SB17 Allowing Permitted Open Carry Has Just Passed The Texas State Senate

[()pen(arry]

My view is that driving a car is a privilege, and can be licensed, and your license can be revoked. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT a privilege - it's a natural right, and rights are not revocable, therefore licensing or establishing a fee structure in order to restrict/control a right is unconstitutional.

Whence cometh a "natural" right to keep and bear arms, whence cometh not a right to drive? Guns and cars are both instruments of man, and rather recent at that. Did this "natural" right to keep and bear arms spring forth from the bosom of nothingness in 13th century China? That would be a peculiar sort of irony.

Well, I have a nit with that. Driving is also a natural right. The difference is that infringement of that right by the government is not prohibited by the constitution.

Rights are also revocable. The constitution provides that a person can be deprived of rights through due process.

I don't believe you understand what "right" means. A right is not a protected privilege. A right is an inherent condition that is inextricably coincident with the existence of the individual. It cannot be granted, and it cannot be taken away. It begins simultaneously with the beginning of the human creature, persists without cessation or pause, and ends simultaneously with the human creature's final demise. Rights are manifestations of the fundamental condition of liberty that inheres in all people, no matter their particulars or circumstances, and, as such, a right is possessed simply by existing, with no possibility of loss by any justification or through any means. A right is. Period. Rights are routinely violated, infringed, suppressed, and trodden over by governments and individuals alike, but never, ever can they be taken away, nor relinquished.

What can happen is that a right can be superseded by justice. One who infringes the right of another may virtuously be brought to recompensory justice, which narrowly and finitely supersedes such subset of the rights of the one as is strictly necessary to delivery that justice. This does not negate, much less revoke, the rights of the one; it simply takes precedence within the specific scope of justice dispensed.

So when you say, "infringement of that right by the government is not prohibited by the constitution," and, "rights are also revocable," please understand that you are speaking utter nonsense.

 

[marshaul]

Whence cometh a "natural" right to keep and bear arms, whence cometh not a right to drive? Guns and cars are both instruments of man, and rather recent at that. Did this "natural" right to keep and bear arms spring forth from the bosom of nothingness in 13th century China? That would be a peculiar sort of irony.



I don't believe you understand what "right" means. A right is not a protected privilege. A right is an inherent condition that is inextricably coincident with the existence of the individual. It cannot be granted, and it cannot be taken away. It begins simultaneously with the beginning of the human creature, persists without cessation or pause, and ends simultaneously with the human creature's final demise. Rights are manifestations of the fundamental condition of liberty that inheres in all people, no matter their particulars or circumstances, and, as such, a right is possessed simply by existing, with no possibility of loss by any justification or through any means. A right is. Period. Rights are routinely violated, infringed, suppressed, and trodden over by governments and individuals alike, but never, ever can they be taken away, nor relinquished.

What can happen is that a right can be superseded by justice. One who infringes the right of another may virtuously be brought to recompensory justice, which narrowly and finitely supersedes such subset of the rights of the one as is strictly necessary to delivery that justice. This does not negate, much less revoke, the rights of the one; it simply takes precedence within the specific scope of justice dispensed.

So when you say, "infringement of that right by the government is not prohibited by the constitution," and, "rights are also revocable," please understand that you are speaking utter nonsense.

Wonderfully stated.

 

[Bikenut]

wait, then why'd they write the bill of rights?

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things the government allows the people to do...

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the people told the government it cannot do.

The Bill of Rights is a list of laws the government must not violate.

 

[()pen(arry]

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things the government allows the people to do...

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the people told the government it cannot do.

The Bill of Rights is a list of laws the government must not violate.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of specific, indisputable rights that were seen as so important by the Constitutional Convention that, even though those and all others were already protected from government infringement, they should be explicitly identified. The Bill of Rights is not "a list of things the people told the government it cannot do." The Constitution explicitly identifies that government has no power except what is explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, and, consequently, violation of any right at all is anathema. Again, the Bill of Rights is simply an explicit enumeration of rights considered particularly important, canonized to further safeguard them against government encroachment.

 

[jordanmills]

Whence cometh a "natural" right to keep and bear arms, whence cometh not a right to drive? Guns and cars are both instruments of man, and rather recent at that. Did this "natural" right to keep and bear arms spring forth from the bosom of nothingness in 13th century China? That would be a peculiar sort of irony.



I don't believe you understand what "right" means. A right is not a protected privilege. A right is an inherent condition that is inextricably coincident with the existence of the individual. It cannot be granted, and it cannot be taken away. It begins simultaneously with the beginning of the human creature, persists without cessation or pause, and ends simultaneously with the human creature's final demise. Rights are manifestations of the fundamental condition of liberty that inheres in all people, no matter their particulars or circumstances, and, as such, a right is possessed simply by existing, with no possibility of loss by any justification or through any means. A right is. Period. Rights are routinely violated, infringed, suppressed, and trodden over by governments and individuals alike, but never, ever can they be taken away, nor relinquished.

