Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?


PDA






ShooterMcGavin
July 11, 2008, 05:16 PM
For a long time, I have held that licensing for concealed carry was unconstitutional. It seems to go against the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. The opposing argument that I have heard is that OC is (or should be) covered in the amendment, but the 2nd A says nothing about concealing :rolleyes: Should it also be made illegal to carry in a horizontal shoulder holster because that is not specifically listed in the 2nd? /sarcasm
Aside from holding the gun in my hand (which I would agree is reasonably considered threatening), I think "bearing" arms includes any safe manner in which the person decides to carry.

1. Is CCW licensing Constitutional, or is it simply another way for the gov't to control and make carrying more difficult (i.e. Unconstitutional)?

2. Is there a reason for requiring licensing to CCW (i.e. public safety)? What am I missing here?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DoubleTapDrew
July 11, 2008, 05:36 PM
The opposing argument that I have heard is that OC is (or should be) covered in the amendment, but the 2nd A says nothing about concealing Should it also be made illegal to carry in a horizontal shoulder holster because that is not specifically listed in the 2nd? /sarcasm

Whoever said that is reading much further into the amendment! I'm no history major but does "bear" mean "to carry in the open"?
1. I think it's unconstitutional. The people you need to worry about or keep tabs on don't get licenses, they just carry them, and they sure as hell don't obey "no weapons" signs.
2. Well, if Red Dawn taught us anything...:neener:
The only safety issue I could see is if a cop could pull up your record and see that you went through the garbage to get their permission, you are probably one of the good guys. Like I said, the ones that are going to stick a gun in the cop's face don't have licenses and sure aren't going to inform they are carrying.

ColinthePilot
July 11, 2008, 05:36 PM
Nope. Its just those of us who are law abiding that willingly let the state track us. The BGs are gonna carry anyway.

Bobarino
July 11, 2008, 05:38 PM
nope. just another way to make us pay more money, just like dang near every other permit, license, application, etc out there. money money money.

Bobby

wally
July 11, 2008, 06:33 PM
Its like a poll tax, trying to prevent us from exercising our rights. The only good I see from the CHL is in the 12+ years I've had mine, is showing it has got me warning instead of tickets three of the four times I been pulled over. I went to court and beat the d**m speed trap as I'd rather pay the lawyer than support this Houston revenue source.

--wally.

Thernlund
July 11, 2008, 06:44 PM
1. Is CCW licensing Constitutional, or is it simply another way for the gov't to control and make carrying more difficult (i.e. Unconstitutional)?

2. Is there a reason for requiring licensing to CCW (i.e. public safety)? What am I missing here?

I've always seen it as a revenue generating measure. Like a drivers license and how those fees go to pay for roads and such.

Generally I have no problem with CCW licensing so long as it's kept in that light (revenue generating). We have one of the nicest state-owned ranges in the country here. CCW fees ought to go towards supporting it (not sure if they actually do directly, but they might in some fashion).


-T.

TAB
July 11, 2008, 07:07 PM
There are some states where they make money off CCW( not like its alot) but for the most part they are charging about what it cost to issue them.


For example in CA it cost you $90 for your 1st time. now they use the life scan progarm, I use the same for my employees. that costs me around $10 + the $32 doj back ground check... it basicly cost me around $50. Right there thats more then half the cost, it would not be unreasonable for the addiontal man hours needed to complete the rest of the required stuff to cost $40.

just carl
July 11, 2008, 07:21 PM
All gun laws are and should be more of a local addition as to what is legal and what is not. In some areas of our courtry just about every kid has a gun and no crime either. Now in Illinois, Chicago, Cook County there are so many gun laws that it would probably take days to read them all. They don't even sell guns, ammunition or even gun cleaning equipment here. If you want a gun you have to get a state FOI card, then if you were allowed to have a gun you would have to register it with the city. Now if you read the newspapers or watch TV you would see just how fantastic all those laws are.
For some unknown reason to our polititians, the criminals here just don't read those laws.
Instead of any new gun laws we should spend more time and money educating the criminals so they could read those laws and see it's not nice to commit crimes with guns.:):)

macadore
July 11, 2008, 07:22 PM
My CCW course was quite beneficial. Most of it covered when I could or could not use deadly force and where I could not carry. I think it made me a more responsible firearms owner.

Whether or not it is unconstitutional or not depends on whether the Bill of Rights constrains the states or just the federal government. There is a very long thread already going on over that.

Thernlund
July 11, 2008, 07:24 PM
...and see it's not nice to commit crimes with guns.

Somehow I don't think that that would be the first thing on their mind even if they did read the law.


-T.

Standing Wolf
July 11, 2008, 07:27 PM
I'm no history major but does "bear" mean "to carry in the open"?

Nope. "Bear" means "carry," and carries neither denotation nor connotation of method.

Its like a poll tax, trying to prevent us from exercising our rights.

Taxing rights is an unconscionable infringement.

goon
July 11, 2008, 08:15 PM
Nope.
It's unconstitutional.
I go along with it because it's the only legal way to carry concealed in my state. Even an idiot can figure out that paying $25 and jumping through some hoops is better than doing prison time.

But it's still BS.

ShooterMcGavin
July 11, 2008, 10:34 PM
There are some states where they make money off CCW( not like its alot) but for the most part they are charging about what it cost to issue them.
If the licensing provides NO benefit of any kind, and I believe that to be the case, then the part in bold above is a complete waste of money. I don't know why saying that part (in bold) is even relevant. You might as well tell me, "the money you spent for that plastic CCW license goes to pay for clowns to entertain our politicians, but the clowns are totally worth it".

makarovnik
July 11, 2008, 11:58 PM
Some of our founding father like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were against a bill of rights. They feared that if we had a list of "rights" that someday the government would say if it's not on the list then you don't have that right. That is why they talk about inalienable rights.

