[Shawnee]

Hi Y'All...

Obviously there are a lot of lads here who have an interest in concealed weapons carry, permits, use, etc. and that raises (for me) a question or two that I've withheld for a bit because I don't want anyone to think I am criticizing them.
Back when all the states were first coming out with "concealed weapons permits" and "carry permits" I did a fair amount of looking into them because I was a Hunter Safety instructor, and NRA instructor, and a shooting competitor and thus received lots of questions about them. My experience was/is in Ohio, Texas and Florida.
From what I could see (and it has been 15 years or so), the states were making the rules and definitions governing the permits (and of use of deadly force) so restrictive that having a permit often allowed the person to do nothing with a carry permit that they weren't already allowed to do without a permit - or at least nothing very worth doing. In fact, the degree of complication intentionally put into the permit rules appeared to actually increase the law-abiding citizen's jeopardy if they exercised their 2nd Amendment rights.
Thus my shade-tree analysis of the government's "carry permit" schemes was/is that they are nothing at all more than a backhanded way to accomplish Gun Registration and increase the government's harrassment of firearm afficionados.
Maybe things have changed and some states' permits actually provide the permit holder with additional legal options that actually have some value. But, in Ohio at least, it appears the gun and carry laws are nothing except Gun Registration and Increased Jeopardy. In fact, the language of the Ohio Law appears to deny the right to bear arms is a right because they are very assertive about repeatedly describing it as a privilege.
Two of the more disturbing things about Ohio law are:

1. Any use of your firearm removes the "innocent until proven guilty" protection from you and you are, by Ohio law, guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I don't know how that can even be seen as Constitutional but it is still the law here.

2. Unlike many states (even Florida which is just California-East), Ohio Law loudly proclaims that you, the person being attacked, have little to no right to use "deadly force" in self defense and have every obligation to flee a confrontation (even in your own home!) if at all possible or be charged with a felony. - and, again, the burden of proof, in Ohio, falls upon you and you are required to prove your innocence rather than a prosecutor having to prove your guilt. While the state of Ohio includes govo-jargon in the law to make it sound like they aren't denying or drastically diminishing your right to self-defense - a close reading of the law will show otherwise.
Does anyone know of a state where the carry permit really provides an actual benefit? Of course, there may be states where the 2nd Amendment has been totally trashed so the state could then "give" you some of those rights back if you register via a "carry permit" - but that doesn't really amount to "additional" rights OR privileges.

Anyone???

Thanks All! :)

[Dave P]

"even Florida which is just California-East"

Pardon me? I guess you don't get around much, do you? :barf:

[yy]

citation to the letter of the law please?

And remember, space and paragraphs are our friends


edited to add: as a registration method, carry permits aren't too effective if you look at the percent of population actually getting it.

But I agree with the spirit of your post. Truely gun friendly legislation should be anyway carry. We ought not to need or ask permission. After all, punish the criminal. harrassing ordinary citizens is wrong.

[Car Knocker]

The only "benefits" of CCW in Utah (that I can think of off-hand) are:
1) bypass NICS check
2) allows a permit holder to carry in schools and avoid the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act (or whatever it is called)
3) allows a permittee to open carry with a round in the chamber
4) allows carry in state and local govt buildings

[kludge]

I lived in Ohio (glad I don't anymore!) before CCW. As I recall, it's not as you state, "guilty until you prove yourself innocent", rather, the law requires the county prosecutor to file charges for any use of deadly force. There is no discretion allowed on the part of the prosecutors office. I don't recall whether this is a jury trial or just a grand jury to decide whether the case needs to be prosecuted. If you know different please link or quote the Ohio statutes.

In Indiana we hear from time to time after a shooting "no charges will be filed."

[RNB65]

What exactly are you asking?

In VA, my CCW permit gives me the legal right to carry a concealed handgun. My right to defend myself using deadly force is the same regardless of whether I have a CCW permit or not or whether I'm using a handgun or a baseball bat.

My CCW permit exempts me from VA's one handgun a month limit. I can buy as many as I want.

I'm not concerned about registration issues. The state knows I have a CCW permit but they don't know if I have 1 handgun or 50 handguns.

[Shawnee]

Hi Lads...

