Concealed carry question...

[Plain Old Dave]

How is the Concealed Carry Permit system not fundamentally ceding the argument to the other side? If we're requesting permission to exercise a fundamental human right, aren't we giving credence to the idea that gun use and ownership is a privelege subject to government regulation and not a fundamental human right?

Floor is open.

Edited January 31, 2011 by MacGyver
Removal of content discussing illegal activity

[DRM]

How is the Concealed Carry Permit system not fundamentally ceding the argument to the other side?

I think it is.

[MacGyver]

I'll leave the question posed by the OP open for now, but with reservations.

Please refrain from discussing carry without a permit. Certainly, it's an individual choice, but is also illegal. If someone chooses to do it, they should recognize that it is illegal within the confines of the current law and know better than to discuss it here.

[RobertNashville]

How is the Concealed Carry Permit system not fundamentally ceding the argument to the other side? If we're requesting permission to exercise a fundamental human right, aren't we giving credence to the idea that gun use and ownership is a privelege subject to government regulation and not a fundamental human right?

Floor is open.

I assume you understand that our permit in Tennessee is not a "concealed carry" permit but rather a "carry" permit meaning that you are not required to conceal your weapon?

Moving on, I would agree that the right for a person to carry a weapon on his person at all times - to be able to defend himself and to carry arms to do so is a very basic one; even more "basic" than the second amendment right enumerated in the Constitution. That said, as long as the State of Tennessee isn't refusing to issue permits in a capricious way, I doubt you'll ever win the argument that it's a violation of our rights. In other words, as long as the state is only denying permits to those who already can't legally possess a firearm, I think the law will pass a constitutional challenge.

EDIT: As I said above, "that the right for a person to carry a weapon on his person at all times - to be able to defend himself and to carry arms to do so is a very basic one...". Since that doesn't seem to be clear to some, that means I do believe that bearing arms is a "right" and not a "privilege".

However, I don't believe that having a "permit process" is equal to ceding our rights to the state unless, as I said, as long as the State of Tennessee isn't refusing to issue permits in a capricious way".

I trust I'm not being unclear.

Edited January 31, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

I assume you understand that our permit in Tennessee is not a "concealed carry" permit but rather a "carry" permit meaning that you are not required to conceal your weapon?

Moving on, I would agree that the right for a person to carry a weapon on his person at all times - to be able to defend himself and to carry arms to do so is a very basic one; even more "basic" than the second amendment right enumerated in the Constitution. That said, as long as the State of Tennessee isn't refusing to issue permits in a capricious way, I doubt you'll ever win the argument that it's a violation of our rights. In other words, as long as the state is only denying permits to those who already can't legally possess a firearm, I think the law will pass a constitutional challenge.

+1

[DRM]

I assume you understand that our permit in Tennessee is not a "concealed carry" permit but rather a "carry" permit meaning that you are not required to conceal your weapon?

Moving on, I would agree that the right for a person to carry a weapon on his person at all times - to be able to defend himself and to carry arms to do so is a very basic one; even more "basic" than the second amendment right enumerated in the Constitution. That said, as long as the State of Tennessee isn't refusing to issue permits in a capricious way, I doubt you'll ever win the argument that it's a violation of our rights. In other words, as long as the state is only denying permits to those who already can't legally possess a firearm, I think the law will pass a constitutional challenge.

All that said - you really didn't answer his question (other than by the mere fact that you seem to accept permission is acceptable in lieu of a right, you are saying you agree you have ceded to the opposition and that it is not a right at all). Are you stating that is your view, or just why things "are the way they are".

Proving it and it being a right aren't necessarily the same thing, and I think you're right about why we won't see it change... To be honest - I think it's sad that some people are so scared to lose the permissions they do have, they won't stand up for the rights they allowed to be converted into permissions.

[RobertNashville]

All that said - you really didn't answer his question...

I think we can let the person who actually asked the question decide whether or not I answered it to his satisfaction.

I get the impression that you you want to continue an argument from other threads into this one and I've no desire to do so.