Pilgrim
July 12, 2008, 12:05 AM
Since we are comfortable with the idea that doctors, lawyers, building contractors, etc. be licensed for our safety, it is logical that society will require that those who carry weapons concealed in public be licensed.

Pilgrim

chris in va
July 12, 2008, 01:12 AM
I dunno. Training usually comes with the CC permit. Maybe it is unconstitutional, but it's nice knowing you've at least had *some* gun familiarization/useage training rather than just buying a gun and sticking it in your pants.

goon
July 12, 2008, 01:43 AM
Since we are comfortable with the idea that doctors, lawyers, building contractors, etc. be licensed for our safety, it is logical that society will require that those who carry weapons concealed in public be licensed.

Pilgrim


Don't mean to come down hard on you man, but where does it end then?

Should a license be required to keep a firearm in your home for protection?
If you can't be trusted to carry a gun for self defense, how can you be trusted with a gun in a residential neighborhood?

Maybe a license to purchase ammunition...
Ammunition is very dangerous in the wrong hands and not subject to nearly as many restrictions as firearms themselves. What is there to stop a criminal from walking into Wal-mart and purchasing a hundred-round value pack of 9mm, then using the ammo to kill a dozen innocents?
Maybe a good solution to that would be to require all gunowners to apply for a license. Actually, maybe it could be like a Hunter's safety course in my state. All you have to do is take the course, which you'll probably have to pay for. Then, every year, you just apply for a license and pay your nominal fee. Then you can buy ammunition. Sounds like a good way to keep ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.

What about reloading? Smokeless powder could pose a hazard to your neighborhood. Eventhough it isn't really explosive, it is very flammable and could lead to a fire that would burn down the whole block. Can't really take the risk of that, so maybe a license is in order.
Plus, an inexperienced handloader can make a mistake when loading ammunition. His handloads could cause an explosion while he's at the range, presenting a hazard to bystanders and to himself. Maybe we should require reloaders to carry special insurance in case that happens - for the public good.

I guess you could come to the conclusion that any ammunition could cause a dangerous malfunction though. Even factory ammunition is known to KB from time to time. So maybe the special insurance requirement should be extended to all gunowners.
Don't worry though - I'm sure it won't cost any more than regular health insurance. I mean, surely every gun owner could easily afford another insurance policy along with their health insurance.

And don't forget about those blackpowder guys. Black powder is an explosive. Do you really want just anyone to be able to walk into a gun store and buy an explosive? How do you keep the wrong type of people from being able to obtain black powder? What about terrorists, criminals, and people who have difficulty reading. Don't want those old guys with outdated bi-focals buying black powder and not being able to read the warnings on the can. Because if they can't read the warnings, how would they know not to use a can of black powder as a candle holder? They could blow themselves and many others to kindgom come!
A license sounds like a good solution.
And while we're at it, better make these guys carry even more insurance because black powder is very sensitive stuff - more likely for something to wrong. Even the slightest spark, even static electricity, can potentially set it off. Along with the insurance, don't forget about special storage for the black powder. Not a huge inconvenience though: Any licensed contractor could easily build you a safe storage bunker for your black powder, for only a nominal fee. Because contractors don't charge much money for their work. Actually, maybe all gunowners should be required to store their firearms in small, underground bunkers. This would boost the economy by providing work for all those contractors, and provide revenue for the state when we all have our bunkers ispected by the state employed bunker inspectors.
Looks like a new civil service job is on its way!

These safety measures may seem extreme, but just like a Concealed Carry Permit, they are going to be necessary for the public good. And if they put the price of gun ownership out of the reach of a few people on the lower rungs of the economy, so be it. At least we'll all sleep better at night knowing that everyone who carries or possesses a gun has undergone licensing and is properly insured.

Except for the criminals.
The laws and licensing won't affect them at all.
Because they don't care.

Like I said, I don't mean to offend you, but you gotta use your imagination. If you open the door for the anti-gun crowd they'll storm right in and take over.

Licensing is BAD!

HK G3
July 12, 2008, 01:51 AM
Let's ask those who live in Vermont and Alaska if they're endangered by the lack of CCW licensing.

I bet their rivers run red with the blood of innocent children and LEOs :rolleyes:

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 01:57 AM
Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?

It might keep the cops from killing you for carrying a gun.

jj

Logan5
July 12, 2008, 01:58 AM
Since we are comfortable with the idea that doctors, lawyers, building contractors, etc. be licensed for our safety, it is logical that society will require that those who carry weapons concealed in public be licensed.

Are CCW holders offering their gunslinging skills to the general public for profit via yellow pages ads? That's basically what someone does as an attorney, doctor, or what you'd do as a licensed tradesman.

Certainly I hope that you are very well trained and equipped to defend your home and family, but I'm not about to pay you to do it, or call the state attorney general and demand a crackdown on you if you screw it up. See where the analogy falls apart?

Catherine
July 12, 2008, 02:01 AM
NO. It does not serve a purpose except for the NWO gun control and liberty control freaks, to keep track of you, to generate $$$ for the goobmint$, etc.

It is NOT Constitutional.

Gun control = CONTROL. Period!