Everything I wrote can be found right here:

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/index.asp


Hi Dave P.... I lived in Florida from 1986 until 3 months ago. It has been in only the last couple years that the Florida Legislature overturned the "obligation to flee" language and finally admitted that maybe the innocent person doesn't have to turn tail and run.
You are certainly welcome to explain your "don't get out much" remark - if you can.

Best All :)

[BullfrogKen]

Shawnee said: Does anyone know of a state where the carry permit really provides an actual benefit?

Besides the ability to carry a handgun around with you about your daily activities amongst society?

What exactly are you asking?

[Shawnee]

Hi Bullfrog...

If, as you say: "the ability to carry a handgun around with you about your daily activities amongst society?" has value for you and, in your area, you cannot do that without a permit, then the answer, in your case, is "Yep".

:)

[JN01]

Shawnee said:
Unlike many states (even Florida which is just California-East), Ohio Law loudly proclaims that you, the person being attacked, have little to no right to use "deadly force" in self defense and have every obligation to flee a confrontation (even in your own home!) if at all possible or be charged with a felony. - and, again, the burden of proof, in Ohio, falls upon you and you are required to prove your innocence rather than a prosecutor having to prove your guilt.

Actually, in the Ohio Revised Code notes, I came across the following case law citation in the section referencing self defense:

Defendant has the burden of proving self defense. The only exceptions to the duty to retreat are when one is in his home or business. State vs Jackson (1986) 22 OS3d 28, 22 OBR 452, 490 N.E. 893

So at least in your own home or business you don't have to retreat.

I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments on burden of proof and current state of concealed carry laws. However, things do seem to be looking up.

Even though seeded with poison-pill amendments, our current CCW law is somewhat of an improvement in some respects. Under the old law, you could carry a gun under circumstances that a "reasonable person" would, however, if you were caught carrying, you would be arrested and had to plea the affirmative defense (again guilty until proven innocent), and chances that you would prevail were not good. Now, with a CPL, you can legally carry at least some places.

Both of the candidates for Governor have indicated that they will sign legislation to improve the CCW law (getting rid of the idiotic open carry in a car requirement and state preemption) and Stand Your Ground legislation, both of which were introduced by the current Legislature.

It still a long way from Vermont carry, but it seems we're at least taking the first incremental steps.

[BullfrogKen]

Defendant has the burden of proving self defense.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This is not unique to any one state, and has nothing at all to do with a carry permit.

[Majic]

Every state is different in how they handle concealed carry. Why are you concentrating on just Ohio to compare the rest of the nation? Why not put as much energy in reading the laws of the other states and you may come to some different conclusions?

[carebear]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This is not unique to any one state, and has nothing at all to do with a carry permit.

Exactly. When you claim "self-defense", carry permit or no, you are admitting to committing a homicide. You are just stating it was justifiable. Thus the burden is on you to prove the second, since you admit the first.

Prior to the Florida "shall-issue" revolution it was illegal in most states to carry a concealed handgun and/or functionally impractical to get a "may-issue" permit to do so.

If you can't have it with you legally, it won't be there when you need it.

As for the hiccups in the various laws, the overwhelming trend has been towards loosening of restrictions. Alaska went from "illegal in most cities" to "shall-issue" to "no permit required" in the space of 15 years.

[Shawnee]

Hi JNO1...

My error about having the duty to retreat "in your home" though the explanatory pamphlet goes on (page 20) to say you will have to prove you were reasonably in fear of you life AND that you aren't the person who "started it".
The jeopardy there is the invader can always accuse you of "starting it" and then it comes down to "he said, she said".
I hope you are right about what the governor will do, and hopefully soon, about correcting the state's previous idiocy.
I remember shortly before I moved from Ohio (1980) there was a case of a guy trying 3 or 4 times to sexually molest/rape another guy's wife, on top of calling her often to suggest or threaten sexual activity, and on top of a restraining order, and on top of Ohio's fine (barf!) LEOs saying they couldn't do anything until someone was actually hurt. The guy finally broke into the woman's house during the day when he thought the husband would be at work and physically attacked her with obvious intentions.
Happened that day the husband had come home for something and, long story short, the husband shot the guy and paralyzed him from the waist down. So the attacker sued the woman and her husband, AND WON in OHIO's expletive courts, for mega-bucks damages.
Upon moving back here I have been dismayed to learn my home state hasn't advanced in thought capability for the passed nearly 27 years.:(

P.S. Hi Majic... answer to your question is actually in my original post.