Edited January 31, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

How about we let the person who actually asked the question decide whether or not I answered it to his satisfaction...I'm sure he is capable of speaking up for himself if what I said was unclear or not satisfactory.

I wasn't aware this was only a 2 party private conversation. If you can't understand or handle the concept of an open discussion forum, perhaps you'd be better off ignoring those of us who do get it.

[RobertNashville]

I wasn't aware this was only a 2 party private conversation.

It isn't; I just think it a bit presumptions of you to declare that I didn't answer the OP's question.

f you can't understand or handle the concept of an open discussion forum, perhaps you'd be better off ignoring those of us who do get it.

I understand and can handle the concept of an open discussion forum quite well and I know of no rules or forum etiquette that requires me to engage in discussion with someone just because they want to discuss something.

[JayC]

But, while the permit itself may not be a Constitutional issue, the cost of the permit is... SCOTUS has ruled over and over again that even a $5 soliciting permit fee is a violation of the 1st Amendment... but a $150-250 'fee' to get a permit isn't a violation of the 2nd?

You're right, you probably can't win a lawsuit using logic like that... but that is the fundamental problem with our government. It no longer respects the limits we the sovereigns placed on it.

I assume you understand that our permit in Tennessee is not a "concealed carry" permit but rather a "carry" permit meaning that you are not required to conceal your weapon?

Moving on, I would agree that the right for a person to carry a weapon on his person at all times - to be able to defend himself and to carry arms to do so is a very basic one; even more "basic" than the second amendment right enumerated in the Constitution. That said, as long as the State of Tennessee isn't refusing to issue permits in a capricious way, I doubt you'll ever win the argument that it's a violation of our rights. In other words, as long as the state is only denying permits to those who already can't legally possess a firearm, I think the law will pass a constitutional challenge.

[DRM]

It isn't; I just think it a bit presumptions of you to declare that I didn't answer the OP's question.

You are free to clarify further.

I understand and can handle the concept of an open discussion forum quite well and I know of no rules or forum etiquette that requires me to engage in discussion with someone just because they want to discuss something.

For someone who doesn't want to engage me, this now makes 2 replies directed specifically to me with you adding zero substance to the discussion. Can we get back to the topic now? I'd rather talk about it anyway

[Plain Old Dave]

The question still stands:

Life is a fundamental human right; I infer defense of life is also a fundamental human right from this.

The question is still open: How is submitting to an interposed bureaucratic system NOT ceding to the other side that, instead of as we assert, defense of life is instead a privelege subject to governmental approval?

To restate my original post (that was modified without my assent) hopefully in a fashion that will not run afoul of certain peoples' sensibilities,

In Montana, Alaska or Vermont, if someone feels the need to carry a firearm, they may do so. No questions asked. If they do NOT feel the need to carry a firearm, they may do that as well. Again, no questions asked. To my mind, this as it should be. How is interposing a bureaucratic system into this exercise of fundamental human rights NOT ceding that self-defense is a privelege, subject to governmental approval?

[RobertNashville]

You are free to clarify further.

Thanks for the permission...I think the statement was quite clear and further clarification unnecessary.

For someone who doesn't want to engage me, this now makes 2 replies directed specifically to me with you adding zero substance to the discussion. Can we get back to the topic now? I'd rather talk about it anyway

Okay...I feel pretty much the same about the amount of substance you've added...I guess that makes us even!

[RobertNashville]

...Life is a fundamental human right; I infer defense of life is also a fundamental human right from this.

I think everybody here agrees that it is.

The question is still open: How is submitting to an interposed bureaucratic system NOT ceding to the other side that, instead of as we assert, defense of life is instead a privelege subject to governmental approval?

As long as the process isn't done in an unfair/capricious way, all the HCP process really does is identify people that (most of us would agree) should not be allowed to possess a firearm in the fist place, let alone be allowed to carry a firearm in public. In other words, the mere establishment of such a process is not, in my humble, layman's opinion, a violation of our rights nor a ceding of our rights to the state.

