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

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)


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.

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

    1. What is it that you don’t understand about the phrase “inalienable rights” as used in the first of our nation’s three Founding Documents?

  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. As a scholar, I am far less concerned with court decisions than I am with the intent of the Second Amendment’s original authors. I read the law, first, within the context of the rest of the Constitution, including its Amendments, before I read decisions. What I have continually found is that when catch a judge trying to justify an obviously wayward opinion, that judge is usually a Democrat. Before I began this process, I never had anything against Democrats. This in-depth study has confirmed, however, suspicions that Democrats are less concerned about following and legally changing the law than they are about illegally skirting, twisting, or warping it as a means to advance their unlawful ideals.

  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?


    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?








      1. Everytime there is a shooting he makes a point that he wants gun control. Our founding fathers were not stupid. Neither are we.

      2. You mean aside from the fact that Obama UNLAWFULLY banned the sale of nearly a million M1 Garands and Carbines while in office?

        “The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America. The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates. A State Department spokesman said the administration’s decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. “The transfer of such a large number of weapons — 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines — could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com.” Source: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22971

  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.


Leave a Reply