[sig228]

Unlike many states (even Florida which is just California-East), Ohio Law loudly proclaims that you, the person being attacked, have little to no right to use "deadly force" in self defense and have every obligation to flee a confrontation (even in your own home!) if at all possible or be charged with a felony. - and, again, the burden of proof, in Ohio, falls upon you


My friend, WHAT are you smoking? How can you possibly own a gun, have lived in Florida and be COMPLETELY unaware of the "Castle Doctrine"? In Florida, in your home or business, its basically shoot first and ask questions later if you feel threatened by an intruder.

Do a web search, but here's a basic lesson:

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Your post is so ridiculous, its almost "troll-like". Very sad that a senior member, NRA instructor, etc. can be so poorly informed.:barf:

[bakert]

A concealed carry permit give you a chance to carry a gun legally and defend yourself if need be. Although i've had a carry permit for about 10 yrs and carry a weapon daily I consider the use of that weapon an absolute last choice. I would much rather retreat if at all possible except in my home. Having said that , I also would much rather be tried in a court than viewed at a funeral.

[Shawnee]

Hi Jim640...

The "Castle Doctrine" (circa 2005) is what I referred to when I wrote
"I lived in Florida from 1986 until 3 months ago. It has been in only the last couple years that the Florida Legislature overturned the "obligation to flee" language and finally admitted that maybe the innocent person doesn't have to turn tail and run." in my post above.

Best regards !:)

[sig228]

Shawnee, its much more than just reversing the "obligation to flee" which is a nice benefit to go along with my CCW license. Like I said, no jail, no problem, no nothing if someone is stupid enough to try to illegally / forcefully / etc. enter my home or business. Florida gun rights are in the forefront. Other states are starting to take notice.

[shield20]

Weird read, this. Of COURSE a permit system is a way of controlling you! Of COURSE in some states it is a way of registering your handguns! Is that really surprising?

Not really sure the laws concerning "self-defense - a justification" SPECIFICALLY refer to CC carriers, pretty sure that is for anyone using deadly force.

Also not sure WHY a permit should give you extra legal option bonuses - other then to, say - let you carry concealed, or even own a handgun legally.

I'll take what I can get.

[BullfrogKen]

Shawnee said: Hi Bullfrog...

If, as you say: "the ability to carry a handgun around with you about your daily activities amongst society?" has value for you and, in your area, you cannot do that without a permit, then the answer, in your case, is "Yep".

Well, since only 2 states I know of don't require folks to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun about public, this seems like a pretty significant value.

What are you looking for, more of a "license to be able to shoot and not be questioned"? I'm not exactly sure what it is you are bemoaning in your post. This movement, liberalized concealed handgun permits, has grown significantly. It has given many who were not afforded it before the ability to effectively defend themselves outside their homes and places of business - if they were fortunate to own and control that enterprise.

[Larry E]

In Montana a CCW is only required to carry concealed inside a town or railroad camp (try to find one of them). Outside of any city's limits anyone who can legally possess a handgun can carry openly or concealed.

This last winter there were several home entries here, and in response a local cop on tv news said that the intruder had as much right to be in your home as you do, and if you shot him, although he'd just kicked your door in and was armed, you couldn't shoot him. Since the class I had to take to get a Montana CCW involved Montana law I was absolutely amazed. The law says that lethal force may be used against someone who violently enters an occupied building. Montana truly needs a castle doctrine law!

In Washington State where I lived for 34 years, and CCW's have been shall issue since long before I lived there, civilians are held to a lower standard than law enforcement officers. Consequently if a civilian shoots a miscreant who is in his home endangering him or his family or otherwise attacking him he's pretty much got a go home free card. Of course some county attorneys still try to prosecute.

[Shawnee]

Hi Bullfrog (et al)...

Didn't realize this was so difficult to understand.

1. It used to be that "carry permits" were pretty much of little or no value because they didn't let you do anything (of value) that you couldn't already do without them.

