Where does our constitution say we need a licence to carry?

[sgser]

Article I, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, makes it clear that our rights are inherent, unalterable and indefeasible, that we have the right to protect ourselves and our property and that our right to bear arms shall not be questioned. Article I goes on to say say that those rights cannot be tampered with by our elected and appointed state officials. those rights are excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Nowhere does it say we have to ask permission or justify our reason to bear arms, regardless of whether open or concealed. Nowhere does it say that we cannot bear arms to protect ourselves anywhere, including in state parks. Our constitution makes it perfectly clear that we have an inherent right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our property. Why have conditions been placed on those rights? We need to have our rights restored and be as unconditional as they are in our constitution.

[Aran]

The same place it says we need driver's licenses and legal drinking ages.

[sgser]

The same place it says we need driver's licenses and legal drinking ages.

I was referring to the specific rights that have been modified so as to limit those rights or have been taken from us. I was referring only to those rights that have been excepted from the powers of goverment.

[thirtyonebravo]

The same place it says we need driver's licenses and legal drinking ages.

not the best analogy (maybe that was the idea?) because neither of those things are originally found in the constitution, but also with driving - it's not a right, it's a privilege granted to you.

[Rule10b5]

it's not a right, it's a privilege granted to you.

So, you're saying that in the absence of there being a government in existence to grant me the privilege I would not, in my own natural state, have a right to drive a car if I so chose?

As I've said many times, the RKBA isn't any more or less of a "right" because it's enshrined in a document created by a bunch of dead white guys. Nor is driving a privilege because it isn't.

Stating that driving is a "privilege" because it's a sound bite that you've heard repeated over and over by thin-lipped bureaucrats and teachers doesn't make it correct. If you have a "right" to walk down the street free of interference, you have a right to drive a car down the street free of interference. People just call driving a privilege because we've allowed every aspect of it to be regulated by the state. Which is exactly what will happen if we allow the state to regulate every aspect of firearms ownership and carry. In 50 years we'll be calling it a privilege. Death by the thousand strokes of a bureaucrat's pen.

[GunLawyer001]

Stating that driving is a "privilege" because it's a sound bite that you've heard repeated over and over by thin-lipped bureaucrats and teachers doesn't make it correct. If you have a "right" to walk down the street free of interference, you have a right to drive a car down the street free of interference. People just call driving a privilege because we've allowed every aspect of it to be regulated by the state.

I don't think that I'm quoting out of context, but apologies if I edited too much.

Driving on roads built by others on land taken by the State in machines that kill 30 to 50 thousand citizens a year is not a right, anymore than walking on your neighbor's lawn or building bombs in your basement is a right. It's done by permission, if at all, so it's a privilege.

The law recognizes this by allowing you to own an unregistered car without tags, that you are free to let your unlicensed friends drive to their hearts' content on your 50-acre farm. It's only when you take it out onto publicly-controlled roads that the State takes an interest in licensing, registration, insurance, and sobriety.

As for the original question, the PA Constitution does guarantee your right to keep and bear arms, which is a natural right that predates the PA and Federal Constitutions. However, no rights are absolute, not even your right to live. That's why we have the death penalty for some crimes, where the state takes your life away.

Your right to free speech is not unlimited. You can't libel or slander without consequences. You can't scream at 3 AM in the public square, unless you're on fire, in which case you may feel free to share your pain. You can't use a megaphone in lieu of a cell phone to talk to your buddy in the balcony at the Shakespearean play.

There's an old PA Supreme Court case (ca. 1910-1920, I think) that allowed the regulation of that particularly nefarious "concealed" carry, as long as the legislature didn't touch open carry. That's why, to this day, the UFA almost never addresses open carry outside of crime-ridden Philadelphia.

In general, Constitutionally-protected rights may be narrowly restricted if the government can show a compelling state interest that can only be advanced by restricting the right. The Court will evaluate such laws using "strict scrutiny". That's fine, it's worked pretty well, but the problem we face today is that the government wants to regulate and ban guns under a more deferential scrutiny, with the idiot's version of logic that "guns cause crime so every restriction is needed."

This may change with the Parker/Heller case in DC. One of the issues there is which standard of review should the Court apply to gun control laws.

[knight0334]

I don't think that I'm quoting out of context, but apologies if I edited too much.

Driving on roads built by others on land taken by the State in machines that kill 30 to 50 thousand citizens a year is not a right, anymore than walking on your neighbor's lawn or building bombs in your basement is a right. It's done by permission, if at all, so it's a privilege.

The law recognizes this by allowing you to own an unregistered car without tags, that you are free to let your unlicensed friends drive to their hearts' content on your 50-acre farm. It's only when you take it out onto publicly-controlled roads that the State takes an interest in licensing, registration, insurance, and sobriety.

As for the original question, the PA Constitution does guarantee your right to keep and bear arms, which is a natural right that predates the PA and Federal Constitutions. However, no rights are absolute, not even your right to live. That's why we have the death penalty for some crimes, where the state takes your life away.

