My short answer is: Why would you? As a society we have lost our sense of individual responsibility. Choosing instead to abdicate the responsibilities to the State. Not just for ourselves but for everyone. The real question is, will we be free men or will we welcome our chains without contest? Over time, through legislation without representation and our own fear, we allowed our god given rights to be slowly taken from us. Unalienable, incontestable, and inherent. These natural rights cannot really be taken from us. They have always been ours and they always will be. We let them convince us that the State provides us the rights that we enjoy. We were told what rights we had and we believed them. Eventually, they began to tell us when we could and couldn't exercise those rights. Soon enough we’ll be told that we don't have any at all. That we should be happy that the State provides. Free men do not ask for permission. We were born free. But we will not remain so if we do not stand in defiant vigilance. For too long we have allowed our public servants to define the nature of their own duties. As well as the restrictions placed on their offices that were put in place to prevent overstepping their bounds and corrupting the duty they were entrusted with. We have been proven fools for believing men could be trusted without our constant oversight. The Constitution at America’s founding was nothing more than an agreement between the founding States to create a new confederation and the government that would represent it. The second purpose was to ensure the rights of the People would be secured and to further restrict the new government. Nowhere does it grant rights to the People, just an acknowledgement of those rights. Though the Bill of Rights mentions certain rights held by the People, its purpose was only to further the restriction of government. In my experience, most concentrate on the first and second amendments while ignoring most of the rest. Most notable of those is the Ninth Amendment. It states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” The amendment acknowledges that there are other rights that belong to the People. All of them. And they are not definable. Specifically that the State cannot define them. All rights of the People stem from the Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and to Property. These rights are violated when government requires you to ask permission to freely exercise your faculties. These faculties do not concern the delegated powers enumerated to government in the Constitution and should not be allowed government influence. I don't specifically state a permission to conceal a firearm as it is one of many property rights or rights of your person that you must ask for permission now. But it is the point of the conversation. To suggest you need permission to freely exercise your rights and faculties would mean that you are not free. And that your rights are merely privileges granted to you by your rulers. Privileges that will be revoked if you do not comply. These permissions violate your right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures by giving implied or direct consent. I realize that the consensus seems to be, “if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide. Right?” Wrong. You have everything to hide. And if you protect your right to your information, it will be used to prosecute you. Or to persecute you. It’s your duty to safeguard your own rights. The Fourth Amendment describes the restriction on searches and seizures. In Washington at least, you must forfeit that right to any agent of the State without cause. Failure to comply will cause you to lose the permission. If not more. Every State that enters the union must agree to the terms of the Constitution. As the Supreme Law of the land, no law can be made that conflicts with it. Requiring a permit to conceal your property, while requiring the forfeiture of the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, violates the Fourth Amendment and the Natural Right to Property. It also suggests a restriction on the Natural Right to Lawful self defense and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment being the restriction on government from disarming the People, while accepting that the People, in the form of the Militia, were necessary to maintain a free State. They knew fully the danger of a government having the ability to disarm its citizenry. You cannot maintain a free State if you are restricted from bearing sufficient arms to stand against any foe, even your government. Therefore any restriction is a violation. The question is not whether to conceal or not conceal. Or whether you should get special permission. Its always been whether you will stand in defiance or kneel in a cage of your own making? Are we to be free men or are we subjects?
No tags yet.