Catherine

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 02:06 AM
A ccw permit is just an insurance policy that if someone sees your gun and reports you the cops will have no right to take it from you, that is if you haven't broken the law by letting someone see it.

jj

goon
July 12, 2008, 02:09 AM
It might keep the cops from killing you for carrying a gun.


Only if you have one of those little mall-ninja CCW badges. Flash it to the cops before they start shooting and you should be fine.

Other than that, it would most likely look like "Gee Sarge, check this guy's wallet out. Sixty bucks and this little card that looks like a drivers' license only not quite. Gun permit? Oops, guess maybe se shouldn't have just killed him without asking him what was up..."

If it gets to the point where the cops can automatically target anyone just for having a gun, we're in big trouble.
Thank God that the police in my area, even with their faults, are not morons.

A ccw permit is just an insurance policy that if someone sees your gun and reports you the cops will have no right to take it from you, that is if you haven't broken the law by letting someone see it.

Why would the cops have any right to take your firearm from you anyway?
Is that a power that was set aside and specifically granted to the police?
If not, what the hell are they doing just assuming that they can do whatever they want?
IMO, if you're just minding your business, going about your daily stuff with a hogleg on your right hip and not doing anything threatening, the police have no business hassling you. If you try to rob a liquor store, well then they should do what they get paid to do. Other than that, let people be.
And why should it be illegal for someone to see your CCW? I'm sure I've flashed people before with mine. It is almost inevitable if you carry often enough. Eventually, your shirt will ride up over the grip or your pant leg will come up over top of your ankle holster. No big deal. Just pull your shirt back down and go on about your shopping.
No offense, but the concept of calling the cops on anyone who has a firearm is crazy in my opinion.
If they're not shooting at me or pointing their gun at the check-out girl at Wal-mart, who cares?
If they are, they are going to have a problem. That problem will answer to goon, and it will be carrying a handgun.


As Catherine put it, gun-control is about control.
It really is that simple.
No offense to you or anyone else, but anyone who doesn't see that even something as simple as a permit is a way for the state to say "We have POWER over you and WE will decide whether or not you get OUR PERMISSION to do this" is kidding himself.

I put up with it because it wasn't likely to change (although Heller may eventually open a door to correct that) and because it was more prudent to just put up with the BS and pay my $25, but it's still unconstitutional.

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 02:10 AM
First, the courts for years have recognized the regulation of Constitutionally protected rights. Under the applicable legal standard, such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny, must serve a compelling state interest, be no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose and must not obviate the right entirely. I have no doubt that current "shall issue" carry laws would survive a Constitutional challenge.

I also think appropriate licensing, with a training and qualification requirement, of anyone carrying a loaded weapon in public is a good idea. I see way too much atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship at the public ranges I visit from time to time. And I hear too many fanciful notions about the laws of self defense.

Among other things, a licensing and training requirement should at least help impress upon people who want to carry guns that it is a significant responsibility.

Catherine
July 12, 2008, 02:19 AM
PS:

What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't some people understand? Geesh!

Open carry, conceal carry, vehicle carry, home carry, choose to carry in ANY WAY or choose NOT to carry if you don't believe in some things.

Free will - we all have it and it was given to us by our Creator.

Freedom - use it or lose it.

Catherine

Just Jim
July 12, 2008, 02:28 AM
Well a cop doesn't know if you are a criminal or not so a get out of jail free card migh help if you run into one while carrying.

jj

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 02:46 AM
Sorry, Catherine. That horse left the barn a long time ago. Constitutionally protected rights get regulated. Courts have permitted it for years, and they will continue to permit it in the future; and the lives and property of real people in real life will be affected by those court decisions.

It's true that regulation of a Constitutionally protected right has a high bar to get over. As Scalia wrote in Heller, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,...." But he also wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...."

You may not like it, and you may disagree, but the courts will use these words in ruling on other Second Amendment matters.

goon
July 12, 2008, 02:59 AM
First, the courts for years have recognized the regulation of Constitutionally protected rights. Under the applicable legal standard, such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny, must serve a compelling state interest, be no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose and must not obviate the right entirely. I have no doubt that current "shall issue" carry laws would survive a Constitutional challenge.

I also think appropriate licensing, with a training and qualification requirement, of anyone carrying a loaded weapon in public is a good idea. I see way too much atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship at the public ranges I visit from time to time. And I hear too many fanciful notions about the laws of self defense.

Among other things, a licensing and training requirement should at least help impress upon people who want to carry guns that it is a significant responsibility.

You're entiteld to your opinion, but apply those same arguments to the rest of your rights.
Voting - suppose you had to attend a day-long course on voting before you were issued your registration to vote. It would impress upon you the responsibility that comes with electing a representative, senator, or the President. Maybe we could also teach people how to vote. Sounds stupid until you stop to consider that a bunch of people in Florida recently screwed up and voted for the wrong guy in a presidential election and that this may have seriously affected the outcome. Clearly, the population of our nation is too stupid to be trusted to vote without first being trained to do so.
Yep, I'm all for requiring a voting permit. It's for our own good. Just a nominal fee and you can vote. It's a good way to only get the people who are serious about it too because only the most motivated will pay the fee to vote.