Your right to free speech is not unlimited. You can't libel or slander without consequences. You can't scream at 3 AM in the public square, unless you're on fire, in which case you may feel free to share your pain. You can't use a megaphone in lieu of a cell phone to talk to your buddy in the balcony at the Shakespearean play.

There's an old PA Supreme Court case (ca. 1910-1920, I think) that allowed the regulation of that particularly nefarious "concealed" carry, as long as the legislature didn't touch open carry. That's why, to this day, the UFA almost never addresses open carry outside of crime-ridden Philadelphia.

In general, Constitutionally-protected rights may be narrowly restricted if the government can show a compelling state interest that can only be advanced by restricting the right. The Court will evaluate such laws using "strict scrutiny". That's fine, it's worked pretty well, but the problem we face today is that the government wants to regulate and ban guns under a more deferential scrutiny, with the idiot's version of logic that "guns cause crime so every restriction is needed."

This may change with the Parker/Heller case in DC. One of the issues there is which standard of review should the Court apply to gun control laws.

GunLawyer001,

If you ever come across that case law, please PM me. I'd love to have a electronic copy if its available.

Thanks!!

Robert

[Rule10b5]

I don't think that I'm quoting out of context, but apologies if I edited too much.

Driving on roads built by others on land taken by the State in machines that kill 30 to 50 thousand citizens a year is not a right, anymore than walking on your neighbor's lawn or building bombs in your basement is a right. It's done by permission, if at all, so it's a privilege.

The law recognizes this by allowing you to own an unregistered car without tags, that you are free to let your unlicensed friends drive to their hearts' content on your 50-acre farm. It's only when you take it out onto publicly-controlled roads that the State takes an interest in licensing, registration, insurance, and sobriety.

No apologies necessary. I still disagree. I rambled on and on quite a bit about natural rights about a week ago, here: http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...guity-law.html

Please tell me if I err in my analysis of your position, below. Part of my difficulty with your post is your use of the phrase "natural right." I don't believe (as I think I said in the prior thread) that the RKBA is really a natural right in the purest sense of the term. But let me set aside that position for a moment, and explore yours.

You take the express position that "your right to keep and bear arms ... is a natural right that predates the PA and Federal Constitutions." And to be clear, my post attempts to talk about the state of natural rights, absent protection of any constitution.

Assuming that you are correct -- RKBA is a natural right -- then it wouldn't be possible to infringe on that right (a natural right) in any legitimate fashion except where the infringement occurred with consent. So you have a natural right to "keep and bear arms" anywhere you have a right to be ... your property, public property, or other private property with consent, right?

But we, clearly, as a matter of practice, are not allowed the RKBA, except by consent of the government in PA. Concealed only with a permit. Open every where except Philadelphia unless you have a permit. Except schools with a lawful purpose (setting aside federal law changes post Lopez). Or courthouses. Or the secure area of an airport.

Philadelphia is actually a perfect example because NO carry is permitted absent government permission. You need a permit to OC -- that's permission. That permission makes carry (open or otherwise) a privilege, not a right.

And why the difference between this and driving a car? Why is one a natural right and the other isn't?

Whether something is a natural right doesn't have anything to do with whether you're allowed to exercise it on public property.

I guess I'm just failing to see the distinction between only being capable of exercising a right on my own property (by your example of owning an untagged car and driving it on my 50 acres) -- which by your position makes it a privilege, and a "natural right" that only allows us to carry under certain circumstances on public property.

And I really don't want to get into a discussion of legitimate restrictions on rights as part of the social contract. If you're forced (as a matter of practicality) to be subject to the restriction of a right, then the right can't be a natural one. My point, then, would be that I fail to see what is special about the RKBA when compared to driving a car. I really, really don't see the difference. Nor do I want to get into the whole equating a car with the right to move freely (which I think is crap, too)

Quite honestly, if we're talking about natural rights under a different rubric -- meaning rights that are simply very, very important, if not natural, I'd easily take the position that the ability (or right if you want to call it that) to drive is more important to me 99.9999999% of the time than the RKBA.

And if I had to choose between the two, I'd toss my guns in a second.

EDIT TO ADD: I couldn't find the case you're talking about (you owe me a Coke for my time on Lexis ) but I did find some interesting dicta in an old hunting rights case.

"This legislation is not directed against any particular nationality or special class of aliens, but prohibits "any unnaturalized foreign-born resident" from hunting, capturing or killing any wild bird or animal, and "to that end it shall be unlawful" for such person "to have or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle of any make." The Act of May 5, 1864, P.L. 823, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons is not obnoxious to the bill of rights, saving the rights of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state: Wright v. Com., 77 Pa. 470. Nor does the provision in the fourteenth amendment which declares, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," affect this defendant in any way, as he is not a citizen."

