The other day on Facebook, Don Gammill posted: “I’m happy that Rebecca Gammill got her concealed carry permit today; however, I was a bit surprised to find out that, on top of the $75 cash license fee, we also had to provide a self-addressed, stamped envelope for the Probate Court to mail the license to us in when it’s ready. I mean, couldn’t they have just raised the fee to $76?” Someone posted in response: “No, it is all about making the process more difficult. My question is why must I pay 76 bucks to exercise a Constitutional right. Imagine the outcry if they charged you to exercise your constitutional right to vote.” So the question is . . .

Does the Second Amendment also mean you should have a right to carry a concealed weapon without having to pay for a permit to do so?

This is not about whether or not you should have to register to carry—just whether you should have to pay for a permit. After all, you can’t exercise your constitutional right to vote without registering first. But as many southern states found out in the 60s, forcing voters to pay a poll tax before they could vote was unconstitutional.

Recommended For You

83 Responses to Question of the Day: Are Concealed Carry Permit Fees a Civil Rights Issue?

  1. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’ —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

    I my opinion, the state must either allow Open Carry without restriction, or it must allow Concealed Carry without restriction, but it can’t restrict both. That issue still has to be pushed in a number of states, including my home state of Florida.

    It wasn’t until 1822 when Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec.251 (1822) declared: 72. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.

    • Very much so. Poll taxes were enacted in the southern US specifically to discourage non-whites from voting. As explained by the all-knowing Wikipedia, “In U.S. practice, a poll tax was used as a de facto or implicit pre-condition of the exercise of the ability to vote. This tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the ability to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws which often included a grandfather clause that allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation, achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters as well as poor whites who immigrated after the year specified.”

  2. Attempting to compare concealed carry fees to the historic struggles of African Americans to achieve basic human rights, as you have done with the photo above, is morally repugnant and despicable.

    You need to lose the photo and then get over yourselves, quick. You have no idea how stupid and self-absorbed you look to intelligent people when you pull crap like this.

    • That bile taste you have in your mouth there Magoo is the realization that all rights, like all people, are created equal. Endowed by our creator… I bet that stings too.

    • “Attempting to compare concealed carry fees to the struggles of African Americans to achieve basic human rights, as you have done with the photo above, is morally repugnant and despicable. ”

      Couple of things you should be aware of, Magoo.
      1) Self-defense is a basic human right
      2) Gun control laws were originally invented to keep guns out of the hands of folks like the ones in that photo. If they’re unarmed they’re easier to terrorize.
      3) Placing a fee or tax on the exercise of a basic human right was also specifically designed to prevent people like the ones pictured from exercising those rights. And if you look at places like New York and Chicago it’s still being done today.

      The photo and the analogy are both entirely appropriate. And frankly, an implicit dismissal of this site’s readership as being unintelligent is, coming from you, genuinely hilarious.

      • You are not those people. Do not compare yourselves to them. The very suggestion of it is repugnant to regular Americans.

        If the comparison makes any sense to you at all, you are lost in extremism and can no longer see yourselves in the mirror. If you folks had a PR firm, at this moment it would be wrestling you to the ground to stop you from making such repulsive asses of yourselves.

        • “You are not those people. Do not compare yourselves to them. The very suggestion of it is repugnant to regular Americans.”

          So what’s the cutoff then, Magoo? At what point, in your estimation, is someone allowed to demand their rights? Is there an income cap? Is it based on race, or zip code? What criteria must we meet in order to be worthy in your eyes of asserting our natural rights? I’d really like to know.

          And in my opinion the only repulsive ass around here is the person incapable of expressing a difference of opinion without resorting to insults.

        • Sure, buddy. Your hardships are comparable to the the civil rights movement of the early ’60s… because you have to buy your own stamp for your gun permit. That makes perfect sense.

        • The original question was not about the hardships faced by anyone. It was simply whether having to pay for a Constitutionally guaranteed right is legal or not. Comparison with poll taxes is fair as both voting and the right to keep arms are Constitutional rights.

          Please stick to the original topic of the discussion and try not to get off on tangents.

