail - then many can be affected temporarily. For those who miss out on one of our sendings, we apologize, but the provider does try to stay ahead of things when they can by making changes in their own settings to reflect ISP changes and so control the bounces, which we like to see as zero!
If in doubt, please check the alerts archive to make sure you have not missed anything. Also, if you get alerts do please open them!
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
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?
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.
Dear Aaron and the Liberty Crew,
I'm writing this comment to you as a JPFO supporter and I have "The Concealed-Carry Lie" side by side to reference several points to address. "Incrementalism" is a term I'm borrowing from Rush Limbaugh, because in that cases he mentioned on many of his radio shows, he is right on the money -- regardless of whether all or some of us agree with anything he says. The policy is the best way to get what we want -- a "Bill-of-Rights" society -- line-upon-line, piece-by-piece.
Richard Evey makes many valid points in his column concerning the empirical definitions "Rights" as opposed to c"privileges," such as driver licenses (my observation in this case). Unfortunately, the majority of the people in the USA, much less, those who bother to even vote, don't have any idea that "rights" and "privileges" are the antithesis of each other.
I applaud JPFO for hitting the nail square on the head so many times on these and many other "alerts" issues, it is almost incomprehensible to me that you get to "dead-to-right" 110% of the time. Unfortunately, politics (being what it is today, and the past 200 years) works on an incremental basis. You guys pull issues out of a hat that I never think of in the first place, and make the issue so plain and sensible, it can't be ignored!
We didn't lose our rights in one fell swoop -- we lost them through apathy, and incrementalism. Gun-rights specifically, I only need to point to my former California residence as proof of the pudding. In 1982, the voters stomped a handgun-ban initiative by a more-than two-to-one ratio, and elected governor George Deukmajian. Although 60-Minutes did their obviously biased take on "Proposition-15" the Sunday before the Tuesday election, we -- the gun-owners thought we elected a pro-gun administration and defeated the handgun-ban.
Senator H.L. Richardson -- soon retired -- warned every gun-owner in California -- that after we scored the victory in 1982 against Proposition-15 (the handgun-ban), it should not have been viewed as a death blow to gun control. To the contrary, Richardson said that they -- the gun-haters, would be back again (waiting to dance in the blood of the victims -- my thoughts), and would be much stronger. Richardson was dead-to-right -- 1000% dead-to-right! Along came the Stockton schoolyard shootings, and all hell broke loose.
As went California, so went the Federal-Government, with their ten-year Assault-Weapons Ban, and many states followed suit with more draconian gun laws. Now California is a lost cause -- incrementally -- sold out one-by-one -- by single politicians -- making single votes, or single court appeals, or NOT vetoing stupid legislation here and there. I left the State my second and final time in December, 1994 because our freedoms were being incrementally stolen and sold out by government and public apathy.
On the flip side, more than a dozen states passed ""shall issue" CCW legislation, and made further improvements -- once they (the pro-gun legislators) had their foot in the door, there was room for improvement. It is ironic that the "shall-issue" CCW movement started and cemented itself in the Deep South -- once a seed of bigotry, and now a virtual safe-haven against victim-disarmament -- along with "castle-doctrine" legislation that is now spreading like wildfire.
Now, only two states remain bigoted -- Illinois and Wisconsin. Of course, the "may issue" states should be grouped in the same wood-pile as the "non-issue" states, but in rural areas of those states, people can still get permits.
Ideally, a perfect Bill-of-Rights culture should be like Vermont, and Alaska -- but incrementalism has to prevail first. Example: the recent decision by the Michigan Attorney-General's opinion allowing citizens to own machineguns following the Form-4 process. Gun registration? You bet. But it is incrementally better than nothing at all. Final reform of the NFA will help, and the elimination of Title-18, § 922(o) would be ideal, but we need to do things a piece at a time -- just as we lost our rights a piece at a time.
Sure, we can ask for the moon, and get a small piece. But we can never stop asking for the Moon, better yet, Mars -- we may get Lucky and get more than we got before (maybe the Moon), if we keep the fire to the feet of the politicians. More incrementalism -- line-upon-line, piece-by-piece.