First Ammendment - Anyone who wants to skip doing something that he or she likes to do for forty (?) or so days or who wants to pray five times a day (Islam) had better be made to apply for a permit. They need to be made to understand the how fortunate they are to have that ability in this country and the best way to do make them aware is to require them to apply for a license. The fees from the licenses will pay for the Religion permits that are issued.
Also, anyone wanting to state his or her opinion will be required to attend classes and obtain a permit. These classes are the best way to ensure that people communicating their opinions will use correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
I don't know about you, but judging from some of the stuff I read on blogs and online forums, the entire population of the US would greatly benefit from this measure. They would also have a much better understanding of the responsibility that comes along with the freedom of speech after paying a fee and becoming certified to exercise this right.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but really, how can you call something a right if you have to beg the government's permission to be able to do it? Doesn't that pretty much render it a priviledge instead of a right?
And how does requiring a permit to carry a handgun serve a compelling state interest?
Only the law abiding will jump through the hoops to obtain a permit, so what state interest is served here?
It ain't safety. It definitely won't be preventing criminals from carrying weapons because they will do that eventhough it's illegal for them to do so. That's why they're called criminals!
And if you apply the same logic to the rest of the Bill of Rights that is applied to the Second Ammendment to justify a CCW permit, it just doesn't hold up. You can't require people to pass a reading test to vote or to pass a spelling test to share their beliefs or knowledge. And you can't require someone to pass a crash course in law before hiring an attorney.
How well would it go over if the police started saying "No permit? Well I guess there won't be any lawyering-up for you!" ?

You, me, and anyone else who calls himself or herself a Patriot would be all over our congress-critters with angry phone calls, emails, and letters in about three seconds flat.
But when we start talking about exercising Second Ammendment rights, everyone is all the sudden ready to just pretend infringement is OK.
It's not.

goon
July 12, 2008, 03:07 AM
Well a cop doesn't know if you are a criminal or not so a get out of jail free card migh help if you run into one while carrying.

jj


A cop also doesn't know that you are a criminal if you run into one while carrying.
Why would he/she assume that you are a criminal just for having a firearm?
IIRC, there are enough guns in this country to arm about 80% of our country's population.
The vast majority of those firearms are legal.
If anything, the reasonable thing for the cop in question to do, both logically and in line with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, would be to assume that your gun is legal and carry on serving and protecting.

What you're saying is kind of like arguing that the police could reasonably detain you for wearing a watch because they won't know whether the watch is stolen or not. So just to be safe until they're sure you didn't steal the watch, they're going to detain you until you can prove that it's your watch.

I'm not a law scholar or a scholar in much of anything to be honest, but that sounds entirely bass-ackwards to me.

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 03:48 AM
First, goon, it's more than just an opinion. Courts do in fact allow regulation of Constitutionally protected rights. Also, since I'm a lawyer, I think my opinion in this area is pretty worthy of some note.

And let's look at the First Amendment. Our world is full of infringements on our freedom of speech and rights to assemble. For example:

[1] Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do infringe on the freedom of speech. Some of these laws may relate to direct harm, such as laws prohibiting misrepresentation, but many restrictions still exist in the absence of harm. In certain industries, advertising or material offering the sale of securities or even the forms of contracts used, require the prior approval of one or more regulatory agencies. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

[2] Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be Constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.

So even though you have the right to free speech, the courts have agreed that you can be required, under some circumstances, to ask the government's permission before you ask people to buy something you're offering for sale. And even though you have the right to assemble, courts have said that under some circumstances you must ask the government's permission to have a parade or assembly. But the courts have also said that you must be given permission if you satisfy clear objective requirements, that those requirements are necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and that those requirements are not unduly burdensome.

As to carrying a loaded weapon in public, first, of course, we're only taking about doing so legally. Criminals will do whatever they want illegally, and they'll get away with it until they are caught.

As to a compelling state interest, I suspect that a state wouldn't have too much trouble in convincing a court that the state has an interest in taking reasonable steps to assure as a condition of lawfully carrying a loaded weapon in public anyone doing so has demonstrated certain minimum proficiency, knowledge of the manner of safely handling the gun, and a basic understand of the laws related to the carrying and use of the gun.

In addition, it's been my experience that when someone has to jump through a few hoops to do something, he tends to take things more seriously. I like the idea that honest folks carrying loaded guns take it seriously. I know I do when I can legally carry (and I have a good deal of training, I'm a certified instructor myself, and I have a number of concealed weapon permits -- none of course any good in California, and that's one thing I'd like to help fix).

Dark_Harvest
July 12, 2008, 04:19 AM
gun control = people control.


pretty simple, sad but true.

mostly sad... so many people going to expensive schools to try and subvert the spirit that our country was founded by... :cuss:

Defensory
July 12, 2008, 05:20 AM
Posted by Thernlund:
I've always seen it as a revenue generating measure. Like a drivers license and how those fees go to pay for roads and such.

In my state, a CCP costs $90.00 and is good for five years. I'm highly doubtful the 90.00 even covers the cost of the paperwork processing, fingerprinting, background investigation and laminated permit.

With a CCP, I'll never need a purchase permit again, which cost $5.00 each and require a trip to the sheriff's department. It's at least a one hour round trip, which isn't cheap with gas at over $4.00 per gallon, and the only available parking is in a parking deck that charges 2.00 an hour.

By the time I walk from the parking deck to the sheriff's office, wait in line there, fill out my paperwork and pay my purchase permit fee, then walk back to the parking deck---I end up having to pay for two hours of parking.

Then I have to wait a full month for the permit to be approved, before I can buy a handgun. With a concealed carry permit, I can go directly to a gun shop, and leave the same day with a new gun.

