"Licensing" of Rights

[CounterOfBeans]

When it comes to “rights”, 2nd Amendment or others, do the words “unalienable”, “fundamental”, or “natural” mean anything to us anymore. When any of these words are placed in front of the word “right”, do they actually help us to understand the gravity of what the word “right” means, or have these words lost their value to us aside from what use politicians can get out of them by playing on our emotions to win approval and votes?

This thread is intended to start a discussion for getting down to the nitty gritty of what we believe about ourselves as “free” people. What does being “free” mean now, compared to what it used to mean for example? Has each of our generations played host to increments of reduction in the standard of what “free” is and left each generation of children to grow up having no experience with what “free” started out to mean, and therefore having no perception of what has been lost or what must be defended?

We like to shoot off our fireworks on the 4th of July, but do we ask ourselves how far away we are from the original notions of “free”? If we compare the gap between the old “free” and the new “free”, are we happy with that? Or does the gap demonstrate to us how much we have been talked into giving up those very things that we think our military spills its blood to protect? If for no other reason, we owe it to them (our military) to lift the lid on questions like these, and snap out of the stupor that we have been entertained into by accepting corporate media’s offer of reality TV…. in exchange for actual reality.

For example, there’s pages of opinions on this website that come from complaints about how the enforcement realities of concealed carry “permits” and “licenses” interfere with Citizens’ daily, common-sense exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights. Because of this, law enforcement people are put in the position of being the punching bag for these complaints. And because it’s taken for granted that the laws actually apply the way enforcers and administrators say they do, the result is that the dialogue about gun laws becomes an “Us vs. Them” contest that shuts off the possibility of seeing the problem any other way. But there is another way.

Most people assume that “law” enforcers and administrators naturally know what they’re talking about when they assert what the law says, and so they don’t spend much time wondering about whether that’s true or not. But…knowing how thin or non-existent education on the Constitutions and the laws is in our public schools, is it fair to say that those who graduate high school and later go into law enforcement, start off at the academy with a basic level of Constitutional/legal incompetence built in?

If the core purpose of the Constitution was and is to protect Citizens’ rights and property, how much time is spent at the academy fixing cadets’ high school constitutional/legal ineptitude versus how much training is put into learning statutes they will simply be enforcing on the street according to “policy”? Does training “policy” include studying the legislative intent of the laws and understanding how basic terms are defined in them so they know how to enforce them properly…. or does training mean reading the laws’ text with the lenses of their constitutional disability intact and applying them according to “policy”? Not having any law enforcement training myself, I don’t know for sure, but I sure welcome LEOs on this site to clear this up.

A lot of the information in this thread has already been posted in the “The Direction of Law Enforcement” thread in the “General Firearm Discussion” forum. Even though I feel this information is pertinent to that thread’s discussion, it also seems to be taking up too much room and more people will have a chance to benefit from it by having its own thread.

So, the aim here is to open a discussion that let’s us ask ourselves whether we are being given a chance to make fully informed decisions about the laws that we are constantly told we have to comply with….laws that supposedly directly affect our “rights”. To lead things off, I’d like to put it out there that it is, first, necessary to know the meaning of the words in a law before you even read the law itself. The legislatively intended meaning of those words allows a reader to accurately understand what the law applies to. That’s why every chapter of law has its own “definitions” section.

For starters, we all know that the word “license” or “permit” is constantly associated with those things that we like to think of as “rights”. Because of that, the word “license” is a perfect place to lead this discussion off, so everyone can see for themselves how the common perception of “license” differs from what it is legislatively intended to apply to.

The definition of “license” is found in a body of law called the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which is Chapter 183 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The APA is the body of law that controls how executive branch agencies carry out their lawful duties by “administering” and “enforcing” the legislative intent of the law. See ORS 183.310(5):

“183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) “License” includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession.”

