AK Open / Conceal Carry Question

[Bruce]

It's possible that you have your own meaning for "grant", which varies from the contractual meaning that helps in understanding the Constitution.

.grant -verb

.to bestow or confer, to give or accord.

The Constitution does not bestow, confer, give or accord *rights* - any rights. It recognizes them. It identifies some. It protects all of them. It does not *give* (grant) them.

Others were negotiated, and added or taken away from time to time, like your right to not be taxed on your income by the Feds (which we lost) or the right of women to vote (which was added).

No, they weren't.

Protection ("recognition") may be added or taken away (or "lost", as you put it), but not the rights themselves.

It does not work the way you seem to suggest; rights are not "given" or "taken away" by anyone other than "our Creator" (not by any document or any human or group of humans or any American government).

If you sell your house, you can negotiate for the right to come back and keep fishing on your old pond. You had that right before, but your agreement of sale "grants" you the right in the future. Maybe you have another word for that, where you strike a deal to keep some perks or rights; like "promise to allow" or "pledge to not infringe"; but "grant" works pretty well, too.

Here, you have moved away entirely from discussing *rights* in a Constitutional Law context and are referring to a loose colloquialism; you are using the term "right" here as a sort of slang for "privilege". Privileges are granted by people, documents, governments, et cetera - and they can be taken away.

It may be possible to use the term *right* in this way in certain documents or civil proceedings or some such without it being challenged or questioned - I would not know. But, with regard to Constitutionally protected rights, you seem to be very mistaken in your usage of the word "right" in this discussion.

You *have* the right to vote from your 18th birthday on (though, in some places, this right can be 'disabled' for certain reasons, like felony convictions, through due process).

As an adult, you may be "granted" the privilege to drive a car. This privilege could be revoked for a variety of reasons, and, possibly *without* due process (for medical reasons, et cetera).
.

[GunLawyer001]

.grant -verb

.to bestow or confer, to give or accord.

The Constitution does not bestow, confer, give or accord *rights* - any rights. It recognizes them. It identifies some. It protects all of them. It does not *give* (grant) them.


No, they weren't.

Protection ("recognition") may be added or taken away (or "lost", as you put it), but not the rights themselves.

It does not work the way you seem to suggest; rights are not "given" or "taken away" by anyone other than "our Creator" (not by any document or any human or group of humans or any American government).


Here, you have moved away entirely from discussing *rights* in a Constitutional Law context and are referring to a loose colloquialism; you are using the term "right" here as a sort of slang for "privilege". Privileges are granted by people, documents, governments, et cetera - and they can be taken away.

It may be possible to use the term *right* in this way in certain documents or civil proceedings or some such without it being challenged or questioned - I would not know. But, with regard to Constitutionally protected rights, you seem to be very mistaken in your usage of the word "right" in this discussion.

You *have* the right to vote from your 18th birthday on (though, in some places, this right can be 'disabled' for certain reasons, like felony convictions, through due process).

As an adult, you may be "granted" the privilege to drive a car. This privilege could be revoked for a variety of reasons, and, possibly *without* due process (for medical reasons, et cetera).
.

I have no idea at all what your point is. You have no right to hunt, at least not one that the state or federal government can't eliminate without violating the state or federal constitutions. You can parse words according to their non-legal meanings, if that floats your boat, but I don't see what you accomplish.
You have the rights that you can keep, any other view is just philosophy.

[Bruce]

I have no idea at all what your point is. You have no right to hunt, at least not one that the state or federal government can't eliminate without violating the state or federal constitutions. You can parse words according to their non-legal meanings, if that floats your boat, but I don't see what you accomplish.
You have the rights that you can keep, any other view is just philosophy.

My point is that it was false when you stated that rights are given by the Constitution.

I never claimed anyone had a right to hunt; I do not know enough about laws regarding hunting to discuss the matter. To be perfectly honest, I am not interested in hunting laws in the least; I do not hunt.

I am, however, interested in equality in the eyes of the law. I believe that laws should not single out any one group (such as disabled persons) and treat them as a different class of citizen from anyone else. In the eyes of the law, people should not have either elevated or lessened privileges *or* rights than all other citizens based *only* on physical appearance, gender, physical ability, ethnicity, age or religious affiliation.

To say that disabled people can be *trusted* with autos for hunting but non-disabled people cannot is just bullshit if you ask me - it is discrimination, plain and simple. To insinuate that only non-disabled people can possibly be dumbasses is discrimination as well.

There is a word for people who advocate discrimination (based on any of the above listed criteria), they are commonly called bigots.
.

[GunLawyer001]

My point is that it was false when you stated that rights are given by the Constitution.

I never claimed anyone had a right to hunt; I do not know enough about laws regarding hunting to discuss the matter. To be perfectly honest, I am not interested in hunting laws in the least; I do not hunt.

