Is what I'm suggesting Completely Absurd? Comments?


PDA






DerringerUser
October 10, 2006, 10:35 PM
Anyway, is what im about to suggest completely absurd, or am i on the right track?


Would it be a good idea to only let Certified NRA members issue CCW permits in non shall issue states? I think it would be a good idea, because the issuer's political view might cloud his/her judgement on the matter. Since the NRA member is usually pro-gun, and well trained, his/her political view is probably more valid than the local sheriff or official's. So, is this idea completely off, or a good idea? Or, is it an old idea, and I'm being stupid by posting it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is what I'm suggesting Completely Absurd? Comments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
October 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
No one should be told "no" about CCW. Ever. By putting a system in place to "catch criminals" who apply for CCW (yeah, sure, right), you have the possibility of getting it so that some people don't apply, some are denied, etc.

I don't see ANY of that in the 2nd Amendment.

TexasRifleman
October 10, 2006, 10:40 PM
Well since the NRA is seen as pretty much THE political power in the 2A struggle, it would be hard to show that as unbiased.

And what exactly is a Certified NRA member? And I'd really argue that NRA members are necessarily better trained.

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 10, 2006, 10:54 PM
So, you want to remove a presumably elected official who may or may not share your views from the process and replace them with someone who you feel will share your politics?

How about instead of risking the fact the local sheriff might be a gun nut who thinks everyone has a right to self-defense, we have someone from HCI evaluate each application to ensure that they really need to defend themselves.

Anyone against CCW would say that making "Certified NRA members" responsible to issue would be tantamount to having a shall-issue law. In that case, the effort should go towards getting the shall-issue law passed.

Car Knocker
October 10, 2006, 10:57 PM
I believe Michael Moore is an NRA member - Lifetime. Membership means nothing in terms of qualification. Your suggestion is on a par with allowing AAA members to license drivers or PETA members to license pets. Sorry, but I don't think there's a solid basis to your position. :)

Geronimo45
October 10, 2006, 10:58 PM
It's probably unconstitutional, at least probably not allowed by law. I don't see 'may issue' states ever letting the NRA be the judge of who carries. It'd be a better idea to get the rules changed to 'shall issue' - and more straightforward, too.

Alex45ACP
October 10, 2006, 11:00 PM
You should not need a permit to carry. The right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be just that - a right, not a privilege.

But if we have to have a permit system, getting a permit should be as easy as possible, preferably a simple rubber stamp process.

DerringerUser
October 11, 2006, 01:14 AM
So, you want to remove a presumably elected official who may or may not share your views from the process and replace them with someone who you feel will share your politics?

How about instead of risking the fact the local sheriff might be a gun nut who thinks everyone has a right to self-defense, we have someone from HCI evaluate each application to ensure that they really need to defend themselves.

Anyone against CCW would say that making "Certified NRA members" responsible to issue would be tantamount to having a shall-issue law. In that case, the effort should go towards getting the shall-issue law passed.

Not really. The same reason you shouldn't have a Anti Death penalty judge working on a death case. Certanly NRA members arent stupid enough to issue a permit to someone who is not qualified, but local officials will turn down permits because of their political belief.

I didnt really mean an NRA member, just a certified official that comes from a gun lobby organization or a pro-gun area. Im opposed to the death penalty, but i dont think anti death penalty judges should be working on death cases, because that would be playing dirty. I want a fair fight.

MachIVshooter
October 11, 2006, 02:06 AM
Since the NRA member is usually pro-gun, and well trained,

:rolleyes:

That's like saying someone is a bona fide Nascar driver because they are pro-car have AAA.

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 11, 2006, 02:07 AM
I guess I don't understand how you think that putting someone with a bias opposite of the one you dislike somehow will make it a "fair fight."

Let me turn your statement around and see if it helps: Certainly local officials aren't stupid enough to deny a permit to someone who is needs it , but NRA members will turn issue permits because of their political belief.

To use your judge analogy, this would be like having a very pro-death penalty judge hearing a case that was eligible for life without parole. Do you think the defense would consider that a "fair fight"?

Frankly, the idea is silly. Why would a state that doesn't have "shall-issue" take such a pro-gun standpoint as to require a pro-gun organization to issue CCW permits? Even if it happened, every antigun group screaming "conflict of interest!" and filing for injunctions left and right.

Again, I think the real solution is to lobby for "shall issue" laws, not playing games within the "may issue" framework.

44AMP
October 11, 2006, 06:33 PM
Are anybody that pays the dues. No background check, no idology check, no age restriction (other than junior membership for children), open to anybody. A more open and unbiased policy you are unlikely to find.

But with that, the NRA is a PRIVATE organization. Leaving aside the whole "permits as infringment" argument, the NRA has no business doing anything involving issuance of a state license. For CCW or anything else. If it does, it becomes an arm of government, and it's policies and standards may be altered by government, because they can.

State Game Departments (generally) require proof of a Hunter Safety Course or other equivalent for first time hunting licenses. They recognise the NRA courses meet all their requirements. But the state does not provide the NRA course. Although many places allow the use of public buildings for holding the courses, they are not providing the course. NRA members do that. Often gratis.

So, I think your idea is not a good one, apart from the "stacking the deck" argument, we do not want states to take to themselves what "NRA Certified" means. Which they must do, by their own bureaucratic rules and procedures in order to certify a person to issue CCW licenses in the situation you describe.

Nice try, it shows your are thinking. But this idea, no. Not a good one, it has too much potential for abuse. I hope you understand, government, by it's very nature would corrupt the system.

And then there is the whole "stacking the deck" argument. Can't you hear some anti-gun editorial screaming "Gun Nuts decide who gets a gun! Dodge City and the OK Corral were peaceful places compared to what they will turn our cities into!" etc., etc.....

I just don't see it working, and I see a potential for damage to our cause when it fails. Consider, if someone(s) with a comitted desire against CCW, gets through NRA Certification (without seeing the light), because the state says they have to, inorder to hold the position needed to deny CCW. Imagine the political hay the other side could make with theat.

I believe the reason we have never seen such a thing is, that the comitted anti-gunners have such an aversion to all things "gun" and "NRA", that they never attempt the NRA courses. And likely any few who do attempt such are "converted" to our point of view as the truth. But if the state "forced" them to get through, and they did, I see a potential for harm to our cause.

"After all, how can you claim any unfairness to our denial, NRA certified people turned you down. It was all very fair." What lawyer would touch that kind of case? And what jury would find for the applicant if both the State and the NRA said you were unsuitable for CCW? It might not be the truth, but it is what the jury (or judge) would hear.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is what I'm suggesting Completely Absurd? Comments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!