With this definition of “license” now known, I ask: When Citizens make decisions about “applying” for and “paying” for a “license” for anything, how often is it that it’s a decision made with full knowledge of what “license” means in the law above? The legislature inserted no language in this definition to make it apply to anything other than concerns of a “commercial” nature.

So is exercising a “right” a “commercial” thing? No

Are ladies intending to pursue a commercial “activity, trade, occupation or profession” when they put a pistol in their purse for self-protection for when they get off work at night?

How about when it’s just really cold out and you need to put a coat on…a coat that naturally conceals any pistol you have a “right” to “keep and bear”?

Are LEOs unfairly being thrust into the hot seat of an adversarial relationship with a public that chafes at having their gun rights squeezed by mere laws, which do nothing to abolish the 2nd Amendment or State Constitutional gun rights provisions?

How often are lawsuits that challenge gun control laws, based on attacking the validity of the premise that you CAN “license” a “right?

How many other rights are interfered with under the presumption that “licensing” them is valid? How much revenue is generated by the fees, surcharges, fines, taxes, etc. that go along with that presumption? How much more money would be available to be spent into the economy if that presumption were challenged and rebutted? How many more jobs would exist based on that money staying in private sector circulation?

What other legal word definitions don’t we know? At what cost?

Read More

 

[DireWolf]

Does requiring citizens to purchase Voter ID's fall into this discussion of licensing of a Constitutional Right?

 

[slingshot1943]

Does requiring citizens to purchase Voter ID's fall into this discussion of licensing of a Constitutional Right?

This is absolute nonsense, comparing Id to a license.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Does requiring citizens to purchase Voter ID's fall into this discussion of licensing of a Constitutional Right?

Good question. I don't know if I've ever seen a "voter ID". Do you mean a state-issued "driver license" ID?

 

[DireWolf]

This is absolute nonsense, comparing Id to a license.

Is it?

Please explain how requiring the purchase of an ID to vote (a constitutional right) is different than requiring a license to carry or even purchase (in some states) a firearm (a constitutional right).

Cause I don't get that.

 

[Nightshade]

Good question. I don't know if I've ever seen a "voter ID". Do you mean a state-issued "driver license" ID?

voter's I.D would that be like a voter's Reg card

 

[CounterOfBeans]

This is absolute nonsense, comparing Id to a license.

Well in fairness, isn't a "driver license" used as state ID? Are there other forms of state ID that don't function simultaneously as a "license"? If not, considering how "license" is defined, shouldn't there be? Is the DMV a proper agency to be defaulted to as the one that issues IDs if their area of "administration" is issuing "permission required by law to pursue a commercial activity"?

 

[DMax]

Does requiring citizens to purchase Voter ID's fall into this discussion of licensing of a Constitutional Right?

Thats the point to make sure they are Citizens. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[DireWolf]

Thats the point to make sure they are Citizens. Thanks for pointing that out.

So help me out here.

Some argue that increasing requirements to qualify for a firearms purchase will help keep guns out of the hands of non-US citizens.

This is considered an infringement on constitutional rights by others.

Some (you?) might argue that requiring voter ID to qualify for the ability to vote will help keep the vote lever out of the hands of non-US citizens.

Both are Constitutional rights, but I see a hypocricy where many times the same person will argue for no restrictions on gun ownership while argung to add requirements to voting.

Can you clarify this for me?

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Is it?

Please explain how requiring the purchase of an ID to vote (a constitutional right) is different than requiring a license to carry or even purchase (in some states) a firearm (a constitutional right).

Cause I don't get that.

The constitution establishes that States have the power to decide most issues about voting, to include ID requirements. The thing that the Voting Rights Act and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 25th Amendment do is say what you CAN'T do to deny the vote to someone (i.e, birth, sex, color, religion, poll tax, age of 18). Other than those issues, the STATE controls voting issues, and if a State decides they want ID, they can require it. Interestingly enough, this issue is working it's way through the court system, with some Fed Courts saying no, others yes. Have to wait and see what the Supremes say.