In Montana, Alaska or Vermont, if someone feels the need to carry a firearm, they may do so. No questions asked. If they do NOT feel the need to carry a firearm, they may do that as well. Again, no questions asked. To my mind, this as it should be. How is interposing a bureaucratic system into this exercise of fundamental human rights NOT ceding that self-defense is a privelege, subject to governmental approval?

It seems what you really want to discuss is what is commonly called "Constitutional Carry"...that topic has been beaten to death and very recently (as in just a few days ago) and I doubt that there is anything more than can be added here. As such, I'll leave that issue to others to address.

With that said, I hope I've answered your question; if I haven't, maybe someone else who is more articulate can do so.

Edited January 31, 2011 by RobertNashville

[MacGyver]

To restate my original post (that was modified without my assent) hopefully in a fashion that will not run afoul of certain peoples' sensibilities,

Consider yourself lucky I left the thread open (with or without your consent).

I edited your post this morning to remove an admission, that if performed in Tennessee is illegal. Read the Code of Conduct. I left the thread open with your edited post to see if any meaningful debate could come from the discussion. So far, I am regretting that decision.

Nonetheless, here's how I see your question:

1. I believe we as humans have a fundamental right to life.
   
2. I also believe that I have a fundamental right to defend my life, my family's life, and anyone else's where their above right is being abrogated in some way.
   
3. The application of my right to defense may not necessarily stop if I don't have a firearm. A firearm is a convenient, effective tool. But, I can assure you, that even when I am without a firearm, I still stand prepared to defend my family.
   
4. I, too would prefer to be able to carry without a permit. A Constitutional right to carry, if you will. I think there is a reason that our founding fathers placed the 2nd Amendment right behind the first. It's that important.
   
5. That said, we have to work within the system we have right now, and I think we can do that without necessarily "ceding" anything to the other side. We have process to change laws we don't agree with. Some would argue that the numbers of voting gun owners is reaching a critical mass. Look at the Firearms Freedoms Acts or the Healthcare Freedoms Acts that are making their way through legislatures and courts now. We're approaching enough dissent at the state level to reasonably call for a Constitutional Convention. Whether you think that's a good idea or not, we've got some formidable mass that we can fight some battles with.
   
6. I think the above scenario is unfortunately the only real way to proceed. This isn't going to be a Rosa Parks type issue. You strap on a gun without a permit in most states today, the public is going to brand you a criminal, thus ensuring that you lose the privileges that you can participate in today. We're not going to change the anti-gun crowd. The only end-game they're interested in is removing all guns. Since we have plenty of examples of how that's worked out in other countries (and some animous cities here in the U.S.), I don't know that it even matters what they think. We're not going to win them over to our side.
   
7. We need to participate lawfully within the system we have, show ourselves to be upstanding citizens, make a case for our beliefs, and work to change the laws we have for the better. And, the laws really are getting better. It's a long, slow slog we've got ahead of us, but we are making progress.
   

Edited January 31, 2011 by MacGyver

[Plain Old Dave]

Might be better to lock it, as I haven't got what I would consider to be an articulate, sensible answer. I don't have a permit and won't get one. What I choose to do with my private property is nobody's business but mine. If other folks want to participate in this system, that's their choice. Only question I have that it seems as though nobody wants to answer is how does requesting permission from the Government to engage in a fundamental human right NOT cede that that right is not a right at all but is instead a granted privelege, subject to revocation? I googled "constitutional carry" and I reckon that's basically what I would like to see. Doesn't appear as though there's any real interest in debating it, so go ahead and lock it of you're so inclined.

[RobertNashville]

The fact that you aren't getting the answer you want does not mean that the answers you are getting are not articulate or sensible.

No one is forcing you to participate in the HCP process and you are free to do as you please so long as you are also willing to face whatever the consequences might be.

[MacGyver]

I'll posit again, that you don't lose your right to defense just because you don't have a weapon. Defense of one's life has happened for thousands of years without firearms.