2. Question - Has that changed?

3. Question - if so, where?

4. Question - What (of real value) does having your carry permit allow you to do that you would be forbidden to do if you didn't have it?

The questions are just that - plain questions. Plain answers are really all that are being sought. :cool: If anyone feels threatened by them simply report the post to the moderators so we can skip all the angst. Copy that? - Over! :)

[carebear]

I thought the answers were simple.

In Anchorage, Alaska, prior to the concealed carry law, one could not legally carry a loaded concealed weapon anywhere within the city limits (physically the largest municipality by area in the US). You could open carry, but within the city limits the weapon had to be unloaded.

I would say that the passage of the concealed carry law in '95, which allowed you to carry a concealed, loaded almost anywhere in the city, in all the cities in AK in fact, would be a significant change and answer #4 pretty well.

Given that most states (and individual cities in places without preemption) prior to Florida kicking off the shall-issue law trend had similar, if not more restrictive, laws on carrying a concealed weapon. I would say that most folks would answer the same.

In brief... without permit - couldn't legally concealed carry, with permit - can legally concealed carry.

Simple enough for you? :rolleyes:

[vynx]

Shawnee I don't understand how you cannot see the answer to #1.

Here is my attempt to explain to you - I live in California I cannot get a permit in my county only LE & rich movie stars are allowed to have them.

Please notice use of enter buttom to make paragraph.

IF I could carry a handgun I would be able to defend myself if someone attacked me or my family while I was out - say in a parking lot. Without a permit I would have to carry illegally - I do not break the law so I do not carry a gun.

So, without a permit no gun in pocket, if riot starts I could get pulled from car and brick slammed into my brain (remember 1992?) - with permit I could carry gun in pocket and when riot starts if badman and his ten friends try to pull me out of car I can stop him.

Do you se what the permit will let me do that I cannot do without them? It is called obeying the law, it is called being able to defend myself against multiple attackers.

When you state in #1 that "1. It used to be that "carry permits" were pretty much of little or no value because they didn't let you do anything (of value) that you couldn't already do without them." you are WRONG - FALSE PREMISE - BAD ASSUMPTION - without permit I could not LEGALLY carry - this is am IMPORTANT disticntion.

If you cannot see that I am sorry for you.

[tanksoldier]

1. (Answer) Except actually have a gun on you when you need it. Self-defense has always been an affirmative defense. Before, even if you shot someone in obvious self defense you could still be charged with the weapon violation if you were carrying illegally.

I really can't understand your statement, a CCW permit lets you (and always has let you) do the one most important thing you can't do without it: Carry a gun legally.

1. It used to be that "carry permits" were pretty much of little or no value because they didn't let you do anything (of value) that you couldn't already do without them.

2. (Answer) As stated by another above, a CCW permit doesn't let you use force any differently than anyone else. A CCW permit just lets you have a firearm to do it with. Some states have recently passed pretty strong self-defense laws: Castle Docterine, on-duty-to-retreat, etc. These laws apply whether you have a CCW or not... the CCW just gives you more effective means of defending yourself.

2. Question - Has that changed?

4. (Answer) Carry a gun.

4. Question - What (of real value) does having your carry permit allow you to do that you would be forbidden to do if you didn't have it?

Frankly, your questions seem rather dumb poorly thought out... almost trolling as if you are intentionally misunderstanding in order to perpetuate an argument. Anyone with half a brain capable of turning on a PC can figure out that: 1. A CCW lets you do one thing that you can't do otherwise; carry a gun on your person legally. And 2. having a CCW doesn't give you any special status when defending yourself relative to anyone else in your state/ jurisdiction, it just gives you more effective means of doing what the law lets you do already.

Your interpretation of Ohio law seems to be disingenuous in error, based on what other posters have to say. Perhaps more research is in order on your part.

Honestly, I can't see how a person capable of rational thought could even ask the questions you are asking. The answers are obvious.

The questions are just that - plain questions. Plain answers are really all that are being sought. If anyone feels threatened by them simply report the post to the moderators so we can skip all the angst. Copy that? - Over!