        • I’m on my topic: the choice of that photo for this story. It’s a bad choice. It’s repulsively inappropriate. The photo negates any substance the story might have had. It’s like illustrating a story about parking tickets with photos of concentration camp prisoners. Please get over yourselves.

        • The topic is “Are Concealed Carry Permit Fees a Civil Rights Issue?” You have simply picked a fight. For what reason? Do you have the moral authority to tell everyone else that a picture can or can not be used? What gives you this right? You say that the choice of the photo is “repulsively inappropriate.” Who are you to decide what is inappropriate or not? Do you have a moral gift that all other readers of this blog lack that gives you the ability to decide right from wrong? Deciding if this photo is appropriate for use on this post is not up to you, and if you do not like it, you do not need to insult the rest of us for it. That in itself is repugnant and may well illustrate a distinct lack of character in yourself.

        • “Sure, buddy. Your hardships are comparable to the the civil rights movement of the early ’60s…”

          Magoo, I know you’re so much more intelligent than I am that you must know this already, but indulge me for a moment.

          From Dictionary.com:
          Identical: –adjective 1. similar or alike in every way 2. being the very same; selfsame

          Analogous: -adjective 1. having analogy; corresponding in some particular (emphasis added by me)

          No one here is claiming that we have the same hardships as blacks living under Jim Crow. What we are saying is that civil rights are civil rights, period. One person’s rights under the 14th or 26th Amendments are no more important than someone else’s under the 2nd, and vice versa. What we’re saying is that if a poll tax is wrong (and it is) then a license fee is wrong for the same reason. We’re making that claim by use of a common rhetorical device called an analogy.

          Were you able to follow that?

        • If it’s not what you’re saying, get rid of the photo. You are not an oppressed people. You are not freedom fighters. Bob Dylan is not going to write a protest song about the struggles of OFWGs to get their CC permits. Get over yourselves.

        • Well, that answers one question at least. Apparently you weren’t able to follow that.

        • your not a real civil rights movement till your recognized by bob Dylan. Magoo your argument is devoid of logic and chalk full of emotion it almost makes me blush. We’re going to argue about a picture? The picture is what American’s think about when they hear civil rights movement.. No one is saying we are blacks under gym crow laws, however we are saying certain practices that were deemed unconstitutional, are comparable to the permit process for a BASIC RIGHT. If you could control your emotional outburst you might be less disposed and your word would carry more weight.

        • I feel pretty oppressed when I go to DC, MD, NJ, NY, MA, IL and until November, WI to name a few. When I cross the borders into those jurisdictions, I’m eligible for years behind bars for doing the very same things I do perfectly legally every day in my home state.

        • Some of us are “those people.” Your contention that no African-Americans have had their Constitutional Second Amendment rights infringed now or in the past is absurd. BTW we ARE regular Americans too.

    • It’s a valid question. He’s not even comparing it to the overall struggles for civil rights(which a priori isn’t bad anyway, but it could be), just the poll taxes.

      Poll Taxes are illegal, because they violate equal protection under law of a civil right.
      We have a right to keep and bear arms as recognized by SCOTUS,
      Are fees on permits then legal(since it is a fairly analogous situation)?

      The answer is probably yes, Virginia, they are legal. The SCOTUS ruling was judicial fiat more than anything, and it established a precedent that laws with extremely disproportionate(wrt race) effects, can violate equal protection, even if it can’t be proven that it was intended to do so.

      But the chances of getting anywhere with that are small, since there are plenty of other laws which mostly blacks and hispanics get charged for(but are still laws).

    • The question posed in this posting involves Civil Rights. The photo used as an illustration is from the Civil Rights movement. So, it is a valid photo to use. Maybe I am not as intelligent as you are, I have no way of knowing that. I do have a degree in history and politics, which should count for something when critiquing the use of images in a debate. My professors always encouraged creating debate, and if use of this image helps to generate further understanding of the issue that is being debated, then it has helped the debate. Enshrining this picture for use only in the context of the African American Civil Rights movement is like saying that pictures of atrocities from Auschwitz or Nanking can only be used in debates involving World War 2. It narrows the debate to the point where it may miss valid points that could be relevant and help to further the understanding of the issue at hand.