I'll also state again that carrying a firearm on your private property doesn't matter so long as you are legal to have it. Carrying a firearm as your "private property" anywhere else is illegal and subject to plenty of consequences. Don't post about it here.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't have a permit and won't get one. What I choose to do with my private property is nobody's business but mine. If other folks want to participate in this system, that's their choice.

Good luck with that. As much as you wish to live in a fantasy land, even though it's what we all want, it doesn't excuse you from the rule of law. If you wish to do illegal activities, don't be surprised when it lands you behind a set of bars. Those of us who choose to live in the real world and don't wish to become Bubba's girlfriend choose to obey the law and work to change it by lawful means.

[strickj]

The question still stands:

Life is a fundamental human right; I infer defense of life is also a fundamental human right from this.

The question is still open: How is submitting to an interposed bureaucratic system NOT ceding to the other side that, instead of as we assert, defense of life is instead a privelege subject to governmental approval?

To restate my original post (that was modified without my assent) hopefully in a fashion that will not run afoul of certain peoples' sensibilities,

In Montana, Alaska or Vermont, if someone feels the need to carry a firearm, they may do so. No questions asked. If they do NOT feel the need to carry a firearm, they may do that as well. Again, no questions asked. To my mind, this as it should be. How is interposing a bureaucratic system into this exercise of fundamental human rights NOT ceding that self-defense is a privelege, subject to governmental approval?

There is no restriction placed on self defense. As mentioned, a gun is not self defense. A gun is a tool for self defense.

As long as the process isn't done in an unfair/capricious way, all the HCP process really does is identify people that (most of us would agree) should not be allowed to possess a firearm in the fist place, let alone be allowed to carry a firearm in public. In other words, the mere establishment of such a process is not, in my humble, layman's opinion, a violation of our rights nor a ceding of our rights to the state.

That's well said and kind of the way I see it too.

[vontar]

in before the Lock.

I also wish we had Constitutional carry here like a few other states, however until then we have to follow the law of the land. Just like when we cross a state line we have to follow that states laws. KY is a good state, you can open carry there with out a permit.

Not happy with a law, lobby and vote to get laws changed. We have to work with the system (as broken as it is).

We just have to vote in some pro gun support that won't stab us in the back after they get in office. However, as I understand, we lost some of our pro gun support in Nashville this election, so it may take some small steps.

Trust me, I will be happy if TN ever gets Constitutional carry for people that don't have any other reason's that would prevent them from owning guns.

Until then I will hang on to my carry permit. I agree I should not have to ask permission, however I am asking permission to carry out in public until we get Constitutional carry (if we ever get it). I don't have to ask permission to keep/carry a gun on my property.

I won't risk giving up my right by forcing the issue and carrying with out a permit. I know I won't win in front of a judge holding up a copy of the 2nd amendment saying this is my permit.

[DaveTN]

I think everyone here will agree that carry should be a right. However… it is not. 95% of the citizens of the state of Tennessee would be subject to arrest if they carried a loaded handgun.

A carry permit has nothing to do with rights. It’s like a driver’s license; it’s a privilege I buy from the state. Do I like that I have to pay the state and have it be a privilege instead of a right? No none of us do.

I decided I would exercise my 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights and if I was caught I would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. (I was young and didn’t know exactly how things worked.) They handcuffed me, threw me in jail, and then took me to trial. It was one of the dumbest things I have done in my life. It cost me thousands (Did you know if you get charged criminally the NRA sees you as a criminal and will not help you?... I learned that…. Screw the NRA) of dollars to learn that not only do I not have a right to carry a gun; I don’t have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court either.

Then after you go through all that you can have someone that has never done anything except sit in front of a computer tell you how you are “giving upâ€.

States’ Rights…. Ever heard of it? We fought the worst war our country has ever been in over it. It is also the reason that the Supreme Court cannot and will not be telling you that you can strap on a gun without a permit.

The state of Tennessee is the only authority that can decide that you can carry a gun without a permit.