Commonwealth v. Patsone, 231 Pa. 46 (Pa. 1911)

That case (read the rest of it, it's pretty amusing in its rights analysis -- referring to sovereigns and kings is always giggle-worthy) pretty clearly reflects the state's inclination to treat outright prohibition of concealed carry as not obnoxious to the Bill of Rights because it doesn't "interfere" with a citizens right to bear arms in defense of himself or the state.

[GunLawyer001]

Apparently I was thinking of Commonwealth v. Kreps, a 1922 Common Pleas case out of Dauphin county (22 D&C 335 I think, based on the pages I printed out back in the early 1990's), which cited to an 1875 Pa Supreme Ct case, Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875). Wright found that a law against the malicious carrying of a concealed weapon didn't contradict the PA constitution; Kreps cited to Wright and went on to find that laws against carrying "concealed" weapons were clearly distinguishable from laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms generally.

So, it's a reported Common Pleas case, which isn't the best precedent, but I don't think it's been contradicted, and some of the logic is sound. It also includes a finding that handguns aren't "arms" at all, since the term might only refer to swords and rifles; this would have interesting repercussions in the assault weapon debate. (I had forgotten about the "pistols ain't arms" argument.)


As for the "natural rights" argument, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the natural right of self-defense. You have a right to try and obtain an effective means to defend yourself, whether it be a club, a knife, a gun, or a 40-watt phased plasma rifle. Technology changes, your rights are fundamental and inherent. Airplane travel now requires that you surrender EVERY implement by which you could defend yourself, and this is apparently the goal of the anti-gun crowd for all of society.

The "car" issue involves your right to use property owned by others, whether they are governmental entities or private actors. Just because the Commonwealth owns land, that doesn't translate into every citizen being able to put it to whatever use he chooses. Someone has to decide that you can't put your own speed bumps on I-95, that you can't drive east in the west-bound lane, that you can't drive if you're blind; otherwise, you can be sure that somebody would do all of those things and more.

It's the same reason that PAFOA now has more rules, because a large group of people left to their own judgment will include a few weasels who do some stupid things that ruin it for everyone. 4,000 users posting whatever they want will include at least a few people who will dominate the site with spam for porn, penile growth pills, racist rants, Tourette's outbursts, instructions on how to turn your Uzi into an unregistered Title II firearm, and worse.

[Rule10b5]

Apparently I was thinking of Commonwealth v. Kreps, a 1922 Common Pleas case out of Dauphin county (22 D&C 335 I think, based on the pages I printed out back in the early 1990's), which cited to an 1875 Pa Supreme Ct case, Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (1875). Wright found that a law against the malicious carrying of a concealed weapon didn't contradict the PA constitution; Kreps cited to Wright and went on to find that laws against carrying "concealed" weapons were clearly distinguishable from laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms generally.

So, it's a reported Common Pleas case, which isn't the best precedent, but I don't think it's been contradicted, and some of the logic is sound. It also includes a finding that handguns aren't "arms" at all, since the term might only refer to swords and rifles; this would have interesting repercussions in the assault weapon debate. (I had forgotten about the "pistols ain't arms" argument.)


As for the "natural rights" argument, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the natural right of self-defense. You have a right to try and obtain an effective means to defend yourself, whether it be a club, a knife, a gun, or a 40-watt phased plasma rifle. Technology changes, your rights are fundamental and inherent. Airplane travel now requires that you surrender EVERY implement by which you could defend yourself, and this is apparently the goal of the anti-gun crowd for all of society.

The "car" issue involves your right to use property owned by others, whether they are governmental entities or private actors. Just because the Commonwealth owns land, that doesn't translate into every citizen being able to put it to whatever use he chooses. Someone has to decide that you can't put your own speed bumps on I-95, that you can't drive east in the west-bound lane, that you can't drive if you're blind; otherwise, you can be sure that somebody would do all of those things and more.

It's the same reason that PAFOA now has more rules, because a large group of people left to their own judgment will include a few weasels who do some stupid things that ruin it for everyone. 4,000 users posting whatever they want will include at least a few people who will dominate the site with spam for porn, penile growth pills, racist rants, Tourette's outbursts, instructions on how to turn your Uzi into an unregistered Title II firearm, and worse.

I love the pistols ain't arms argument. Almost as amusing as the U.S. v. Miller shotguns argument. I love "legal" logic, sometimes.

The problem I have with tying the car argument to use of public property is that I just can't get my head around:

(i) Saying that a right (self-defense) can be natural, but at the same time subject to regulation; and

(ii) Saying that the use/carry of a firearm on public property is any less of a use of public property than driving a car. They're both using public property, and they both have the potential to impose externalities on others through improper use.

Not like it matters, for either of us. Firearms will continue to be regulated, people will continue to treat driving as a privilege, and so long as we behave we'll be able to carry and drive subject to regulation. Whether it's reasonable, I suppose, will depend on the vagaries of public opinion and the inclinations of the judiciary.