The CCP also exempts me from all phone-in background checks. No having to wait for approval at the gun shop. No having to worry about being rejected because of a clerical error somewhere, and end up having to wait several days to purchase a new handgun. Which of course means a completely wasted trip to the shop, and an extra trip back to pick up my weapon in a few days.

Even if I buy just one handgun per year, I still save money by having a CCP.

Then there's reciprocity. No more having to worry about being arrested for transporting or carrying a concealed weapon when on an out-of-state trip, as long as I'm in a reciprocal state.

Everything I've mentioned in this post is worth well over 18.00 per year to me. "Vermont style" carry is the ideal, but it most likely isn't going to happen in my state in my lifetime. So a concealed carry permit is the next best thing.

A CCP is NOT the same thing as gun registration, because the government has no way of knowing what and how many weapons I buy, and I'm not required to register them.

Elza
July 12, 2008, 06:15 AM
Defensory: With a CCP, I'll never need a purchase permit again,I see what you’re saying. However, I have a far greater problem with getting permission to buy/own a gun than with a permit to carry one.

There are arguments that can be made for carry permits. There is, IMHO, no argument that can be made for something that restricts what I can buy or own.

qwert65
July 12, 2008, 09:34 AM
ccw is liscences are stupid. It dosen't weed anyone out. just like when they made it an E felony in NJ to carry a gun outside your property unless stowed. Does that stop criminals no

Imagine for a minute you don't have a permit and I threaten your life. You think it's prudent for the state to say ok in a month you can carry?

The Lone Haranguer
July 12, 2008, 10:04 AM
For a long time, I have held that licensing for concealed carry was unconstitutional. It seems to go against the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.
In absolute terms, I agree. And, there is little or nothing to prevent a state from, e.g., making fees onerously high or requiring marksmanship standards that almost no one could hope to pass. But sometimes we need to compromise, and a "shall-issue" arrangement with a background check and reasonable training requirements gives us most of what we want.

I don't believe licensing would actually increase public safety, nor would the lack of it decrease it. Alaska and Vermont - which require no permit at all - do not have any higher rates of violent crime than any other states, and in fact are lower than some. What it does do is increase the perception of safety and show "fence-sitters" that there is nothing to fear. (How things got this way in the first place is a subject for another topic.)

Pilgrim
July 12, 2008, 10:13 AM
Don't mean to come down hard on you man, but where does it end then?

Should a license be required to keep a firearm in your home for protection?
If you can't be trusted to carry a gun for self defense, how can you be trusted with a gun in a residential neighborhood?

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just stating reality.

As others have pointed out, a CCW permit suddenly makes you 'Ok' in encounters with police.

Pilgrim

alemonkey
July 12, 2008, 10:22 AM
In Nebraska it serves a purpose - to keep poor people from having access to it. $100 for a permit, IIRC, and several hundred for a training class.

IMO, they did that to make sure minimum wage earners can't afford it. Kind of like the poll taxes that used to be used to keep minorities from voting.

I think training is a good idea, but right now I think it's out of reach price wise for a lot of people who need it the most.

Brass Rain
July 12, 2008, 11:34 AM
Of course it's unconstitutional.

"You have the right to bear arms, BUT you can only have one under your shirt if you give us money and we give you a worthless piece of fancy laminated paper. No, it's not unreasonable! It's to keep bad people from carrying guns! We all know they go out of their way to do everything by the books! And they would never carry a gun unless they had propper licensing."

See how ridiculous that is?

ShooterMcGavin
July 12, 2008, 12:29 PM
fiddletown, I don't think your argument holds water...

1. Regarding false advertising... Even though your right to free speech is protected, you do not have the right to make fraudulent statements which enable you to steal money from your customers. You do not have the right to rip people off.

2. While you have the right to assembly, you do not have the right to obstruct traffic, create a public disturbance at all hours of the night, or otherwise inconvenience the rest of the world as you do so.

This is true for the right to bear arms as well. I have the right to carry a firearm. I do not have the right to wave the gun around and point it where I wish. The rights of others must be upheld, even as you excercise your rights (examples above). Carrying a gun, openly or concealed, is not an action that violates the rights of any other person.

Originally Posted by Defensory
With a CCP, I'll never need a purchase permit again, which cost $5.00 each and...
I don't understand how you can actually make that argument. In essence, you are stating "The hassle and expense of the [unconstitutional] CCP is a good thing, because it allows me to avoid the hassle and expense of another [unconstitutional] law".

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 12:37 PM
fiddletown, I don't think your argument holds water...
What you think doesn't matter. We'll see what the courts think when, and if, current carry laws are litigated.

Tommygunn
July 12, 2008, 01:12 PM
Well, there's the theoretical, then there's the practical.
In Alabama I pay $20.00 a year for a CCW permit.
The courts may think what they will; I have no intention of becoming a test case for another "OJ/Kelo" type of decision ... which is what happens IMHO when the court **** up. Which does happen.

Soybomb
July 12, 2008, 01:20 PM
No one has demonstrated to me that states with either licensing or testing requirement are any safer than states that have either no license needed or no tests/training for a license. To say that ccw licensing makes us safer is as justified as saying assault weapons are a serious public health danger.

goon
July 12, 2008, 01:43 PM
What you think doesn't matter. We'll see what the courts think when, and if, current carry laws are litigated.

I beg to differ.
What he thinks does matter, just like what you think and what I think matters.
That's the whole point.
The courts only have that power because they're allowed to have that power by the people.
Get enough people angry enough at the court, and all the sudden what those people think is ALL that matters.