      The 2nd Amendment is a civil right, just like voting, equal protection, etc. Claiming that use of this picture makes the poster, or all of us who support the 2A makes us less intelligent than yourself is a perfect example of profiling. It is not conducive to making a good argument, or carrying on a civil debate to insult those on the opposite side of the issue from yourself. I feel sorry that you devolve to the level of name calling in order to attempt to make your point. It does nothing to bolster your argument or your reputation as a rational commenter in the debate.

    • I think the manner in which the question is posed and the photograph used is extremely effective at expressing a very relevant point.

      Creating an excessive amount of complexity and cost to excercising any right, has a greater affect on the poor, women, and minorities, more than the rest of the US populace.

      A simmilar argument is made, when ever a town attempts to impose fees or require approved permits for congregating in mass, like for a rally or a strike.

      This is no different. It is ironic and sad, that in our most depressed and violent crime ridden cities, the ability to arm ones self is restricted by some of the most oppresive of gun laws in the country. DESPITE the FACT that there is little correlation found between legal gun ownership density, and crimes commited with a gun.

    • Magoo, what you have just stated is absolute rubbish. The “struggle” for RKBA today is just as important and just as valid as the struggle for all fundamental civil and human rights throughout history. Are you at all familiar with the Deacons for Defense?

      “You need to lose the photo and then get over yourselves, quick. You have no idea how stupid and self-absorbed you look to intelligent people when you pull crap like this.” Heed your own advice brother.

      • I know, I know. But it’s so hard not to. It’s just that whenever some pusillanimous, elitist, pseudo-intellectual gets up on his/her high horse and starts spitting their oh so righteous bile at us lowly cretins, it really gets my fur up.

    • Funny; that’s the self-same argument when we LGBT folk talk about equal rights, and compare our struggle with that of Blacks.

      The point is that civil rights are civil rights are civil rights. No matter how you dress up your bigotry, you’re still a bigot attempting to deny/withhold civil rights.

    • Voting is a human right? So I suppose, using your logic, that all children under 18 in the US are having their basic human rights violated, right?

      The US CONSTITUTION grants us the right to have guns – forcing people to pay a fee to exercise that right is no different than being forced to pay a fee to exercise the right to vote (also given by the US Constitution).

      • Democracy requires the participation of a well-informed (hopefully) citizenry. The Constitution is meant for those who can understand it and accept it.

        If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, they cannot be trusted without a custodian, and they certainly cannot be trusted at the ballot box.

  3. Permit fees are not a civil rights issue because there is no Constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. Even Heller made that clear:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    (scroll down to page 57.)

    In order to find such a “right” you would have to find a court that engaged in exactly the kind of “judicial activism” that most 2a advocates rail against.

    • If the jurisdiction doesn’t allow for open carry and CCW is your only option, would that in your opinion make it an issue?

      • Nope. I know people like to fixate on the term “Bear Arms,” but the reality is that “bear arms” is a term of art that has not been precisely defined – it does not mean you have the right to carry any weapon, at any time, at any place, under any circumstances.

        States have a General Police Power to make laws that regulate health, safety, and general welfare. If the state wants to make it illegal to carry a concealed or non-concealed firearm, they may do so. What they may not do (per Heller) is pass a law that completely prohibits the ownership or possession of firearms.

        It can probably be inferred that laws that prohibit “reasonable use” are also unconstitutional:

        For example, if a state passes a law that says you can only transport a firearm from the store to your home, and that before you do so you must obtain a permit signed by the Sheriff or Police Chief himself, and that the cost of the permit is $500, and that it will only be issued on Christmas Eve at 11pm, then most likely that law would be unconstitutional because it would place so many burdens in the way of exercising a constitutional right (the right to own firearms and use them for self defense in the home) that it would amount to a de facto ban. A law that prohibited any act of transporting a firearm outside the home would also probably be unconstitutional.

