May Issue = Unequal Protectiion Under Law = Civil Rts. Violation
Hello,
I am new to this forum.
I have been wanting to purchase a handgun for personal protection when I am out of the house, but like so many, I have discovered that I am likely to be denied a CCW permit by my local and state authorities.
I live in California.
What seems odd to me about a CCW permitting policy of 'May Issue' is that even if there were validity in the argument against abiding by the law of the land and the 2nd amendment, there would seem to be a serious issue with the now well accepted 'civil rights' (And why not use the law to advantage?).
I feel that it is a certain violation of the 'civil rights' of equal treatment under the law. If one person is granted fire power and I am denied the same and thus forced to remain unarmed and hence more vulnerable to slaying, than I am being treated as a second class citizen. My right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being denied, thwarted, curtailed, cut off, and Black's dictionary. I am being <singled out> for culling. I think that's illegal or unlawful in every state at this time.
If it was a 'Will Not Issue' situation, maybe the argument would be weaker, but that is not the case in my state of California. 'May Issue' is either arbitrarily or intentionally preferential in its results and that is unlawful.
[What I am suggesting is that there is no need to argue 2nd Amendment in order to show that "May Issue" is a violation of Civil Rights and does not provide for Equal Protection Under the Law.
Law enforcement obviously is unaffected by this argument, but everyone else that may be granted or not granted the permit is.
I am sure I am not nearly the first to question along these lines, am I?
What do you think?
Mitchell
Hello,
I am new to this forum.
I have been wanting to purchase a handgun for personal protection when I am out of the house, but like so many, I have discovered that I am likely to be denied a CCW permit by my local and state authorities.
I live in California.
What seems odd to me about a CCW permitting policy of 'May Issue' is that even if there were validity in the argument against abiding by the law of the land and the 2nd amendment, there would seem to be a serious issue with the now well accepted 'civil rights' (And why not use the law to advantage?).
I feel that it is a certain violation of the 'civil rights' of equal treatment under the law. If one person is granted fire power and I am denied the same and thus forced to remain unarmed and hence more vulnerable to slaying, than I am being treated as a second class citizen. My right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being denied, thwarted, curtailed, cut off, and Black's dictionary. I am being <singled out> for culling. I think that's illegal or unlawful in every state at this time.
If it was a 'Will Not Issue' situation, maybe the argument would be weaker, but that is not the case in my state of California. 'May Issue' is either arbitrarily or intentionally preferential in its results and that is unlawful.
[What I am suggesting is that there is no need to argue 2nd Amendment in order to show that "May Issue" is a violation of Civil Rights and does not provide for Equal Protection Under the Law.
Law enforcement obviously is unaffected by this argument, but everyone else that may be granted or not granted the permit is.
I am sure I am not nearly the first to question along these lines, am I?
What do you think?
Mitchell
Last edited:
