CCW Laws Unconstitutional

——————————————————————————–

Here is a commentary that might be considered radical and rash by many but the author hits the nail squarely on the head. These laws when measured by the strict interpretation of the Constitution of our great Republic, are unconstitutional!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gun Owners Relinquish Their Constitutional Rights

By Michael Gaddy ? 2004

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
In ever increasing numbers, gun owners in this country have, by their actions, said to the State: You are my master, all rights flow from you, I bow down before you and will beg, no, even pay for your permission to have my firearms. I have watched this occur here in my home state of New Mexico since the legislature approved a ?concealed carry? law in January, although it has been happening in many other states over the past decade or so.

Let me draw an analogy for you if I may. Let?s say robbers take over your town. They become more and more brazen in their theft of money and personal property. They have even taken to kidnapping your children and using them to help with their foul deeds. A group of citizens think they have finally found the solution to this mayhem. They go visit some of the people they know to be in control of the robbers. They ask, even beg, these leaders for permission to protect themselves from the very actions the robbers have perpetrated against them. Upon completion of these negotiations, the citizens are most pleased with the agreement they have struck with the thieves.

First, anyone wishing to protect themselves must pay a fee to the robbers for permission to install fences, barred windows and even security systems. The robbers hold total control over who may or may not install these devises. Secondly, all citizens who are accepted to provide security devises for themselves must then provide the robbers with keys to all doors, windows and gates. They must also provide all codes to security and alarm systems and even allow the robbers to install the systems or teach them how to do so.

How totally absurd you say? But, is this not exactly what has happened with the rush by gun owners to secure concealed carry permits from the State?

The Bill of Rights to our Constitution is a set of negative protections. It was designed and passed solely to protect the citizens of this country from a runaway, despotic government. Are we not now begging and paying for permission to the State to protect us from the State itself? Do we not beg from those who steal our money and our rights, permission to protect ourselves from the very theft they are inflicting on us?

Are we not acknowledging the government to be more powerful than our Constitution? Do we not say by our very actions: I know there is a Second Amendment and even more important, I possess a divine right, granted by my Creator, that provides me with the permission I need. But, seeing as the State is more powerful than that little old piece of parchment, or my Creator, I will petition and pay the State for this same permission.

By these very actions have we not destroyed the Constitution ourselves? I sure would like to see some of the gun groups and gun owners who are so proud of their accomplishments in obtaining this “permission” explain to our founding fathers how they managed to trade away all they fought so hard for. Compromise, compromise has been their creed. Exactly where has that gotten us?

Remember if you will our forefathers pledge in the name of liberty and independence. “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”.

How can we ignore their sacrifice? How can we ignore the court decisions listed below?

1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 at 92 and 93, 13 Am. Dec 251

?For in principal, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only that it secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order at the time at which it is done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.?

1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 at 251

?The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void which contravenes this right?

1876: U.S. v Cruikshank 92 US 542

In this decision the Supreme Court stated, ?the right to arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence.?

1921: State vs. Kerner 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 at 224

?The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.?

Notice that in all the cases listed above, it is the State that is taking away rights and has been taken to task by the individuals rights as listed in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, we have failed to keep vigilance over our freedoms and now we beg and pay the State for what is already ours.

Most importantly, the State has been able to co-opt the very group of citizens that should be standing in the front lines of the battle for liberty: gun owners. By the actions of these gun owners, the State has been provided with a list of a great number of so-called patriots, especially those who carry guns for self-protection. Alas, though patriots complain about registration of firearms, the State has tricked these same patriots into not only registering their firearms, but also into registering themselves.

What is to stop the State from rescinding this “permission” at its whim? If it has been ?granted,? it can be taken away!

What would you who have disavowed the freedoms, granted by your Creator and the Constitution, and placed them instead in the State, have as your defense? Have you not acknowledged the State to be more powerful than either your Creator or your Constitution? Have you not also provided the State with another database to use when total confiscation becomes necessary to the continuance of state control and domination of its citizens?

How would you answer a judge who demanded from the bench, ?Did you not acknowledge the right of the state to control firearms when you petitioned it for the “right” to carry, and then paid the State for that right? By the very action of paying the State for this ?right? you have purchased and acknowledged the legal right of the State to control your firearms. How can you now bring into this court the tenants of the Constitution, when you have requested, with the petition you signed and paid for, the right of the State to supercede your rights as listed in that Constitution?? How can you now say: the State has no right to demand you turn in all your firearms, when you acknowledged, and purchased, the State?s right to allow you to carry them??

?An ordinance which… makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official ? as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official ? is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.?

SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) 394 U.S. 147 U.S. Supreme Court SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.

No. 42. Argued November 18, 1968. Decided March 10, 1969.
__________________