Rights are NOT “Privileges” and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements

rights

I wrote the following letter to my state representative.  I’ll share the response with you when it arrives, and will let you know if it doesn’t.

I’m writing you today concerning a point of Constitutional law I recently uncovered that appears to put much of Colorado’s licensing efforts in a dim light.  In particular, I’m licensed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office to carry a concealed handgun, and fully understand all the privileges and restrictions associated with that permit.  However, I’m also a student of both the words and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, and know full well they never intended any right be reduced to a privilege or subject to license.

I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue:  “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)  That seems abundantly clear to me.

Here’s my take on the issue:  All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty).  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal.  Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”  Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thus, my question to you:  Which States are willing to stand by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which support it?  More specifically, when will Colorado stop violating the U.S. Constitution and these U.S. Supreme Court decisions and instead correctly join with the ranks of those states who have passed “Constitutional Carry” laws?

As of July 1, 2015, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are considered constitutional carry states. In Wyoming’s case, permitless carry is for residents only; non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in that state. Maine will join the list in October 2015.

If I’m not mistaken, these decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court cover the much large issue of licensing efforts in general.  What other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are illegally treated as “privileges” under Colorado law?  What steps will you take to restore Colorado law to a more lawful basis commensurate with “the supreme Law of the Land?” (Article VI, U.S. Constitution)

Sincerely…

Addendum:  Our Founding Fathers had GOOD REASON to ensure that our Second Amendment was ratified WITHOUT RESTRICTION.  In fact, as it stands, it specifically PROHIBITS ANY AND ALL restrictions:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Second Amendment – NO RESTRICTIONS!

 

Why?  Because it says so.  That’s why.  Out.

Author: patriot

It was a distinct honor, as well as my pleasure, to serve my country for more than twenty years. I love my country, but sometimes I'm not too happy with its leaders. I'm working to change that, and I could use your help. Please join me! Thanks. : ) - Patriot

13 thoughts on “Rights are NOT “Privileges” and are NOT lawfully subject to license or licensing requirements”

  1. I’m not qualified, by a long shot, to discuss gun rights. But I will point out that the quotes in question are not in the text of either cited case (both of which are First Amendment cases). This might (or might not!) change your argument. They are two good quotes, of course, but they are not from the two SCOTUS cases that you’ve been told are their sources.

    1. I found that quote in the Murdock case (which pertained to exercising religious freedom in the form of selling religious literature) without having to get a permit but indeed not the Shuttlesworth. Perhaps the wrong case was cited?

  2. And the fact that a president would continue to not only alert this nations enemies as to activities of war but also release terrorist during that war is this not a major offense and endangering our nation and its people?

    Why I’m bringing this up?

    Malfeasance:

    The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust.

    Releasing war criminals during a war:

    18USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec.2381. He usurped Presidency, by fraud, during time of war.
    Is the president a Spy under the UCMJ at Section 906, Article 106.

    Obama isn’t just advertising he is going to take our guns to us. He is advertising it to the world. This is treason. This is sedition. This is usurpation. This is subversion. This is the act of a traitor to our constitution. This is an act of espionage. This is an act of war against our nation. We the people own this country. Not Obama. Not congress and not the courts.

    Obama is advertising to our enemies he is unarming us and we are ripe for a takeover.

    What do we the people do. Our founding fathers gave all
    Authority to we the people period?

    http://universalfreepress.com/roseburg-oregon-barack-obama-mass-shootings-and-the-2nd-amendment/

    http://joeforamerica.com/2015/10/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-are-you-with-him/

    http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/06/louis-farrakhan-white-people-dont-care-about-black-people-and-the-american-flag-needs-to-be-pulled-down/

    http://newsfoxes.com/2015/10/bearded-patriot-has-scathing-message-for-the-anti-gun-idiots-and-they-are-furious/#comment-117

    http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/10/tennessee-lt-governors-call-to-arms-following-oregon-shooting-twisted-for-political-points/

    http://qpolitical.com/obama-couldve-stopped-the-oregon-shooter-what-he-did-instead-sickening/

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/ben-carson-slam-obama-oregon-shooting-visit-214464?cmpid=sf

  3. Here is one for you to think about and research:

    No one can take our guns. No one. We the people own this nation. Not Obama. Not congress and not the courts. Any laws that are opposite of the constitution are null and void period. The leadership in DC is guilty of treason, sedition. Subversion. Usurpation and several other laws.

    Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.

    The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/barack-obama-fail-uphold-constitutional-oath-enforce-laws-land/

Leave a Reply