        But laws that simply restrict the time, place or manner of carrying a weapon that do not amount to a de facto ban on ownership of guns, probably do not rise to the level of a Constitutional infringement and are presumptively legal under the State’s general police power.

        • I don’t speak legalese, but I would have thought that “keep” means “own or possess” and “bear” means “carry or use”. I would have also thought that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed” but apparently that is not true either.

        • Indeed, it has been proven time and time again, that it takes a very big brain to not be able to understand a simple 27 word sentence.

          A well educated citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

        • The SCOSOV (Virginia Supreme Court) has interpreted the “Keep and Bear” clause of the Virginia Constitution (section 13) to mean possession and open carrying of a firearm is a Constitutional right. Section 13 was is based on the same language James Madison used in the Second Amendment. The original intent of the Second is to establish the carrying arms as a matter right. As has been noted in a past thread, way back when it was assumed that no honest man would conceal his firearm. Concealed carry is probably not covered by the Second Amendment but a strong argument can be made that open carry is.

        • As has been noted in a past thread, way back when it was assumed that no honest man would conceal his firearm.

          I would say it’s a bit more complicated than that. Our 2nd amendment was taken from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. the EBOR was enacted after the religiously-inspired conflicts of the 16th and 17th century wrought havoc on a lot of people. One of the greivances against the previous kings was that they allowed (minority) Catholic groups to maintain armed militias while disarming protestant militias, thus leaving protestants at the mercies of the Catholic groups. Therefore, the EBOR stated that the right of protestants to bear arms would be protected – but it wasn’t a concealed carry type of situation (because how could you ‘concealed carry’ a matchlock or wheellock of the 17th century anyway?) It was specifically for the maintenance of self-defense militia groups that would protect citizens against the depredations of other armed bands.

          As far as concealed carry goes, even in the 18th century, concealable firearms were pretty rare so most likely the issue would not have occurred to the likes of Madison or Hamilton.

        • As I tell my Canadian friends we have a common history right up 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

          While it may be true that the origin of the right to bear arms goes back to 1689 the inclusion of the Second Amendment didn’t really have anything to do with the original English justification. It was written to make sure that our militia based national army would have had experience in handling firearms when called upon by the States or National governments. It also provided the means for citizens the ability to defend themselves in areas beyond the immediate reach of the police/security power of the state.

          I would dispute the fact that you could not conceal a late 18th Century pistol in the rather long frocked coats that people wore back then but if that is the sole base for your argument against CC as a Second Amendment right I would dispute that. It is very likely that the founders would have extended Second Amendment protection to the concealable fire arms that were developed in the early to mid 19th Century.

        • From the NRA’s National Firearms Museum website: “Small pocket arms such as this [Queen Anne Style Pocket Flintlock] pistol incorporated barrels that could be unscrewed for loading. They were initially developed circa 1650 and could be carried in a belt and used for close-in fighting by infantry officers. Screw-barrel pistols required additional time to load than did muzzle-loaders, but they were much more accurate and had a higher muzzle velocity due to their rifled barrels.”

          http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museum/the-galleries/the-road-to-american-liberty/case-23-the-french-and-indian-war/queen-anne-style-pocket-flintlock-pistol.aspx

          A pocket pistol that saw service in the French and Indian War would unquestionably figure prominently in the thinking of those officers who would later lead the War of Independence and then draft the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    • Martin, SCOTUS did not rule either way relative to the right to bear arms outside of the home, and you should retake a couple of your Con Law classes if you believe otherwise. The dicta you cited doesn’t mean anything except that the Court was not deciding any issues that were not properly before it. Good for SCOTUS. The Court shouldn’t use a home-carry case as a pretext for judicial activism.

      I don’t know how the Court will decide any OC or CC cases. I only believe that my right to defend myself cannot end at my front door.

      • Whether that passage in Heller is “dicta” or not, it is a plain fact that there has not been a definitive ruling on whether or not the 2nd amendment confers an absolute right to carry a firearm in public, open or concealed, and whether or not the state may impose any restrictions on such carry.