As a former Union rep, I found it disgusting that the prevailing attitude amongst the majority of the high officials -- both locally, and nationally -- was "to keep what membership on the rolls that they had," and not go out on a massive organizing campaign to get more members of the now 88% of the workforce that was NOT unionized. Their position was a defeatist position, and the companies took full advantage of them by running roughshod over the members in issues like workplace abuse, safety, civil rights, and other prosecutable Federal violations that the unions couldn't or wouldn't ever contest. That is exactly what made California into "The People's Republik of Kalifornia" since\ 1989. lose a little here, lose a little there, "it can't happen here.," and they lost all the battles and the war too.
I agree that current CCW is nothing more than permission from the Government to pack heat. But I would rather have the heat to pack under licensure, than none at all. We just need to keep pushing until something gives. Regardless of whether the NRA gives Congressman "Nonsense- en-Brenner" a high suck-up award, we can still make him eat come crow, and make revenge a dish best served cold. The "1994 bloodbath" in Congress was a fine example. Unfortunately, politicians forget who brought them into their offices, and the Radical Left, and the Squishy Republicans vote Politically Correct.
My close friend in the Sacramento NRA office at least has the good sense NOT to endorse bad California politicians. He calls Sacramento "The Occupied Zone." Although the NRA isn't perfect, my friend would make a good JPFO member and really does "walk the walk" when it comes to picking worthy candidates to endorse -- OR NOT. "Vote wrong" -- "sorry charley." "Didn't answer our questioner?" -- "who needs you?" "No pro-gun record, or media double-speak?" -- "See-ya, pal!"
Well Liberty Crew -- that's my opinion. As always, good work done. I don't agree with every point Mr. Evey wrote, but it vis sensible, and he is more knowledgeable than I. incrementalism, in my opinion is the best way to a Bill-of-Rights culture. Then we can fifty Vermont's and Alaska's.
I read Mr. Evey's article with interest, and I certainly agree with him in priciple. In practice however, I will not give up my "privilege" to defend myself and my family, in the form of a CCP. I am also unwilling to risk imprisonment and disarment by carrying without permission.
If I may be so bold, I would recommend a different track in fighting the dangers of this legislation. Get EVERYONE to apply for a CCW, any freedom lover who owns guns or not. The bigger these databases get, the harder it is to zero in on any individual; hide in the noise so to speak. As Mr. Evey pointed out, these databases enable the ATF to know who "troublemakers" are, how much better for us if that list contains a sizeable percentage of the American People?
CCW LIE. AARON YOU ARE RIGHT ON WITH YOUR SUSPICION OF "THE POWERS THAT BE." DR. GREG DIXON SAW YEARS AGO HOW PREACHING OR LABELING SIN OR SINNERS WOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS A VERBAL ASSAULT. CAN YOU SAY HATE SPEECH? FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT, READ THE BOOK DEATH BY GOVERNMENT BY RUMMEL.
INDIANA COUNTRY BOY
Thank you for directing me to Evey's article.
I agree completely that CCP's are a dangerous absurdity. The Second Amendment recognizes (NOT "grants", Evey is exactly right here, too) my unrestricted, unqualified, uninfringed right to be armed. I sometimes carry, sometimes openly, sometimes concealed, but by RIGHT. National reciprocity is in my opinion neutral, it is the idea of a permit which is dangerous. As far as the philosophical concept of "rights" goes, "endowed by our Creator...unalienable..." sounds great, and I often assert it when swimming in philosophically shallow water, but in a sense it is wishful thinking: the history of governments as well as of crime is the history of the alienation of "rights". In the end, our rights are those we can exercise and defend. That is the importance of public discussions such as this, to enlarge and embolden the community of persons willing to collaborate in the exercise and defense of our RIGHTS.
I think McHugh is right in the long run. I think that 'half a loaf' is *not* better than none in this instance.
I'm not a scholarly student of history but I don't think there has ever been a government that has been comfortable with its citizens having arms. The millions who have been killed in the various genocides bear testimony to my assertion. I *think* Bermuda was the exception at one point because crime got out of hand but I don't know the current situation there.
But back to McHugh and VGOC - Doubtless the BATFE would only have to ask (simply on the grounds of 'national security') and many states would jump to turn over all their CHP records to them. So while McHugh is right I don't think he'll make a difference. If he were going to be consistent I would think that he would recommend that citizens not get concealed carry permits.
If VCDL and others are successful in getting national concealed carry I think it will be better for the country in the short term - especially in cities - to cut violent crime - and more convenient for interstate CHP holders - but ultimately it will allow fascists somewhat easier control. Not a good legacy. National reciprocity might be a superior legislative alternative. No regulation and no database would be the best!
I think JPFO has bigger fish to fry than to get involved in national concealed carry.
Thank you Aaron and Crew: You and I know that all anti-gun laws are un-constitutional since they be-pass the second amendment. And I say that those judges that enforce un-constitutional laws are the worst American criminals. But they do their evil work of intimitation with the blessing of the Justice Depart.
The income tax is also un-constitutional, as is the property tax. Any person that has his residence house paid in full and still must pay taxes on it, or the house will be confiscated by the State, or Federal government, does not enjoy free ownership of property as should also be quaranteed by the constitution. Now all those un-constitutional anti-gun laws have only one purpose and that is of disarming the general public, since criminals are by law prohibited from having access to any weapons. Concealed weapon permits are also un-constitutional, but why are the American people so docile as to permit their freedoms being eliminated? A very concerned citizen. Yours in liberty.
Dear Rabbi Zelman,
I personally am not real thrilled the the idea that one must get a cwp to use the 2nd amendment rights for personal protection. I do however travel for a living which means I pass or work in a lot of differant states. Since I drive a van (a heavily profiled vehicle and get stopped about every 2 years by the police)I feel that getting the permit is not a bad idea for me...far better then spending time in jail for carrying or paying big bucks to a lawyer. I figure that since I have the permit and have bought a few toys on the "yellow sheet"the bastards in the gov't know I have a toy dept.
However I would love to see the 2nd Admendment given back to the people..no permits,no bull,just if you are law-abiding you should be able to carry what you want for your personal protection. I am not sure if I would limit this right to citizens only even.
I have let my membership in the NRA lapse because I feel the bucks I send jpfo are far more effective than my NRA dues. I do appreciate your website and updates as well.
I like the "fire extenguisher" arguement. You may never need a fire extnguisher but if you do you REALLY do.
I am a member of the JPFO and the NRA. I have concerns on your national carry recipriority law being a bad thing. I recently got my CCW in my state of GA. I recently had to pay about $75.00. for this right, I had to pay for fingerprinting, a copy of a report on me by the FBI, and a State crime report which was inaccurate and required me to make several trips to the court house in my county of both the magistrate, state, and superior court to find someone who could enter the documented and certified corrected information. This was all over a returned check in 2000 that was dismissed and the state computer system had not been updated. After 6 months, the probate judge finally issued me a CCW permit for 5 years. If all this information was already obtained by the issuing county, doesn't the ATF and all government agencies have access to my records? I later checked and my home state of birth, South Carolina, does not have reciprocity with Georgia. Maybe there is something I am missing but to my understanding the bill is a National Recipricity Law. § H.R. 4547/S. 3275-Legislation that would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if he or she meets certain criteria. Importantly, the laws of each state governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within its borders. Am I missing something? Please explain.
A Concerned JPFO Member.
I am totally against any "law" that steps on my rights. I could never understand how the powers that be could undermine my right to self-defence. I have had a CCP in the past but no longer do. In my state ,which is not a shall-issue, it is extremely difficult to be given that "privilege". I still carry when I feel the need. I know I can be arrested for that "crime" but as my old pappy used to say, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Keep up the good work.
I read Evey's article and I have a "mixed pickles" feeling about the issue of National Reciprocity or a National Carry Permit.
For one thing, as a practical matter, unless one takes really extraordinary measures bordering on the clinically paranoid, there is no way in the long term that the fact that one is a firearms owner can be hidden from modern data bases. I assert this knowledgeably.
While I agree that a Right cannot be abrogated or infringed upon, as another practical matter, the force of authority to compel one to obey even Unconsitutional laws effectively abridges these rights --properly or improperly. And, unfortunately, with the media power to influence opinion, it is "right," in the public's eye, to limit and regulate firearms ownership.
I could wax sarcastic here and offer the observation that it would be far better to limit the First Amendment rights of the Media Juggernaut than the Second Amendment rights of the individual firearms owner.
