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.
READER RESPONSES
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.
Sincerely,
MG
---------------------------------
I read Mr. Evey's article with intrest, 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?
Respectfully submitted,
PR
------------------------------
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
---------------------------------
Dear JPFO:
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.
JL
---------------------------------
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 concelaed 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.
FH
----------------------------------
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.
Regards,
CR
--------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Shalom, Zelman:
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.
Respectfully submitted,
DV
--------------------------------------
I agree! And in the spirit of The Who's great song, "We
won't get fooled again!", let us NOT be fooled again!
KL
---------------------------------------
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.
Thanks,
KM
--------------------------------------------
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,
E
-----------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------
Aaron,
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
----------------------------------------------------
Dear JPFO;
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.
JH