What can happen is that a right can be superseded by justice. One who infringes the right of another may virtuously be brought to recompensory justice, which narrowly and finitely supersedes such subset of the rights of the one as is strictly necessary to delivery that justice. This does not negate, much less revoke, the rights of the one; it simply takes precedence within the specific scope of justice dispensed.

So when you say, "infringement of that right by the government is not prohibited by the constitution," and, "rights are also revocable," please understand that you are speaking utter nonsense.

Actually, several law professors have told me that I understand it very well. " A right is not a protected privilege. A right is an inherent condition that is inextricably coincident with the existence of the individual. It cannot be granted, and it cannot be taken away." You are completely correct until you claim a right cannot be taken away. Rights are infringed, legally or illegally, all the time, and much more regularly outside of the scope of justice.

You're not really making much sense. You claim I'm speaking nonsense by saying infringement of certain rights by the government is prohibited by the constitution, but that is the exact verbiage used. It's clear from a simple reading of the constitution and amendments that the founding fathers well understood that the government could infringe on a person's rights or completely deprive a person of certain rights as evidenced by the second and fifth amendments.

 

[jordanmills]

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things the government allows the people to do...

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the people told the government it cannot do.

The Bill of Rights is a list of laws the government must not violate.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things the government allows the people to do...

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the people told the government it cannot do.

The Bill of Rights is a list of laws the government must not violate.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bold and underlined added by me for emphasis...........

Let me see... the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part, is the supreme law of the land. check...

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is prohibited from doing. check...

The Bill of Rights is therefor a list of laws (of the land) prohibiting the government from doing some things. Yes?

Note that I didn't say the government doesn't violate those laws.... just that the Bill of Rights is a list of laws the government must not violate.... similar to other laws like those against murder that individuals must not violate. Because, at least supposedly, any violations of the law... including the law of the land... results in penalties for the violator.

Or maybe I'm missing something about that part concerning "shall be the supreme law of the land"?

 

[()pen(arry]

Actually, several law professors have told me that I understand it very well. " A right is not a protected privilege. A right is an inherent condition that is inextricably coincident with the existence of the individual. It cannot be granted, and it cannot be taken away." You are completely correct until you claim a right cannot be taken away. Rights are infringed, legally or illegally, all the time, and much more regularly outside of the scope of justice.

You're not really making much sense. You claim I'm speaking nonsense by saying infringement of certain rights by the government is prohibited by the constitution, but that is the exact verbiage used. It's clear from a simple reading of the constitution and amendments that the founding fathers well understood that the government could infringe on a person's rights or completely deprive a person of certain rights as evidenced by the second and fifth amendments.

I don't care what supposed law professors supposedly tell you. I can walk into any university with a law department here in Seattle and find any number of law professors who will assure me that the Constitution allows government to do whatever it pleases.

Rights are not merely permanent; they are fundamentally part of the existence of the human creature. No matter how much or how thoroughly a person's rights are infringed, they still possess those rights. When people speak of the "denial of rights", they are using metonymy. What is actually denied is the liberty afforded by the right. Explicitly, the phrase would properly be, "denial of liberties afforded by rights", but metonymy is a standard rhetorical practice, such as when we refer to the President's administration as "the White House", or our cars as "wheels". Read the writings of the architects of the Constitution, and you'll see quite readily what they meant.

Rights are intrinsic. Ergo, rights cannot be taken away. No matter how much government offends, infringes, violates, or suppresses your rights, you have them. Period. And you'd better start understanding that, or you're going to keep letting government deny you the liberty they afford. You will always have the right to liberty, even if you are not at some time in position of some or all of that liberty.

A few quotes for you:

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

 

[KBCraig]

I lived in San Angelo myself from 1964 - 1982. The 46.02 handgun restriction was generally not enforced in the absence of criminal conduct. .....which IMHO happens to be the legislative intent of this section of the penal code in the first place.

West Texas was a pretty much another "State of mind" anyway compared to the larger metro urban areas. The biggest problem was always Harris County ( Houston) when it came to enforcing 46.02 against law-abiding citizens.

Throughout all of Texas, 46.02 was not enforced absent criminal intent, unless one happened to be of the wrong category of folks. The best way to end bad laws is to enforce them uniformly, as it's been said, and when 46.02 started being enforced against nice little old white ladies with a .32 revolver in the glove box, all of a sudden the Texas CHL was born!

Before that, make no mistake: "criminal intent" didn't matter one whit, if one's shade of melanin didn't have the favor of those in power. Or, regardless of melanin, if one's political leanings didn't have a sufficient shade of green.

 

[marshaul]

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

As usual, Jefferson's is the most accurate, and as well concise. The semantic precision here is masterful.