I have mentioned several times on several firearms websites that while I agree that A2 does not specify or limit the manner in which we bear arms, I feel that I personally do not need the grief and hassle of challenging the constitutionality of limiting my right to carry, concealed or not.
I therefore, somewhat sheeple-like, jumped through the hoops necessary to obtain a "legal" Concealed Carry Permit. I did this knowing full well that regardless of attestaions of confidentiality by my County's Sheriff, someday, sooner or later (perhaps with a new, less-A2-conscious Sheriff), the fact that I personally own a firearm will be a matter of record in some national liquid-nitrogen-cooled Cray computer somewhere.
However, I take comfort in the idea that the more of us who do obtain CCPs (CCWs, LTCs, etc), national or otherwise, the more likely it is that the general public will become aware of the fact that bearing a firearm in ordinary daily pursuits does not automatically mean that one must be either a criminal or a cop.
This will occur and has been occuring naturally, as more newspapers papers note where crimes have indeed been prevented by CCW-ers and other firearms owners in defense of their castles and families. I was pleased to note that even the Boston Globe and the New York TImes have both recently had, if not "overtly positive" reports on the defensive use of firearms and concealed carry laws, at least neutrally factual.
Thus, my "mixed pickles" feeling about the matter. On the one hand, bearing arms in howsomever manner one desires is clearly a Right, but on the other, the debate engendered by both the state legislatures in dealing with concealed carry and now, possibly in the Congress, cannot help but sway public opinion away from the notion that all gunses is big black heavy ugly thingies that go bangy and clanky and might get me all hurted with a boo-boo.
I agree! And in the spirit of The Who's great song, "We won't get fooled again!", let us NOT be fooled again!
Poorly written and full of typographical errors. I understand his essay but it is not persuasive.
Mr. Evey's final suggestions:
1. Find out what are all the laws and rules are in your state related to CCP and weapons ownership.
==OK, easy enough...
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.
==> There is NO WAY to "make sure that your information is off any and all state data bases (sic)."
3. Work to get people elected that will alter/ change laws that will make it legal to carry without a permit/license.
==> I'm a hardcore libertarian and a registered Libertarian. I'm often a Libertarian candidate for office. The LP of CT has been working to get people elected to alter/change the laws -- IT DOESN'T WORK! First, you can almost never get them elected. Second, once elected they can't get the laws changed. If they can affect law it's never in the way you'd like.
==> Example: I'm on the board of education for my regional school system. CT just passed state law banning the sale of soda, flavored water, anything with artificial sweeteners, and sports drinks. Before the law passed, I authored and got passed a resolution from the board telling our Governor, Senator and Representatives that we OPPOSED the ban based on the grounds that it was none of the STATE GOVERNMENT'S business what we served in our cafeteria. Mere hours ago I made a motion that our school system IGNORE THE BAN and sell all the products that we had sold in the past. I wanted us to deliberately and blatantly disobey a ridiculous law. My motion failed 3 to 8. My constant nemesis, Dieter Zimmer (native of Germany, don't know if he's a Jew or not) was the most vocal opponent. If he'd supported me the motion would have passed. Dieter's accent is very strong and we don't understand him all the time. But at one point he actually said (paraphrase) "the government has been telling us that they want us to eat healthier and now that we have not been listening they will help us learn how to behave correctly by passing this law." I instantly responded with "seig heil" (no hand gesture). After the meeting I told him that "Civil disobedience is truly dead. Ghandi is rolling over in his grave. You disagree with the law but you won't stick up for your principles. You might as well not have any."
==> Our board of ed meetings are taped and played on community access TV. I speak ENTHUSIASTICALLY about freedom and responsibility during the board meetings every chance I get. I've never gotten negative feedback from anyone in town. ("Enthusiastically" is my euphemism for being a libertarian pain in the ass.)
==> Next month some students will give a presentation on a research topic they chose for a Future Problem Solvers competition. The subject? "The Redistribution of Wealth"! When I heard they had done this project I asked the Superintendent to schedule a presentation to the board. I told the videographer tonight that I wanted the best sound she could possibly get since I might be asking for a copy of the tape.
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.
==> Absurd advice to give anyone unless you want them to end up in jail as a felon. Carrying a gun in CT without a permit will land you in jail, then I lose my RIGHT to vote and my RIGHT to self-defense (because I cannot own weapons any more).