I am, however, interested in equality in the eyes of the law. I believe that laws should not single out any one group (such as disabled persons) and treat them as a different class of citizen from anyone else. In the eyes of the law, people should not have either elevated or lessened privileges *or* rights than all other citizens based *only* on physical appearance, gender, physical ability, ethnicity, age or religious affiliation.

To say that disabled people can be *trusted* with autos for hunting but non-disabled people cannot is just bullshit if you ask me - it is discrimination, plain and simple. To insinuate that only non-disabled people can possibly be dumbasses is discrimination as well.

There is a word for people who advocate discrimination (based on any of the above listed criteria), they are commonly called bigots.
.

I'm going to abandon this particular sub-debate after this, because there are just too many erroneous points to contend with.

I stated that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from banning hunting, and that was variously protested here with "you have rights that aren't listed" and "no rights are granted by the Constitution". I went to the trouble to list a bunch of rights that are established/granted/specified by the Constitution and the Amendments, but that seems to have gone over your head.

I'm fully aware of the distinction between pre-existing rights that are simply guaranteed by the Constitution, like the 1st and 2nd Amendments; as compared to rights that nobody was guaranteed before they were set out, like the Writ of Habeas Corpus and female suffrage. I know about Natural Law. I'm not ignorant of these things, I just disagree with your points because you're wrong. I think that you read somewhere, probably derived from dicta in a Supreme Court case, that the 2nd Amendment is not a right given by the 2nd Amendment, because it pre-exists the 2nd Amendment (which is true), and you've extended that to the entire document and it's Amendments (which doesn't stand even brief scrutiny).

We had slavery for thousands of years before the 13th Amendment abolished it here, so you can argue that the right to be free from slavery existed all that time, it was just asleep; but in practice, the 13th Amendment gave American slaves their freedom. Seriously, if I gave you a glass of water, would you argue that I didn't "give" you anything, because under Natural Law we are all owners of Mother Gaia's resources; or would you just take the glass and say thanks? Did the Bible mention Writs of Habeas Corpus? Does the Torah allow you to run for President if you're a natural-born citizen over age 35? Does the Koran prohibit ex post facto laws?

As for your hugely-overbroad description of "bigots", you have to be joking, right? Anyone cutting senior citizens a break on bus fares is a bigot? Letting handicapped people use automatic doors or get on the plane first is bigotry? Keeping women out of hand-to-hand combat is bigotry? Not letting 10-year olds vote based on their age is bigotry? Give me a break. If you think that "bigotry" is failing to give identical treatment to people with different needs, then you need a new dictionary.

Anyway, it's been entertaining. Adios.

[Bruce]

I went to the trouble to list a bunch of rights that are established/granted/specified by the Constitution and the Amendments, but that seems to have gone over your head.

Nothing went over my head.

I just disagree with your points because you're wrong.

No, I am not; not in this case.

We had slavery for thousands of years before the 13th Amendment abolished it here[...]

The abolition of slavery in the 13th Amendment does not declare or express or describe a *right*. Not everything in the Constitution is discussing a *right*. Did you think prohibition was about a right? The 13th Amendment simply states a law - one that outlaws slavery - not a *right*.

As for your hugely-overbroad description of "bigots", you have to be joking, right? Anyone cutting senior citizens a break on bus fares is a bigot? Letting handicapped people use automatic doors or get on the plane first is bigotry? Keeping women out of hand-to-hand combat is bigotry? Not letting 10-year olds vote based on their age is bigotry? Give me a break. If you think that "bigotry" is failing to give identical treatment to people with different needs, then you need a new dictionary.

There is nothing wrong with my dictionary.

Apart from the 10 year old comment above (we are discussing adults here), yes - I do think it would be discrimination and bigotry *if* those things were set in law by the government.

I don't have a problem with completely private companies being biased for whatever reason they choose. And, so long as no one else has a problem with it, I'm fine with it. There is no law against private citizens treating other private citizens differently - apart from "equal employment opportunity" - that I am aware of.

But, as far as the government, and the law, goes, yes - I do think treating *adult* people as separate classes of citizen based only on gender, age, physical attributes, physical appearance, ethnicity or religious affiliation is wrong, wrong, *wrong*.

If you do not, well, then you obviously have no problem seeing the American people as being separated into different classes of citizenship based only on those criteria.

I can only wonder if you think Hispanic people should get different treatment by the law than the rest of us? Or maybe, if you feel this way (as you seem to), you think that people with green eyes should be afforded a separate set of rights than the rest of us?

Yes, I think if you treat or regard a human differently *only because* they have (or do not have) a physical attribute, physical ability, a particular gender, or a particular ethnicity or religious affiliation, then, according to me, you are a bigot.
.

[Carnes]

I think sometimes it would help if people could better see the trees for the forest.

Sometimes it seems like some people have their heads buried so freekin' deep in law books, and perhaps propaganda, that they cannot even recognize the real purpose behind the collection of the law books.