On our other discussion -
Imagine if you were required to obtain a permit to protect you from cruel and unusual punishment.
All you have to do is send your check in with your application, wait 10 days or so until you get a yellow card in the mail telling you to come into the county courthouse, go into the courthouse between 9 AM and 5 PM (probably have to take time off from work), and get your License to Prevent Cruel & Unusual Punishment issued.
Then you're covered.
Unless you get pulled over by the police before you can make time in your schedule to get in and get your permit. Then maybe the police suspect you of robbing a liquor store.
Someone robbed it so it might as well have been you, right?
So since you don't have a LTPC&UP (License to Prevent Cruel & Unusual Punishment), you're in a bad situation.
The police start on your toes with a ball-peen hammer. Then they take a cordless drill and some wood screws to your knee-caps, then a propane torch to your lips. Next comes a hot glue gun to your eyes and that's where you break and sign the confession.
Another crime solved, another criminal behind bars, justice is served…
And best of all, they haven't violated your rights...
You didn't jump through the hoops and pay the money to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment so you have no such right!
This all makes sense in the interests of public safety - imagine how much more effectively the police could do their jobs if they could torture suspects until they confess.
And after all, anyone who is serious about their rights will just pay the nominal fee and obtain the permit. Then, after going through all this red tape, he or she will have a real appreciation of how valuable the right to not be brutalized by the police truly is.

See my point?
It would be completely nuts for the government to be able to get away with torturing you because you don't have the proper paperwork. No one in his or her right mind would accept that as OK.
But they do get away with severely restricting Second Amendment rights for exactly the same reason.

The process I described to get a fictional LTPC&UP is the same as what I had to comply with to get my CCW for PA. As far as red tape to carry is concerned, it wasn’t that bad of a process to go through. Everyone involved was helpful, friendly, and supportive of law-abiding people being armed. But just because everyone was nice about it, does that make it any less of an infringement?

BTW - what about those who would like to be able to carry but can't afford the fee? As a lawyer, I'd imagine that whatever fee is required for CCW in your state wouldn't present much of an obstacle to you. But it IS an obstacle to some people and that has to be recognized.
The state can flat out deny you your right to self defense if you can't afford to cough up the money to meet the state's requirements.

That doesn't sound like what the founders had in mind to me…

TAB
July 12, 2008, 01:46 PM
soybomb, no one can prove that... infact in many cases there are laws in place preventing any studies to be done of that.

That being said, any one that thinks good( being the key word here)training does not make you safer has a blinders on.

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 02:06 PM
goon, spare me. The fact is things are as they are, and courts do not necessarily operate on the basis of public opinion. Indeed, overall we are much better off that they don't.

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 02:26 PM
Oh, and to more specifically answer ShooterMcGavin's comments:

[1] Various laws permit state agencies to go to court and get orders prohibiting publication of advertising that, while literally truthful, may have the tendency or capacity to mislead. This can be done even when there has been no injury to the public.

[2] Various government agencies may prohibit publication of truthful statements in a prospectus to solicit offers to buy securities when they conclude that such statements may have the capacity to mislead.

These are clear infringements of the freedom of speech, and courts continue to permit these infringements even though there may be no evidence of intent to harm, even when the statements are true and even when there's been no injury. Such infringements are allowed because, among other things, the communication is not entirely prohibited and only needs to be modified sufficiently for clarification.

Similarly, I can foresee a court being very sympathetic to a state's argument that folks who have not demonstrated at least minimal proficiency with firearms, a minimum understanding of safe gun handling practices and a basic knowledge of the laws applicable to the use of firearms pose an increased risk to the public if they are wandering around in public with loaded guns.

You might not like it. You might strenuously object. But that is my professional opinion as to how this may play out in court.

Now, if you really think that a different result is likely, you're welcome to be a test case.

Shadow1198
July 12, 2008, 02:50 PM
Technically speaking, any kind of law requiring "permission" from the state or federal government to exercise one of our constitutional rights is and should be unconstitutional and illegal. After all, our constitutional rights are actually "natural" human rights that everyone possesses and that the constitution simply affirms protection of. It's like the government making you apply for a license to procreate. Basically it's none of their godd@mn business. Of course this may lead to a handful of the idiots of society taking advantage of these rights and doing stupid things (meaning some people carrying guns that are too stupid to even drive a car safely for example), however that in and of itself is NO justification for infringing on everyone else's rights. FOID cards, cooling off periods, one gun a month regulations, superficial restrictions on cosmetic and meaningless items (we all know that 10rd magazines are "okay", but 11rd magazines turn a gun into a hand held nuclear super weapon!) CCW licenses, OC licenses, public protest licenses, censorship, blah blah blah blah. The constitution in this country has been raped and bastardized beyond all recognition in some states and in some cases the entire country.

I wish that liberals and anti-gun people in general could get over the whole "gun" thing and realize one important point. I mean, most of those people (liberals, anti gun people) like to think that they are all about constitutional rights, well the ones they like at least. Maybe if they realized what a danger it is to allow infringement of one, as it makes it that much easier to infringe them all. Gun owners and liberals/anti gun people usually seem to think that they are at odds with us about everything. I think one thing we can all mostly agree on is that ALL of us (well most of us anyways) value our constitution and the natural human rights we possess, and we dislike anyone trying to take them from us. Whether it be free speech, freedom to vote, or gun ownership doesn't matter.