As far as licensing a right, I know that in "Watch Tower v Village of Stratton" (536 US 150 [2002]) and in Murdock v Pennsylvania (319 U.S. 105 [1943]) that requiresing religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. Now, whether that could/can be transferred to the other rights we all enjoy is another question.

 

[DireWolf]

The constitution establishes that States have the power to decide most issues about voting, to include ID requirements. The thing that the Voting Rights Act and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 25th Amendment do is say what you CAN'T do to deny the vote to someone (i.e, birth, sex, color, religion, poll tax, age of 18). Other than those issues, the STATE controls voting issues, and if a State decides they want ID, they can require it. Interestingly enough, this issue is working it's way through the court system, with some Fed Courts saying no, others yes. Have to wait and see what the Supremes say.

An argument against the ID is the poll tax, is it not?

Also - I know PA and Texas lost in court over this, under discrimination grounds. Where has it recently passed?

 

[CounterOfBeans]

voter's I.D would that be like a voter's Reg card

Well I haven't dug into the voting aspects of this much before, but since this thread is about putting a microscope on things we make presumptions about, let's shine the light on voting.

When I type in "ORS" and "voter" and "registration" into a search, I see that the ORSs use the word "elector" rather than "voter" and that "voting" laws start under Title 23 ("Elections"), in chapter 246 and 246 has a definitions section at 246.012 under the heading of "General Provisions". Below is the definition of "elector" for chapter 246 purposes:

"246.012 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(5) "Elector" means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution."

So who is "qualified to vote" according to Oregon Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2? I see that section 2 is kind of long, so I'll cite the first part of it below just to get the gist:

"Section 2. Qualifications of electors.
(1) Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen:
(a) Is 18 years of age or older;
(b) Has resided in this state during the six months immediately preceding the election, except that provision may be made by law to permit a person who has resided in this state less than 30 days immediately preceding the election, but who is otherwise qualified under this subsection, to vote in the election for candidates for nomination or election for President or Vice President of the United States or elector of President and Vice President of the United States; and
(c) Is registered not less than 20 calendar days immediately preceding any election in the manner provided by law."

I also see that the heading of the next chapter, chapter 247, is "Qualification and Registration of Electors". It's definitions section at 247.002 gives a definition of "elector" also, which when you read it, is identical to the definition in 246.012 above.

So to "qualify" you have to be a "citizen of the United States" who is "18 years of age or older". Everybody pretty much takes it for granted that they are "citizens of the United States", but let's see how Oregon law actually defines "United States". I see that these ORS elections chapters don't have a "United States" definition and I just happen to know that there is a more general purpose definition that applies to chapters that don't provide their own definitions. General purpose definitions are found in chapter 174. Chapter 174 is the chapter on "Construction of Statutes; General Definitions". The word "Construction" here means the act of "constru-ing", i.e. understanding. The definition of "United States" is found at ORS 174.100(9) cited below:

"174.100 Definitions. As used in the statute laws of this state, unless the context or a specially applicable definition requires otherwise:
(9) "United States" includes territories, outlying possessions and the District of Columbia."

So as an Oregonian, do you live in one of the territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc)? No

Do you live in an outlying US possession? No

Do you live in Washington DC? Of course not.

If these are the only places that our Legislature inserted into this law to mean "United States", is it possible that Oregonians, by lawful definition, are not actually what they commonly consider themselves to be in the eyes of the law? To double check this, let's make sure the Legislature didn't just leave it to be inferred that the States were also part of this definition. ORS 174.010 helps us with this:

"174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

So, according to 174.010 above, the only words that apply to the definition of "United States" in 174.100(9) are what have been "inserted" and.... no others. This is tough to swallow, because Citizens are generally not exposed to the fact that, the expression "United States" lives three different lives in the law. We all think of ourselves as "citizens of the United States", but few of us realize that there is more than one kind of "citizen". There are State Citizens and two kinds of federal citizens (territorial citizens and DC citizens).