[Handgun Midas]

My permit allows me to carry a deadly weapon (including, but not limited to a firearm) concealed on my person where no one will be the wiser about my armed status, most importantly someone intent on doing me harm.

This is quite contrary to carrying a firearm openly on my hip, which is legal in KY, which would likely cause the sheeple to freak out, the cops to hassle me anyway, and most importantly, could allow some nut to snatch my firearm when I'm preoccupied and do bad things with it.

So the CCW is really for my convenience. Huzzah!

[Shawnee]

Thanks Lads!

[Big Calhoun]

Well, I'm only a newb. Having only lived in Texas for seven months now, I can't claim to be an expert on the laws out here. From what I've been able to digest so far, Texas CHL laws afford you the ability to carry a concealed weapon on or about your person within prescribed areas.

Now, what I'm not clear on is this: Texas does have statutes that regulate the use of daily force. I'm not sure if one could say those are a part of the CHL statutes or something completely different.

Either way, I see it as a case by case issue. In Texas, I feel very comfortable that I have a recognized right to defend myself if the need arises. I also feel it's incumbent on me to decide what the appropriate level of force is. If someone comes after me with a bat, I'm not going to shoot them neccassarily.

Having come from New Jersey, I can tell you that there are far worse states when it comes to firearm rights. The situation you describe in Ohio in terms of 'carrying permits' being a facade for gun registration is excately what New Jersey does...just to purchase a firearm. The process is so convoluted, it discourages good, honest people from even considering purchasing a firearm, much less using it at a range, or, heaven forbid, in self defense.

It's quite possible that the laws as you knew them could have changed somewhat. I hear where you're coming from. I always think of it like this...someplace else in this country, it's a worse situation than where I'm at now...unless you're currently living in New Jersey or California.

[wdlsguy]

Texas does have statutes that regulate the use of daily force.
Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.

I'm not sure if one could say those are a part of the CHL statutes or something completely different.
Separate mostly, but see TX PC 9.31(b)(5) (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/pdf/pe.002.00.000009.00.pdf).

If someone comes after me with a bat, I'm not going to shoot them neccassarily.
A bat can be employed as a deadly weapon. If someone starts swinging a bat at me, very bad things are likely to happen to them.

[Dave P]

"The "Castle Doctrine" (circa 2005) is what I referred to when I wrote
"I lived in Florida from 1986 until 3 months ago. It has been in only the last couple years that the Florida Legislature overturned the "obligation to flee" language and finally admitted that maybe the innocent person doesn't have to turn tail and run." in my post above."

The "no obligation to flee" issue is new in FLA, when referring to an encounter out of your home (in pubic). The Castle Doctrine for your home has "always" been in effect - you never had a duty to retreat in your home. That was first taught to me many moons ago, when the counties issued permits.

[Gordon Fink]

What may I do without a permit in California?

~G. Fink

[carebear]

Even the "duty to retreat" statutes, as written in the law, were for the most part not absolute. Regardless of what some cop might spout off, almost all contained a provision that mentioned, "when reasonably and safely possible".

Much like the overall affirmative defense to use of deadly force, that "reasonable man" standard sometimes had to be defended in court. In general and in most states it was hardly the decisive issue. Most (not all) cases of "self-defense" where the case hinged on retreating were shaky on other facts of the case as well.

The "stand your ground" laws weren't in response to a rash of folks going down on not having retreated, but to make it quite clear to prosecutors that they shouldn't try to back-door a conviction in a self-defense case because they differed with the shooter's decision. Also, it made it clear that the streets and public places need not be surrendered to the criminal element with government backing. You pay the taxes for that public park, you shouldn't be required to leave it because some evildoer wants to throw his weight around.

[shield20]

OK, so yes - almost all permit systems can be seen as a return of rights otherwise denied by the state. The only state I know of whose permit system gives you anything extra is Alaska - where you don't need a permit to own or carry, but it can be used instead of NCIC background checks for firearm purchases. This may have changed though, as it did in NY recently - not sure if that is a state or federal change.

Things have changed then, as permits are VERY valuable - because only 2 states require no permit to have pistols and carry concealed. Permit systems in other states give you the 'privilege' to carry, to carry concealed, or as in NY, the 'privilege' to possess a handgun at all.