It's a bit disturbing when put in perspective. A majority of the constitution focuses on that of individual rights. Where there is mention of states rights and rights of the federal government in the constitution, a majority of that is focused on restricting the federal and state government! Everyone would do well to remember the 10th amendment, as it alone clearly states that the aforementioned regulations, restrictions, etc (and plenty more where that came from) are clearly unconstitutional:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere in the BOR or the rest of the constitution does it state that the State or federal government has the right to regulate, restrict, or deny our bill of rights which is PRECISELY the reason for the 10th amendment and the BOR in the first place. F*ck it doesn't take the supreme court, thousands of lawyers, etc decades and decades trying to interpret some simple words......Even I can figure that sh*t out. :banghead:

akodo
July 12, 2008, 03:25 PM
I have always believed all our rights are subject to reasonable regulation. After all, a prisoner in a fed-max prison has his rights to free speech heavily regulated.

I do, however, think that ALL rights in the bill of rights should be open to the same level of regulation.

I totally agree that felons and nutcases shouldn't posess firearms. However, if I have to prove I am not a prohibited class by means of an 'instant check' then I think it is reasonable to have that same instant check at the voting booths.

Freedom of speech doesn't cover selling nuclear secrets to North Vietnam, and RTKBA equally does not cover nukes. But just because both doesn't cover nukes doesn't mean both can be regulated up the wazoo.

We as a society will of course have to decide what 'reasonable regulations' are. Outright bans of words, guns, and relgions just aren't going to past constitutional muster, but shy of that we must work things out. What we need to get away from is the idea that 9/10ths of the bill the restrictions must be kept to an absolute minimum, while 1/10 of the bill restrictions can be extreme.

No, either all 10 we keep retrictions at an absolute minimum, or all 10 we allow very harsh restrictions.

goon
July 12, 2008, 03:27 PM
goon, spare me.

So I take it that you wouldn't support a permit to exercise a right to legal counsel, or a permit for protection from unreasonable searches or cruel and unusual punishment?
If not, then how can you say that the Second Amendment is any less important than the Fourth Amendment or the Eighth?

I'll shut up just as soon as you explain why it's OK to regulate some rights and not others.

You and others who speak of qualifications for gun ownership should remember that at one time in many places in this country, being white was basically a requirement to vote.
Just because that was "legal", does that mean it was just?
I'd argue that it definitely was not.

Back to the whole permit issue, what about the elderly lady who wants to keep her dead husband's old .32 revolver in her purse for protection.
The odds are good that she isn't going to be able to afford to jump through all the hoops and go through all the training to obtain a permit.
Does that mean that she shouldn't have any right to defend herself?
Are people less deserving of their rights because they happen to fall below a certain income bracket?
Rather than having another stupid law requiring us all to tap-dance around a bunch of red tape to exercise our "rights", why not just place the responsibility on the gunowner and leave it at that?
That would take care of both sides of the argument - idiots get held responsible for their stupidity and regular people get to carry without infringements.

Also, I sincerely don't mean any offense but all of your answers just seem to sound like apologies and justifications for why the courts should be able to decide when and how the Bill of Rights should be applied.
I will always differ with that because I feel that the Constitution applies to every single one of us all the time, rain or shine, no matter what.

Anyway, don't worry about it.
It's pretty clear at this point that you and I are not going to agree about this so there really isn't any point in sidetracking the thread any further.

Take care.

ShooterMcGavin
July 12, 2008, 04:06 PM
Quote by fiddletown:
Originally Posted by ShooterMcGavin
fiddletown, I don't think your argument holds water...

What you think doesn't matter. We'll see what the courts think when, and if, current carry laws are litigated.
Perhaps therein lies our difference in opinion regarding the BOR. I do understand and agree that it is the courts' requirement to perform interpretation. Please correct me if I am wrong... it seems that, in your opinion, anything becomes constitutional (or proper, just, reasonable, etc.) based upon the courts' interpretation of that right. What if the courts one day interpreted the meaning of the 2nd A to really mean that "keep and bear arms" only applies to fit, able-bodied men? Yes, it is a far out concept (I am NOT suggesting this should be so), but does it then become "constitutional", acceptible, and proper in your opinion?

I base a lot of my interpretation on the definition of words and the true intent of the Founding Fathers, as I have read it. I think there does need to be an interpretation of our rights from the courts based on the need for public safety and the threats of certain actions. For example, I do not believe "arms" to include grenade launchers, because grenades are indiscriminate offensive weapons. I think "arms" should be regulated to mean "personal, safely controlled (by the operator) and precise (rather than random)". Further, "bear" means "carry", plain and simple. Certainly, talking about felons in jails (or my opinion that truly dangerous people should not be allowed back into society at all) is beyond the scope of this discussion. Likewise, I support instant background checks and preventing mental patients from obtaining guns. Other than that, "keep" means "own", "bear" means "carry", and "shall not be infringed" is as clear as glass.

Perhaps you will disagree with my interpretation, because the courts have ruled as such. I am not trying to prod you with a ridiculous question, but I would honestly like to know what you think.

...and, if it wasn't already clear, goon, I agree with you. Thanks for your input.

everallm
July 12, 2008, 04:59 PM
Lot of passion on both sides here, my view, ensure ALL states are made to be "must issue", THEN look to reduction of CCW licensing costs.

Like everything post Heller, we need to use the incrementalism model the anti's used that eroded firearms rights to strengthen firearms rights.

