If you want to buy a new gun you have to get permission from the government to buy it via the Brady Bill check, further proof that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.
If the government determines that your scum and your no longer fit to own a gun they will come to your home and seize your guns. Further proof that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. This is what happened when Secret Service got Kevin Walsh declared mentally ill. The day after the judge declared Kevin mentally ill the Secret Service and Phoenix police went to his home and seized his guns.
If you want to own some guns like a machine gun or a sawed off shotgun you have to get permission from the government and pay a tax, along with registering a gun. More proof that owning a gun is not a right but a privilege.
If you want to open a store that sells guns you also have to get permission from the government to do that. More proof that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.
Most of the people on this list will incorrectly say that owning a gun is a right, not a privilege because of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But that is pretty much rubbish. For 200 plus years government tyrants have been passing laws that have pretty much flushed the Second Amendment down the toilet.
While 200 years ago you may have had the right to keep and bear arms, you no longer have the right to keep and bear arms with out the permission any more then you have the right to rob a liquor store.
If you own a gun with out the permission of the government you will be jailed just like you would be jailed if you robbed a liquor store.
Is carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona a right or a privilege?
I have pointed out in the past that Libertarian activist Ricky Duncan has researched the Arizona Territorial Convention and says that carrying a concealed weapon is a right, not a privilege.
Ricky sites the following paragraphs from the 1910 Arizona Constitutional convention as giving us that right. But of course almost 100 years of government tyrants in Arizona passing anti-gun laws have flushed that right down the toilet. So now carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege and you must get permission of the state to carry one.
The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910
Pages 678 and 679. Edited by: John S. Goff (C) The Supreme
Court of Arizona
Mr. Chairman: Are there any objections or corrections to Section 32?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of Section 32. I never in all my life found it necessary to carry a six-shooter and I have passed through nearly all the scencs (sic) and experiences of this wild and unsettled country. Carrying arms is dangerous. It is a very dangerous thing to oneself and to one's associates and should not be permitted under any circumstances. I have seen lives lost and innocent blood spilled just through the carrying of arms, concealed weapons under one's coat or shirt. It is most dangerous and vile; a practice that should never be permitted except in times of war and never in times of peace. Think of it; carrying a six shooter or a knife or some other terrible arm of defense, and then in a moment of heated passion using that weapon. I do not believe in it and I move to strike out that section.
Mr. Webb: I second that motion for I agree with the gentleman from Maricopa that it is a pernicious thing and should not be included in this bill. I, too, in all my experiences, have never seen the time when it was necessary to carry concealed weapons except in times of Indian troubles, and have had many and varied experiences, in cow camps. I have been in many places where some might deem it necessary to come armed, but I did not, nor do I believe it necessary to do so now. We are no longer a frontier country, and if we did not need arms in the early days of pioneering in this country, we do not now, and I second the motion.
Mr. Crutchfield: I move to amend by inserting after the word "impair" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime."
Mr. Baker: That is all right and I second the motion.
Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out all of Section 32 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for their safety and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law."
Mr. Feeney: I second that motion.
Mr. Chairman: The question comes up on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cochise, Mr. Parsons, to strike out Section 32, and insert in lieu thereof his amendment. Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The motion is lost. The question now comes up on the amendment offered by Mr. Crutchfield to insert after the word "impaired" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime." Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The secretary will call the roll. Roll Call showed 22 "Ayes" 23 "Nays".
Mr. Chairman: The motion is lost, and Section 32 will stand approved as read unless there are other amendments. Are there any objections to Section 33?
I was impressed by Ricky’s research and I went down to the state law library at the Arizona Capital complex and found the book that contained the minutes I listed above. The people at the law library thought I was crazy, and I may well be, but I found the stuff Ricky Duncan mentioned.
Ricky had a scheme to give that right back to people who chose to illegally carry concealed weapons but CD pointed out the Appeals Court flushed it down the toilet too. Ricky’s concealed carry stuff can be seen at.
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2008/08/73212.php Do you have the right to drive with out a driver’s license? Or is driving a privilege?
Of course you don’t have the right to drive with out a driver’s license. If you want to drive on public roads you have to get permission from the government. No driver’s license you go to jail.
Same for your car, you have to get permission from the government to drive your car on public roads by registering the car and paying taxes on the car. If you don’t you go to jail.
Some people claim that many years ago you had the right to travel for non-commercial purposes on public highways with out any interference from the government. They claim the Northwest Ordinance gives you this right.
I am not very knowledgeable about the Northwest Ordinance. All the stuff I have read says you only have this right for “non-commercial travel”. Don’t know why they say that.
This is the part of the Northwest Ordinance they says gives you that right:
The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and
St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
shall be common highways and forever free, as well to
the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens
of the United States, and those of any other States that
may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax,
impost, or duty therefor.
Again I don’t know why it gives you the right to travel on highways when the Northwest Ordinance only mentions rivers. I am just repeating what I have heard.
Nor do I know why it means you don't have to have a driver's license.
The Northwest Ordinance was passed long before cars existed. I suspect
it means you have a right to travel with out government interfearence
and thus don't need a drivers license.
The Northwest Ordinance is older then the Bill of Rights and was
passed a couple of years before the Bill of Rights.
The Northwest Ordinance was kind of a model law on how new states would be added to the USA and what rights people in those states would have.
It was passed before any new states were added after the orginal 13
colonies.