Not Allowed

[Rex B]

As our Dear Leader has said "Words count". I know I've been guilty of this, and promise to do better:

Written by Jeff Knox
Thursday, 26 April 2007

When I was six years old my family moved from Wichita Falls, Texas to Sidney, Ohio so Dad could
head up the creation of Gun Week newspaper. One of the first things we noticed upon arriving in the
land of the Yankees was that the people up north talked funny. Not only did they have odd accents
and strange pronunciations, they had different words for things and used terms that were not common
where we came from.

One word in common usage in Ohio which, while not completely foreign, was still odd to us, was the
word "allow." Rather than saying, "My mom won't let me." or, "I'm not supposed to." Ohio kids
would say "I'm not allowed."

There was something very uncomfortable about that word to me and that discomfort has been revived
and gnawing at me for the past couple of years. At the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Charlotte, NC
last year I discussed some of my concerns about the word "allow" and its implications. In this column
I'm going to press the issue further and I expect that this will be a drum I'm going to be beating for a long
time to come.

What really bothers me about the word "allow" is the way it is so commonly used in the fight for gun
rights; a CCW allows one to carry a gun, we should be allowed to carry in National Parks, the Post
Office does not allow guns in their buildings, etc. The problem with these statements is that the use
of the word "allow" implies authority and privilege and shifts the burden of proof in debate.

The burden of proof in any argument which contains the word "allow" falls on the side of those seeking
the allowance. If a group seeks to ban guns in libraries, the burden of proof is on those seeking
the ban; it is incumbent upon them to prove that guns should be banned. Opponents of the ban
retain the position of strength by defending the status quo.

If the opponents of the ban make the mistake of arguing that guns should be allowed in libraries,
they lose the advantage and the burden of proof immediately shifts to their side of the scales,
requiring them to fustify the presence of firearms in libraries. Instead of defending an existing right,
use of the word "allow" places rights advocates in the position of justifying a request for a special
privilege.

It is impossible effectively to demand to be allowed to exercise a right. The demand must be that rights
be unimpaired or that existing restrictions or impingements on rights be removed or corrected.

The Second Amendment does not allow citizens to own guns. the government does not allow citizens
to worship as we please. The President does not allow citizens to own property. The Second
Amendment expresses the right to own guns. The government recognizes the right to worship.
And the President may not unduly restrict a citizen's right to property.

Rights can never be allowed and anything that is allowed is not a right.

Why is this important? Because through use of the word "allow," gun rights advocates have
allowed themselves to become supplicants seeking favors rather than holding the high ground as the
guardians of liberty that they should be. This one word devolves a right into a privilege, a citizen to
a supplicant, and shifts the burden of proof from those seeking to restrict rights to those trying to
retain or expand privileges. What's worse, it becomes an invisible trap that makes us believe
that we're moving forward when we're actually just positioning ourselves for a rapid descent
down a slippery slope of our own making.

Consider the following statement: "Citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns without
having to get a permit."

What that functionally says is that the government should grant citizens the privilege of carrying
concealed handguns without a documentation process. Is it a privilege or a right?

In the mid 1970s Howard K. Smith presented an editorial on the 60 Minutes television show pointing
out the mistake of journalists using the word "credit" when referring to terrorists claiming
responsibility for violent acts. Smith rightly pointed out that "credit" implies value and journalists should
never give any such suggestion of value to the actions of terrorists. From the date of that broadcast
to the present, the word "credit" has almost completely disappeared from reports on terrorism.

Let us similarly remove the word "allow" from the vocabulary of the gun rights movement execpt where
it is used to question why we allow government to infringe on our God-given and constitutional rights.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. To
Receive the Firearms Coalition's bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, send a contribution to The
Firearms Coalition, PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108
or visit FrearmsCoalition.org and
ShotgunNews.com. Copyright 2007 Neal Knox Associates
http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3866/83" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

Allowance of something, is effectively granting someone the authority do something that is banned for others or said someone. In case of wearing and bearing firearms, the state can claim that they are granting the exercise of restricted or regulated right. So far, the 2nA has been ruled as an individual right that the government can restrict or regulate at will. The burden of proof is on the government to explain why such individual right has to be restricted and/or regulated.

The article is well intended, however, I am sure NRA lawyers are well versed to use the correct lawyer terms in courts.

[Rex B]

This is not directed at lawyers, who should know better.
Lay people make this mistake all the time.

[Beiruty]

This is not directed at lawyers, who should know better.
Lay people make this mistake all the time.

Thank you for the pointing out. I guess, the next battle for the 2A is "Shall not be infringed" more specifically. what constituent an infringement. Any regulation or gun law is an infringement on an individual right?