Frank Ettin
July 12, 2008, 05:40 PM
...Please correct me if I am wrong... it seems that, in your opinion, anything becomes constitutional (or proper, just, reasonable, etc.) based upon the courts' interpretation of that right...
Essentially, you're right. As a practical matter, as to what is and is not Constitutional, what the courts think trumps what a bunch of guys on the Internet think. Of course, sometimes lower courts make mistakes and get reversed by higher courts. And sometimes those higher courts get reversed in turn. And as far at the Constitution of the United States goes, the Supreme Court of the United States pretty much as the final say (just as do the highest courts in each state as to the state's constitution).

The way I look at it, in the real world the lives, property, rights and responsibilities of real people are actually affected by what the courts do -- not by what we on this gun forum think. What does it matter if we all agree that something is unconstitutional if the court doesn't agree and is sending a real live person to jail? So we're gnashing our teeth, rending our garments and pouring ashes on our heads blathering about how wrong that is, while someone is behind bars picking up soap in the showers for guys with no necks. And what if that person, by better understanding reality -- how courts work and what they are likely to do -- could have avoided that result?

That's one of the important reasons for understanding reality -- understanding how courts work, what they've done and what they're likely to do in the future -- it lets you make choices. It lets you make plans to avoid, or at least minimize the risks of, bad outcomes. It also helps you pick your fights.

One of the reasons we had to wait so long for Heller is that we were waiting for a case that would allow the Court to focus on the individual right issue and not get bogged down in a lot of extraneous matters. So we got a good decision in which Scalia wrote, point blank, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,..."

But one reason I'm so negative about fighting about the question of licensing the carrying of guns, is that, at least with respect to "shall issue" laws, that remains one of the least of our problems. Not only do I think that most courts will look at shall issue laws as a minimal intrusion on the RKBA and serving a compelling state interest, and thus likely to survive a challenge, but also we have far bigger fish to fry. Heller was wonderfully helpful, but we still have some very significant fights -- far more important than shall issue laws.

There is first the question of whether Heller will survive. We won by only 5 to 4 with very strong dissent. If Obama is elected President and significantly changes the composition of the Court, it could reverse itself. If that happens, all bets are off.

If Heller can survive, we still need a good Supreme Court case making the Second Amendment applicable to the states. There was a long tradition of the Supreme Court holding that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states. After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, courts began using the 14th Amendment to make piecemeal those enumerated rights applicable to the states. So until we get a solid court decision applying the Second Amendment to the states, the question is in doubt (at least in those states without a RKBA provision in their constitutions). (For more on this issue, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)) . While I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, this is a decent overview of this matter.)

Then we have the outright bans to attend to, like Chicago. There will also be the discretionary and may issue laws to be dealt with.

My training, and the way I earned my living for more than 30 years, has included knowing what courts have done, predicting what courts are likely to do, and helping clients make the best choice in light of that reality. And I know that courts will do what they do without regard to my personal opinions or those of my clients.

And courts will go right on affecting real people without regard to our feelings here (and that includes yours, goon, and yours, Shadow1198).

Soybomb
July 12, 2008, 09:19 PM
soybomb, no one can prove that
I don't see any reason why can't. It should be a trivial matter to compile the relevant statistics showing that say people with permits in these states have accidents or incidents at a rate of x/1k people while people in the states with the most stringent training have them at the lower rate of y/1k people. Why can't this be done? We've got absolute mountains of data on concealed carry between all the years and states that allow it. I know somewhere I've got bookmarks to a couple states that even make that information very easily accessible online.

... infact in many cases there are laws in place preventing any studies to be done of that.
Please cite a couple examples of what you're talking about because I'm lost.

That being said, any one that thinks good( being the key word here)training does not make you safer has a blinders on.
No doubt quality training might make you more likely to come away alive, but the type of training and classes we're talking about probably won't make people safer. I know and follow the 4 rules. I'm not going to be pointing a gun to my head and pulling the trigger for a laugh at parties if I don't take the state mandated training class. Similar I've seen no evidence to suggest that the kind of stupid that leads to doing something like that is fixed by attending said class. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong with statistics and not feelings though. I just don't see the problem that needs to be fixed with licensing/training/testing. I hope your reply can show me a real problem with concealed carry that mandatory classes/training fixes and not just an imagined problem.

unspellable
July 13, 2008, 08:48 AM
So there I am sitting on the shoulder of a secondary highway looking at a road map etc. when the state trooper pulls up behind me to see what's going on. What's going on is that the state trooper keeps me there for over half an hour while he is checking me out every which way from Sunday. Uses the car radio, the walkie talkie, the computer, the cell phone, ad nauseum.

Now what's the point of my permit? I thought it was supposed to show that I'd already been checked out. If every stop means a background investigation why bother with the permit?

TEDDY
July 13, 2008, 11:40 AM
what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED needs to be explaned.shall means must.
not may.notice your states licensing law.SHALL issue.
Mass has a may issue,and thats it,they dont if they dont want to.
what good is a ccw if the criminals dont have to get the license.every one should be able to carry.no exceptions.
and INFRINGED.what part not understood the I or the G.
the dictionary lays it out just because the socialists cant read does not mean
we cant. :uhoh::rolleyes::fire:

Defensory
July 14, 2008, 01:14 AM
Posted by Elza:
I see what you’re saying. However, I have a far greater problem with getting permission to buy/own a gun than with a permit to carry one.

There are arguments that can be made for carry permits. There is, IMHO, no argument that can be made for something that restricts what I can buy or own.

You're preaching to the choir. :)

I don't like purchase permits either, which is why I got a CCP. I can walk in my local gun shop and walk out the same day with as many new handguns as I can afford, without any purchase permits and phone-in background checks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!