The Constitution was created and ratified BY State Citizens and FOR State Citizens. The Constitution never would have existed without them. Prior to the Constitution, there was no other citizen that existed, other than a State Citizen. But now "citizens" live in DC, a landscape utterly, exclusively and eternally awash in federal jurisdiction and "citizens" also live in places that are not yet States admitted into the Union of States, i.e. territories controlled by the federal government until they join the Union. For these federal citizens living in these places, Congress literally has the discretion to decide which rights to grant them and to what extent they get to enjoy those rights....Constitutionally.... Ever notice how DC license plates say "taxation without representation" across the bottom. That's not an accident.

Ever wonder how Congress pulls off passing laws that incrementally and unapologetically trim away our ability to exercise our rights in the States. Maybe we should pay some attention to the fact that just about every one of us "State Citizens" has signed our name under penalty of legal prosecution to the fact that we are fully informed (i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse) about our signed assertion, which says we are indeed "citizens" of what the law in Oregon defines as "United States", i.e. "citizens of territories, outlying possessions or the District of Columbia". There is case law to back this up.

 

[DireWolf]

Interesting post, COB.

Thanks.

 

[g.i. joe]

Well said CounterOfBeans! I see all of this being implemented, yet it is difficult for a layman to put into terms, and admittedly, understood (by myself at least). You have done it well.
An incredible amount of our Rights have been eroded away by the Fed Gov's loose interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. With that, they manage to control EVERYTHING, toward a certain end.
In the light of Biblical Prophecy, I dont think this will be reversible. All these events are designed to usher in the One World Government, legally, not morally, not constitutionally, certainly not by God's design, but "legally" according to the powers of this earth.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

An argument against the ID is the poll tax, is it not?

Also - I know PA and Texas lost in court over this, under discrimination grounds. Where has it recently passed?

No, not at all. A poll tax is a tax on voting. Having an ID to vote is not a tax, it is a requirement for voting.

As for voter ID requirements: "The 33 voter ID laws that have been enacted vary in their details. Two key distinctions are whether a law is strict or not, and whether or not the ID must include a photo.
Strict vs. Non-Strict: In the "strict" states, a voter cannot cast a valid ballot without first presenting ID. Voters who are unable to show ID at the polls are given a provisional ballot. Those provisional ballots are kept separate from the regular ballots. If the voter returns to election officials within a short period of time after the election (generally a few days) and presents acceptable ID, the provisional ballot is counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, that provisional ballot is never counted.
Photo vs. Non-Photo: Seventeen states require that the ID presented at the polls must show a photo of the voter. Some of these are "strict" voter ID laws, in that voters who fail to show photo ID are given a provisional ballot and must eventually show photo ID in order to get that provisional ballot counted. Others are "non-strict," and voters without ID have other options for casting a regular ballot. They may be permitted to sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be able to vouch for them if they know them personally. In these "non-strict" states, voters who fail to bring ID on Election Day aren't required to return to election officials and show ID in order to have their ballot counted. In the other 16 voter ID states, there is a wide array of IDs that are acceptable for voting purposes, some of which do not include a photo of the voter. Again, some of these states are "strict" in the sense that a voter who fails to bring ID on Election Day will be required to vote a provisional ballot, and that provisional ballot will be counted only if the voter returns to election officials within a few days to show acceptable ID."

Voter ID: State Requirements

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Well said CounterOfBeans! I see all of this being implemented, yet it is difficult for a layman to put into terms, and admittedly, understood (by myself at least). You have done it well.
An incredible amount of our Rights have been eroded away by the Fed Gov's loose interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. With that, they manage to control EVERYTHING, toward a certain end.
In the light of Biblical Prophecy, I dont think this will be reversible. All these events are designed to usher in the One World Government, legally, not morally, not constitutionally, certainly not by God's design, but "legally" according to the powers of this earth.

