Also a Good article the author refers too in his overview. Good read:
Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon
"With 48 of our 50 states allowing some form of CCW permit..." , Wrong! Government does not 'allow'. Government restricts or denies by authority of law. The are no laws which allow anything. This is the typical statist view.
"As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States..." The right was recognized and codified in 1783. The right has been unconstitutionally infringed upon at every opportunity ever since. Restoration of government acknowledgement of the right of the individual citzen to bear arms has been a slow process. The government contrivance of permit for fee in the free exercise of an inalienable right is soft tyranny. Denial of the right is absolute tyranny.
All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.
Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.
Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legitimately extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Therefore, the entire 'permit' system to bear arms is unconstitutional.
SCJ Ginsburg on 'Bearing Arms': "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate
: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
"...many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons." Refer to Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Police have no duty to protect. Therefore, the individual citizen must fend for themselves. It's quite obvious that this is what the nations founders had in mind in 1783 when they recognized the right in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The same Constitution that LEO's take an oath to protect and defend.
It's a sad state of affairs where an LAC (Lawfully Armed Citizen) has more to fear from the police than he does from the bad guys in the free exercise of an enumerated Civil Right codified 228 years ago.
