Right or Privilege?

[Dave Workman]

'Gun ownership should be privilege,' says op-ed; what do you say?

"Rather than being our American birthright, gun ownership should be a privilege earned after thorough examination and training, like driving a car," wrote freelance writer, hunter and "community organizer" David Fellerath in an Op-Ed published yesterday by the Washington Post.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Mark W.]

Based on the training and how people drive. Im not sure we want that. This from a Dump truck driver who averages 200-250 mes a day from mountain roads to down town city streets. Also how many people are killed by those trained licensed drivers compared to killed unintentionally with firearms.

 

[Norm0931]

As Americans drift farther and farther away from our history and the creators of our Nation are spun as horrible people we are forgetting what oppression was really like.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I dont need a license to defend myself...its my right

how about a license to have a child?.......sounds equally ridiculous

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Well then, free speech should also be something earned and examined.

You know, no bullying posts on social media of any shape of form. No excesive profanity..etc. otherwise people soeaking their minds are offending others.. So with that said they need to "earn" their privilage to speak freely.

How about earning ones right to privacy in their own home?
I mean, with this neo libtard logic, shoot so many folks out their children in danger with
Open windows on second and higher stories, easy access to chemicals that could kill or blind or perhaps open searches because with this logic, EVERYONE IS A CRIMINAL SO WHY NOT HAVE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES for drugs and in recent events kidnapped victims? I mean, its just for our safety right?

How about control over what food we eat?
Obviously we cant handle making wise food choices, so we should have to earn the right to choose our food. We should be on strict government plans that dictate what we can and cant eat intil we've proven that we can make wise eating choices.

Sheeesh, their logic is insane!
That are we dont have the right to DRIVE we have the right to TRAVEL.. Big difference.
We allowed the gov to control our movements by registration, insurance and DEQ nonsense.

 

[Martini_Up]

 

[Dave Workman]

I think it needs a little salt.

 

[Classic]

Strange, I never saw anything in the constitution pertaining to driving a car yet there is that pesky little 2nd Amendment....
The liberals are just trying another end run on the constitution.

 

[rick benjamin]

That Post article was more twisted than a pretzel.

 

[Martini_Up]

The People own rights. Laws turn them into privileges. Privileges get taken away. The People must exercise those rights in order to retain them.

You don't like the idea of a guy open carrying a AR-15 even though it his right? Think it should not be done? Well if not done it becomes a privilege and soon it is illegal to do so. And most likely more than just AR-15's. Soon it's no open carry. It's the nature of rights.

Look at the New England states and how rights not exercised have deteriorated into the slimmest of gun privileges with massive regulation and control.

Small wonder a Wa.Po. features an Op.Ed. with a request to go ahead and call the 2nd amendment what it functionally is... a privilege.

No go back to requesting and paying for those CWP/CCP/etc. while jumping through those privilege hoops. But don't go on-line with pictures of those whom have the balls enough to exercise their rights and call them idiots and the like.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I dont need a license to defend myself...its my right

how about a license to have a child?.......sounds equally ridiculous

Damn skippy. And thank you for using that "license a child" comparison to point out the stupidity of it all. That said, I have to point out some irony here too though. You say the idea of having a license for a child is "ridiculous", (I agree) but according to how "license" is defined in law, that's exactly what has been done to you and likely what you have done to your kids (if you have any). Remember that birth "certificate" your mom and dad dutifully got for you when you were born, and the birth "certificates" you dutifully also probably got for your kids while at the hospital? Have a look at the lawful definition of "license" in the Oregon Revised Statutes at ORS 183.310(5)… And by the way, ORS 183.310(5) is the only definition of "license" in the Oregon Revised Statutes… :

ORS "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."

To be sure about how to read this law, according to ORS 174.010 (174 = chapter on legislative construction), a reader of this law (a judge specifically) is not authorized to infer the existence of other words in this law, nor deny the presence and effect of the words that were inserted into it by the Legislature. See ORS 174.010:

ORS "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 in the eyes of the law (183.310(5)), the term "certificate" is flatly recognized along with other words ("permit", "approval" & "registration") as being synonymous with the word "license", and as such, as being a "form of permission" to pursue any activity, trade, occupation or profession that is "commercial" in nature. No other adjective but "commercial" exists in this law to frame the context of what "license" pertains to and 174.010 above says we are not at liberty to deny how the Legislature defines "license", or emotionally reject it's larger implications. But we do know that we don't get squat for law 101 education basics during our formative "free-education" years. So the question begs itself… because of the uniform illiteracy our society suffers from on even the basics of law because of our public education system, does the definition of "license" above give us a window into an aspect of our lives that we have never been exposed to before? We're told we have to have "licenses" for so many things that we humans are supposed to just do naturally.

I'm not a big one for religion, but I always found much truth in the Hosea 4:6 quote below:

"my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge"

Since we're talking about licensing a child here, and children are the product of two married people (preferably anyway), what about marriage "licenses"? What if everyday American husbands and wives have been unwittingly "commercializing" their personal relationships for decades through licensing? After all, whether people are informed or ignorant of the law, the law mechanically presumes that people are informed and make fully informed decisions about what "license" means when they voluntarily choose to seek out and pay government to "apply" for a marriage "license". If the law equates "license" and "certificate" as permission for "commercial" activity, is this a pull-back-the-curtain-on-Oz moment that offers an explanation for how government bases it's growing intrusion into our personal lives these days (call it commercial regulation)?

What about driver's licenses? Surely that's different, because everyone knows that driving isn't a "right"… it's only a "privilege"… and we have to have a license for that… right???? Let's ask the law again. Check out the definitions of "highway" in Oregon and Washington.

Oregon:
ORS "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."

Washington:
RCW 47.04.010 "(11) Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;

If your level of shock and denial causes you to try to warp the plain words above into an interpretation that attempts to salvage the "driving is a privilege" idea, ORS 174.030 was written for you. See below:

ORS "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 for police officers who want a little extra input on how this fits into their daily patrol duties, it appears that ORS 181.400 was written for them. See below:

"ORS 181.400 Interference with personal and property rights of others. No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime, or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes."

Most traffic stops are of course not criminal offenses, so the laws above totally free up a lot of tax paid patrol time to focus on actual crime prevention. And yes, there is plenty of good case law that verifies what these laws say all on their own.

So with the lawful context of "license" on display now, and with marriage and vehicle use rights as a new backdrop to compare our licensed world against, now we have some different lenses to see our beloved concealed handgun licenses through. Through these lenses, we see that our gun rights are on the same path of being erased from our cultural memories that our marriage rights and traveling rights have. And this is happening even when Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution says nothing about conditions that must be met in order to enjoy the "right to bear arms for the defense of themselves". And this is happening even when the federal 2nd Amendment sets no pre-conditions to "keep and bear". Rights are either rights or they're not… right?

So "Right or privilege" INDEED. Unless we reset our perceptions about rights and privileges real soon, we will be the last generations to have known the relatively common experience of things like gun "rights". Future generations who are indoctrinated through our precious tax-paid public education system will be programmed to think of gun possession and use as "privileges"… the same way we now reflexively, rotely view our use of vehicles on "our" highways. So let's make sure we all make an effort to celebrate reeeaaal hard today. After all, Independence Day is the perfect holiday to celebrate all the rights and freedoms our forefathers and military people secured and preserved for us…. right? Just sayin'

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Strange, I never saw anything in the constitution pertaining to driving a car yet there is that pesky little 2nd Amendment....
The liberals are just trying another end run on the constitution, FU...BUBBLEGUM them!

Oh, well here your go:

Article 1, Section 33, Oregon Constitution
"Section 33. Enumeration of rights not exclusive. This enumeration of rights, and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.—"

9th Amendment, federal Constitution
"Rights retained by people. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [Proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the necessary number of states in 1791]"

ORS "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."

ORS "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."

 

[decklin]

Look at the New England states and how rights not exercised have deteriorated into the slimmest of gun privileges with massive regulation and control.


.

Not exactly correct. Vermont has Constitutional carry. NH and Maine both passed Constitutional carry in the House.
That's 50% of the New England States.

 

[Snowy Rivers]

I agree that rights not exercised will be lost, butttttttttttt, do we want every clown carrying an AR down main street??

I do not support open carry, not because of the rights thing, but because nobody needs to know whats under my skirt

The element of surprise

 

[RB87]

I agree that rights not exercised will be lost, butttttttttttt, do we want every clown carrying an AR down main street??

I do not support open carry, not because of the rights thing, but because nobody needs to know whats under my skirt

The element of surprise

Yes, we do need every clown carrying an AR down main street. Otherwise, they'll come after whats under your skirt next. Oh wait, they already have been for over 100 years now. Open carry used to be considered honorable, concealed dishonorable. That gets reversed and then they made just carrying a gun concealed dishonorable and illegal without permission from your masters in the government. Sort of like medicare/medicaid gets government involved directly in the healthcare industry in the 1960s and now 50 years later, they want to control the whole industry. They originally wanted to ban handguns in the 1934 NFA law.

Should we make all cops conceal carry? We live in a world now where people freak out if they see a neighbor loading up his car with "scary black guns" just to go to the range. Children are suspended from school for playing with nerf guns off campus even, when they eat a pop tart into the shape of a gun or when a gi joe doll has a small plastic gun in his kung fu grip.

You may not like or see the need for an AR15 carried down main street. I might often agree. However, you have to understand, these people always lie. They have been lying for 100 years now to ban guns. They aim to make us slaves. In many ways, they already have.

 

[Liberty97045]

Not exactly correct. Vermont has Constitutional carry. NH and Maine both passed Constitutional carry in the House.
That's 50% of the New England States.

That 50% figure depends upon who you ask. Much like "the south" there are states worthy of exclusion from the club.

 

[decklin]

That 50% figure depends upon who you ask. Much like "the south" there are states worthy of exclusion from the club.

That's a negative. 6 states make up New England. It's a specific region.

 

[Who The F R U]

You are born with Right's.

A privilege is something a slave get's from his master.

Live free as you can or be a slave. Your choice.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

You are born with Right's.

A privilege is something a slave get's from his master.

Live free as you can or be a slave. Your choice.

Freaking nail on the head!

 

[balaperdida]

My personal opinion, which is apparently not universally shared, is that every gun owner who believes that there should be more gun control, or even that current gun control should not be rolled back, is a flaming hypocrite. They are obviously somewhat unstable, and should forfeit their firearms.

Furthermore, I have to suspect the motives of supposedly NRA members who support background checks on private sales or "transfers".