        Therefore, it is simply incorrect to state that you have a “Constitutional right” to a concealed carry permit (or to open carry, for that matter.) You don’t, at least not under the Federal Constitution (your state Constitution may grant such a right.)

        Your right to a CCW permit is dependent on the statute that was enacted in your state, and the state can put whatever restrictions it wants on that statute: Fees, testing, background checks, etc.

        As for your right to defend yourself “not ending at [your] door”, of course it doesn’t – you have the right to defend yourself in almost any situation. What you may or may not have the right to do is to carry a gun to affect such defense, but your right to defend yourself doesn’t disappear simply because you are not allowed to carry a gun.

        • “there has not been a definitive ruling on whether or not the 2nd amendment confers an absolute right to carry a firearm in public, open or concealed, and whether or not the state may impose any restrictions on such carry.”

          That’s what I said.

          “Therefore, it is simply incorrect to state that you have a “Constitutional right” to a concealed carry permit (or to open carry, for that matter.) You don’t, at least not under the Federal Constitution (your state Constitution may grant such a right.)”

          That contradicts what you just said. The issue has not been resolved by SCOTUS. That doesn’t mean that there is no such right. The Court doesn’t grant rights, at least in theory. If the Court decides that there is a right to carry based on original intent, then that right has been there since the beginning. If not, then not. I have no idea which way they will rule.

          “What you may or may not have the right to do is to carry a gun to affect such defense, but your right to defend yourself doesn’t disappear simply because you are not allowed to carry a gun.”

          Nonsense. If I am denied the means to defend myself, then I have been denied the right. I’m a sixty-three year old man. Am I supposed to beat a group of muggers about the ears with my cane? And my neighbor, who is 82, what’s her defense? And yes, she owns a gun and can shoot just fine.

          C’mon, Martin, you’re way too smart for this.

    • How about Philidelphia where to bear arms outside of your residence a concealed carry permit is required?

      I am sure there are other examples…but that is at the top of my mind due to the Mark Fiorino incident

  4. I LOVE that photo because it does get the point across. I also believe that all permits should be free after you qualify to receive them.

  5. I’m black. I lived through the Civil Right’s movement. I paid my $100 tax for a CCW permit in order to exercise a Constitutional right. That picture is very appropriate.

    You lose, Magoo.

    On another issue: By the power invested in me by my color, I hereby absolve you of all white liberal guilt you may feel now or in the future.

  6. @IndyEric
    PERFECT!

    You have to love how “Magoo” ignored the posts mentioning that the first gun control laws in the Country were specifically to keep African American former slaves from possessing weapons.

    Magoo is probably a Democrat who doesn’t even know that it was his party that filibustered for almost 2 months to try and block the Civil Rights act of 1964.

    • Actually, Magold is the first to mention the racist roots of gun control laws, when it serves his purpose.

  7. It would be wise for everyone to understand that the modern gun rights movement was birthed by a Democrat named Don Kates who carried a revolver during his civil rights work in Alabama. Between his experiences, the Deacons for Defense and Justice, the radicalization of the Deacons ideas by the Black Panthers and California’s Mulford act to end open carry by the Panthers, the gun rights movement is deeply related to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

    We’re going to undo Jim Crow and racist responses to black people owning and carrying guns. If you think I’m wildly off base, then you have to explain Justice Thomas’ concurrence about the right to arms and freedman and Republicans in McDonald.

    -Gene

  8. We’ll know soon enough about whether 2A protects the ability to carry in public soon enough. There are several cases on the move on their way up. I give it 2 years on the outside before the US goes national shall issue. Pay attention to Gura’s brief in Williams v Maryland.

    And re-read what Gene’s got to say above. He ain’t the Chairman for the Calguns Foundation for nothing 😉

    • Pardon my error above. Alan Gura filed this amicus brief in support of a SCOTUS cert grant in Masciandaro v. US. That’s the one to read. Lots of humor there

  9. Yes.

    In Michigan its $5 for a notary public, a test, and a permit to open carry

    $105 permit fee + ~$100 class for a concealed permit.

    Imagine the outrage for a $105 abortion permit with a mandatory $100 abortion class.