So… those of you that want to fight the Feds for 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights… fight on…. I wish you the best of luck. But I am interested in maintaining our carry privileges and maybe along the way getting our state to recognize our right to bear arms under the Tennessee Constitution.

[JAB]

The question of 'right' or 'privilege' is not as cut and dried as perhaps it should be. Do I believe that individuals have the right to defend their lives by whatever means and using whatever tools they have at their disposal? Yes. This, to me, is a natural right and not something based in any human law, even the Constitution, Bill of Rights and/or Second Amendment. That is my basic, philosophical answer.

That said, trying to simply exercise that right by carrying without a permit, etc. goes against the man-made laws of our society. Should the natural law trump the manmade law? Yes - but that won't stop the bastards from tossing you in jail, etc. for not following society's laws - laws which do not recognize a right to carry but which, instead, provide for a way to be 'allowed' the 'privilege' of carrying. An individual can choose to ignore these laws and carry illegally but that individual should be prepared to pay the legal consequences. Do I believe that this is right? No but that is the way it is so whether it is right or wrong doesn't really enter into it - going to jail or not does. I don't wish to go to jail or face prosecution and so I obtained a permit. Is this a compromise of my basic beliefs? Perhaps. If risking something in the name of those beliefs stood a chance of changing things for the good then I may be more willing to take the risk. As things stand, however, there are not sufficient numbers who both believe as I believe and are willing to take the risk to affect any real change or make any more difference than would spitting into the ocean. To fail to recognize that fact is to fail to see reality. That is the pragmatic answer.

Do we cede the argument to the 'other side' when we obtain a permit to carry? In reality, no. That argument was ceded long ago, before any of us were born, when any faction of government first successfully interfered with private citizen's right to carry any personal arms he or she desired (I have seen something about a case from the 1800s where a man was cited for carrying a Bowie knife, attempted to fight the charge in court and lost.) This means the argument in question was lost by 'our side' roughly two hundred years ago. For some time, in a legal sense, people in Tennessee basically had no legal right nor privilege to carry so that when the permit system was developed it must have seemed a boon to many who previously had not been able to legally carry, at all, as it was at least an improvement to having no way to legally carry.

I agree with others, too, that the chances of this natural right making a return to also be a legal right are slim and none. We didn't lose that right and we are not, currently, giving up that right. That right was lost more than a century ago. Once lost, such rights are not likely to be returned by, essentially working within the system or even from the stance of violating the laws out of protest. The only way to return such lost rights is to hit the 'reset' button, as it were, and start all over. As, again, there is a lack of the support needed for such a venture to be successful and, in fact, such attempts would likely only result in giving the 'other side' justification for implementing even more onerous laws, the only practical thing to do is accept reality even if that reality chafes our philosophical stance.

This is the reason I hate to see 'compromise' on issues where our side has not, yet, lost. The other side will say, "Relax. This law doesn't mean that the government is coming to take your guns away," until such time as the government does just that.

States’ Rights…. Ever heard of it? We fought the worst war our country has ever been in over it.

While I essentially agree with your stance, as I have mentioned in other threads, I do not understand the logic of that statement. Unfortunately, the side that fought for States' rights lost, correct?

Edited February 1, 2011 by JAB

[DaveTN]

While I essentially agree with your stance, as I have mentioned in other threads, I do not understand the logic of that statement. Unfortunately, the side that fought for States' rights lost, correct?

Yes, the South lost, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have States Rights. No one wants to fight that fight again.

It’s because the SCOTUS knows that if they tell everyone they can strap on guns; the states will tell the SCOTUS to go pound sand. Tennessee would (I believe) be one of those states.

[Oh Shoot]

....In Montana, ...if someone feels the need to carry a firearm, they may do so. ...

Only openly. Concealed takes a permit process just as here. A little cheaper at $60.

And of course, only those who are "allowed" to own a firearm.

I don't think all felons should be denied owning or carrying weapons, maybe no felon should, after serving time/probation. Another long debated topic though, and not for here I suppose.

- OS

Edited February 1, 2011 by OhShoot