5. Advise others of the CCP lie and what is going on in your state.
==> OK, that's a challenge that any libertarian should be willing to accept.
By the way, it is NOT CORRECT that everyone with a valid CCP owns at least one weapon. A friend of mine wanted to get his permit and he did not own a gun.
You know what's better registration than CCP? To buy a gun in CT I have to fill out 1/2 hour's worth of paperwork. I have many guns and I expect that somewhere the government knows about every one of them. Well, not EVERY one... I don't really know what happens to all that paperwork.
To : Liberty Crew
I agree with your comments re the so called National Right To Carry. It is a very BA(TF)D IDEA !
I don't think it's so wise to tell people to turn in their permits. These are dangerous times and getting more so. Equally dangerous is carrying without a permit, due to strict penalties.
As for a national carry law, I think it's a great idea whose time is long overdue. The government wouldn't know any more than they already do because don't think for a minute that if asked, the states would hesitate to turn over their list.
I'm surprised and very disappointed that you would even suggest such a thing.
Yours in disgust,
Did you know a 12 gauge shotgun shell will fit nicely inside a 1/2 id plumbing pipe? What is the burst strength of that pipe and what pressure will be generated by the ignition of that shell? What would be a good hammer and pin mechanism for such a home made device? What materials are needed to make gunpowder when shell purchases become licensed activities?
Perhaps these are the articles you guys need to research and write, along with your other important activities and articles.
Here's something for your review: http://www.synapticsparks.info/law/
Feel free to plug it, or even mirror it, if it suits your purposes.
I just read this article. The person sounds borderline ridiculous.
Because of my ccp, they know I have one firearm. There are well over 200 million firearms in our country. Seems to me, just by the odds, if they wanted to confiscate all the guns, they could hit every door and be 2 for 3.
Then his advice, tear up your ccp permit? Wow! Talk about cut your nose to spite your face. Now your really [in trouble]. Can't legally carry concealed to protect you and your family. If you do it illegally, then your [in trouble] if Johnny law gets you.
Anyway, I enjoy your site and thoughts. Keep it up.
Regards, Dr. M
I read the article on the ccw lie. I agree with it in principle. However, I do not think it is a wise decision to give up one's permit to carry while fighting the system which requires it in an effort to implement a change in the law. This leaves one with the options, in Virginia, to only carry openly (unwise); to not carry at all (unacceptable); or to carry concealed without a permit and risk jail time (also unacceptable). I do not like the permit system for the very reasons outlined in this article. However, I have had a ccw permit ever since Virginia law was changed to "shall issue." Admittedly, I always carried concealed without a permit before the law was changed. But now that obtaining a permit has become much easier, prosecutors are much more eager to prosecute those who carry concealed without a permit.
In Virginia, the first offense is a misdemeanor, so the risk is somewhat minimal. However, the second and subsequent offenses are a felony, which means risking the loss of all gun rights forever! It is a real dilemma for us freedom lovers, but I am not sure that non-compliance is the best answer. Does JPFO advocate carrying concealed firearms without a license when it is illegal? Certainly you do not advocate going unarmed! I respect your opinions and appreciate your educational efforts. I would like to know what your specific advice would be in my particular situation. Should I give up my permit and continue to carry, or should I retain my permit and work to get the law changed while obeying it in the interim? Thanks in advance for your advice. Sincerely, AL
I'm happy if you all are entertaining each other with such stuff as the introductory comments in this article by Evey. (Don't turn jaundiced -- I'm a huge fan of JPFO.)
I read this stuff, stated somewhat similarly, all the time. It's baloney - IN FACT - IN LAW!!
Otherwise, if this: "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." were correct Evey could go buy/ make a sawed-off shotgun and carry it around wherever he wanted, without permission (a license, in this case) -- including waltzing around with it in front of the BATF Bldg. in Washington. I dare him.
These things (Evey talks about) "should" be Rights but they obviously aren't! Guess it makes people feel good to talk about them as such. NO LEGISLATION WILL EVER MAKE IT SO. (We, long term, could try pulling what the libs/DEMS are so successful at -- get enough right thinkers on the Supreme Court, and have the court rule that the Constitution says what Evey says!!!)
I do wish you (and Evey, too!!) well. I love and appreciate your work and rely on your guidance.
Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link back to the original page on JPFO is included.