[Jumping Frog]

In Ohio, they are battling right now with being "allowed" to carry in restaurants that also serve liquor. I've testified at the Senate hearings on the previous try at that bill.

Language does matter. I'd rather frame the issue as "where is your justification for banning me from the right to self defense when I choose to take my family for a nice steak dinner at Texas Roadhouse instead of a burger at McDonalds".

BTW, every time I have eaten in a restaurant that serves liquor in Houston, I've never seen my handgun jump out of the holster and start randomly shooting just because the people at the next table were having a beer with dinner!

[The Annoyed Man]

This is not directed at lawyers, who should know better.
Lay people make this mistake all the time.

Thank you for the pointing out. I guess, the next battle for the 2A is "Shall not be infringed" more specifically. what constituent an infringement. Any regulation or gun law is an infringement on an individual right?

I think that the issue of infringement is often misunderstood by the left (duh). They point out that you're not 'allowed' to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater as a parallel 'reasonable' infringement, but that is an illogical application. It's illogical because because yelling 'FIRE!' is not illegal if 1) it's not in a theater, and 2) there actually is a fire. The true analog to the theater argument would be illegally discharging a firearm inside the city limits. In other words, the legality is very much about the time and place, not about the firearm itself. Discharging that firearm inside the city limits is not illegal if it is in legitimate is self-defense.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Its them there people in Washington. They are much more intelligenter then we simpletons. So they get to make all them important decisions fer us. Since they is edumacated they know what we need and don't need and what is best fer us all.


Also, because we allow them too.

[bnc]

This is not directed at lawyers, who should know better.
Lay people make this mistake all the time.

Thank you for the pointing out. I guess, the next battle for the 2A is "Shall not be infringed" more specifically. what constituent an infringement. Any regulation or gun law is an infringement on an individual right?

I think that the issue of infringement is often misunderstood by the left (duh). They point out that you're not 'allowed' to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater as a parallel 'reasonable' infringement, but that is an illogical application. It's illogical because because yelling 'FIRE!' is not illegal if 1) it's not in a theater, and 2) there actually is a fire.

Not to derail the thread too much, but in the case of yelling fire the person who yells it is then held responsible for the actions of everyone. It is still the responsibility of everyone else in the theater to act responsibly and not trample everyone else. Holding a speaker responsible for the actions of those who listen is rightfully ridiculous and very scary. All someone has to do to ruin your life is to commit a crime and claim you influenced them...

Next to "allow", the word I detest most when applied towards firearms and equipment is "need".

As in the popular "You don't need a 33-round magazine".

Perhaps I do and perhaps I don't, but tell me - who then is the final arbiter of my alleged "need"? It implies that some other body has the authority to make that decision for me - so who is it, how did they get the authority to decide what my needs are and what metrics will they use in making their decision?

Completely agree. I'll add that "need" is one of the most vague words in existence in almost all contexts. Since value is completely subjective there is really no way to define a "need" unless it is coupled with some other condition that is very specific. Therefore, when talking of things that are "needed", substituting "need" with "want" or "desire" is much more appropriate. "I need a motor vehicle in order to drive down the highway" is a bit more reasonable, but who says you "need" to be on the highway at all? "I highly desire a motor vehicle since I want to drive down the highway". Unfortunately, most people greatly add to the confusion by mentally transforming "highly desire" into "need" as a way to justify their actions. In some minds "because I want to" is not a legitimate reason, sadly, since they then apply this standard to others as well. This thought is really in opposition to property rights since you are rightfully (i.e. "should be in a just world") free to employ your resources as you see fit; exclusive control over resources is the essence of ownership of private property. If you want to employ those resources to obtain a 33-round magazine then that is your decision. Just more of the same elitist/collectivist tyranny that so many believe in.

[Oldgringo]

...I'll add that "need" is one of the most vague words in existence in almost all contexts...

, your "need" is not my "need" and vice-versa. Similarly, a "need" or a "want" is not necessarily a right; but you already said that.

[Oldgringo]

....One word in common usage in Ohio which, while not completely foreign, was still odd to us, was the
word "allow." Rather than saying, "My mom won't let me." or, "I'm not supposed to." Ohio kids
would say "I'm not allowed."...

Various news items and certain posts on this forum would seem to indicate that a whole lot more of this apparent parental involvement is in order with their offspring in today's society.

[Heartland Patriot]

@AndyC:

You hit the nail on the head with a big sledgehammer with that one about "need"...but I think that most folks on here are in agreement with you...and that is a good thing. The trick becomes, how do we get others to start thinking that way instead of just agreeing with those who know oh-so-better than us regular "clingers" out here in "flyover country"? That is one of the questions I wrestle with mentally and wish I had a good answer to use when that question arises.