Thank you and Direwolf for the good words. Just hope it didn't scare folks off. The whole point of me bringing it up is to provide an example to demonstrate how important legal identity is and how our legal identity can be used as a tool to deceive us into giving up what is ours naturally.

Legal identity is what gives you standing to exercise your rights in the law or to keep you from having legal standing to exercise your your rights. If an explanation for why it is that Citizens are scratching their heads so much about what's going on, just happens to be that they are being defrauded into converting their legal identities into things that make them subject to the laws that they complain about, then they might want to be curious to know more about the ways that their legal identities are being corrupted.

People have been told for years that the public's use of the highways is a "privilege", and because of that they have to comply with the motor vehicle law licensing and registration programs. But the DMV generates a lot of revenue because of the public's belief in this official assertion, and I guarantee that the DMVs public outreach brochures don't like to mention ORS 801.305, which defines "highway" in the Oregon Vehicle Code:

"801.305 "Highway." (1) "Highway" means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right."

or ORS 174.030, which says:

"174.030 Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail."

And what is the nature of "applying" for something? By "applying", you are asking for something you don't already have from the people who can give it to you. But as we can see, the law already confirms that we "have" a "right" travel in our cars on the highway. So what gets established by us, who have a "right" to travel, when we go out of our way and "volunteer" to ask (apply) for a "license" that is defined by law to be "....permission...to pursue a commercial activity...."? The law is machine of logic right? Well all that machine recognizes is that we are seeking to use the "highway" to make a living, whether or not we are actually. By way of that act, we acquire "licenses" to put in our pockets and "registration" plates to put on our cars, which announce to the agents of the legal world that we are subject to compliance with all of the motor vehicle laws. And yes there is current case law that confirms this too.

There's lots moaning on this site by people who never seem to escape the legal infringements they're complaining about. Those they are complaining to insist on declaring that "that's the law". And maybe it's true, but the debate being had about the issue is being packaged and confined in a way that avoids getting to the truth of the matter about what separates "licensing" from "rights".

 

[DMax]

So help me out here.

Some argue that increasing requirements to qualify for a firearms purchase will help keep guns out of the hands of non-US citizens.

This is considered an infringement on constitutional rights by others.

Some (you?) might argue that requiring voter ID to qualify for the ability to vote will help keep the vote lever out of the hands of non-US citizens.

Both are Constitutional rights, but I see a hypocricy where many times the same person will argue for no restrictions on gun ownership while argung to add requirements to voting.

Can you clarify this for me?

Simple progressives like to bend the rules to let illegals and dead people vote which apparently you don't care about that infringes on my right to a fair election. Same process for guns which I have no problem with current fed law as in the background checks to make sure non citizens and crimminals don't get guns. As One I Ross points out states have the right to regulate and implement fed law any way they want. I don't really see why this is so complicated other than the voter ID you may think is some big republican conspiricy to suppress voters rights.Their is no purchase required to buy voter ID as you stated above a drivers license will do. Now that our OR gov wants to give illegals dirvers lic coming up in the legislature 2013 session that would be a game changer that will let voter fraud ramp up. I am sure that would be fine with you.

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

 

[hermannr]

Does requiring citizens to purchase Voter ID's fall into this discussion of licensing of a Constitutional Right?

Requiring a voter's ID is a good thing, not a bad thing. Helps prevent voter fraud. But it must be free of charge.

"Purchasing" said ID is illegal...It's called and considered a "poll tax"

 

[DMax]

I don't know what everyone is so outraged at lic and fee for rights. After all did not 51% of American just vote for huge taxes and fees on a dem fake right of healthcare? Really your all worried about voter ID Please the way we are going thier is no voting required for a king and tyrant. Mute issue

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

 

[fd15k]

Relax, there is simply no national right to carry concealed at this time Hell, there is no right to carry open either.