  10. If you can’t afford the 75.00 fee after buying a gun then maybe your priorities are slightly off. I would understand if the fee was more than the fees associated with owning a car (also a right and necessity in certain areas of the world and can be used to kill people) but this doesn’t sound that bad. If it was meant to keep people from owning a gun then it would be 500.00 or something actually prohibitive. The machine needs to be oiled and the guy that prints that license off and makes sure it’s properly documented needs to eat and buy a gun and car, too!

    • I guess I didn’t see right to own a form of transportation in the Constitution. I will have to pay closer attention next time.

        • Whether or not we’d be okay with it is irrelevant. It would actually not be unconstitutional; but it would still be wildly intrusive and would undoubtedly lead to governmental ousting in elections.

          But, as my father hammered into me when I was a teen, driving is a privilege, not a right.

          Self-defense? That’s a right.

        • You guys can’t be serious that a 75.00 fee constitutes a violation of your right to bear arms. That’s comical and reaching for straws in an effort to maintain the “from my cold, dead hands” persecution complex so popular in the Gun Rights Community. If it was a fee that essentially doubled the cost of a handgun then I’d be more sympathetic but at this point it’s just silly.

          If your issue is with the beuracracy charging arbitrary fees for various permits and whatnot then that’s one thing but equating a state’s marginally high permit fee to civil rights abuses is “laughing at you not with you” funny.

          I do not, however, have any problem with the picture attached to this article. I also think the amount people have to pay to register their car is bullshit. It’s also part of life in the machine, guys. If you don’t like it you can move to a lodge full of dead coyotes in the middle of Montana if you want.

    • You mean in places like NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.? Wayne, you’re wildly off base and miss the point entirely.

      As far as the “machine needs to be oiled”, are you kidding me? The machine that We The People have been oiling for the last eighty years or so is exactly why we find our nation in such dire straits today. The machine that we have today needs to be sent to the crusher, ground up, sent to the furnace, melted and then recast in the mold of our original founding documents.

      • I don’t disagree with you about this machine AT ALL but that’s bigger and farther reaching than inconvenient permit fees. It’s probably not the most effective front to start on to dismantle this corrupt system.

        • A better idea to keep the machine oiled?

          How about egging on “progressives” to live off minimum wage and go frickin’ Amish by paying 90% income tax.

          We hear a steady drumbeat from them about how we’re so “unhealthy,” “consumerist,” “materialistic,” “greedy,” perhaps we should just push them to their limits to make sure they actually live up to the standards they espouse, in order to serve The State.

          Any self-proclaimed “progressive” you see – call them out their hypocrisy.

  11. New Oxford dictionary on the subject.

    “Bear | Verb
    1 (of a person) carry: He was bearing a tray of brimming glasses.”

    “Bear Arms | Phrase
    1 Carry firearms. 2 Display or wear a coat of arms.”

    Sounds like a right to carry to me.

  12. IndyEric, my brother, this one’s for you:

    “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.”

    Frederick Douglass

  13. “Shall not be infringed” , open carry and concealed carry is a God given constitutional right. Also the right to drive. Licensing of operators came about in the beginning for commercial drivers. During the great depression, the Roosevelt years, states realized more tax revenue could be collected by passing licensing laws restricting all drivers. The last hold out state was South Dakota in 1954. If operating a motor vehicle was a privilege there would have been licenses from the start. Licenses came about when most people in this country and around the world were on the verge of starvation. The people (some of the people) were sold on the idea that driving (and other rights people enjoyed) were now privileges. The 1930’s Set the ground work for the restrictions of rights we see today.

  14. WOW, I kinda stumbled onto this blog post searching for information related to the topic of this article. I do realize that it is now 2016, and this was posted in 2011, however I digress. I could not help but to read every person’s comments contained within. I must say that I was thoroughly impressed with the intelligent, thoughtfully worded responses, and the context in which the content was delivered.

    I would also like to note that I feel that the image portraying colored people during the civil rights movement, reflects the message that the writer (Frank Williams) of the article was trying to convey; a civil rights issue, nothing more, nothing less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *