Two tier Carry Permit System


PDA






TheProf
January 31, 2011, 08:16 PM
For those states with CCW only... and have impossible odds of acquiring Open Carry...

Would you be in favor of suggesting a two-tier permit system?

Say... a Open Carry permit if a person has successfully maintained a CCW for 4 years?

I think that many who oppose an Open Carry system are fearful that it might be abused. (For instance, think of a "mall ninja" stereotype....Something that the general public may not be ready for.)

This way, by the time a person open carries...it is known to everyone that this person can indeed be trusted... he has been carrying concealed for at least 4 years without incident.

(Don't get me wrong. I'm all for our 2A rights. In fact, in my ideal world...I would prefer not to have permits being needed at all. But for those anti-open carry states.....this may be a way of paving the way for open carry.)

By the way, I prefer to CCW. But I do want to have open carry laws in my state....just to avoid being harrassed if I accidentally "printed" or break concealment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Two tier Carry Permit System" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
merlinfire
January 31, 2011, 08:21 PM
degrees of improvement - better than no improvement at all.

PowderMonkey
January 31, 2011, 08:22 PM
I wouldn't open carry if CCW licensing laws never existed, and everyone had always been allowed to carry open. Especially not with the awesome choice of compact weapons we have...

I currently alternate between a Kahr PM40 and a Ruger LCR 357 Mag - both with CT laser, both pocket carry in 3 different holsters and the PM40 occasionally in a leather Galco Jackass horizontal shoulder holster.

Why advertise?

Frozen North
January 31, 2011, 08:25 PM
Maybe the politicians should visit an open carry state like MN. They can observe how it is a total non issue here. I think the argument is wearing thin. It is all but proven fact now that handguns carried by law abiding citizens do not cause trouble for other law abiding citizens.

If someone open carries here, they get little attention. Very few choose to open carry anyway.

Tommygunn
January 31, 2011, 08:28 PM
I think it would be too complicated. “This way, by the time a person open carries...it is known to everyone that this person can indeed be trusted... he has been carrying concealed for at least 4 years without incident.” Just how is that supposed to work? If I were to see someone open-carrying, I just assume he's susscessfully CCW'ed for the requisite time? Am I supposed to ask him?
I don't think so. Open carry or CCW with permit, decide upon one or the other, and stick to it.

Just my two cents .....

kingpin008
January 31, 2011, 11:10 PM
I would prefer the system that Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have in place - namely, if you can own a gun, you can carry it. I don't see the point to, or advantage of a "tiered" system.

W.E.G.
January 31, 2011, 11:37 PM
Criminal laws should regulate criminals - not law-abiding citizens.

TexasBill
February 1, 2011, 01:30 AM
How about open carry for four years and then we'll trust you to carry concealed? Or carry for four years, then you can put cartridges in it (we'll call it the Barney Fife Gun Control Act)?

BleysAhrens
February 1, 2011, 01:40 AM
What if a person who was open carrying had an obvious high cap mag, do you think it would bother you, or others? I'm in AZ, and some times I CC, and some times I open carry.

TexasBill
February 1, 2011, 03:46 AM
What if a person who was open carrying had an obvious high cap mag, do you think it would bother you, or others?

You mean like a Glock with a 30-round stick? Or a FN FiveSeveN like the one used by Nalik Hasan, the Army major who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood? It has a standard 20-round magazine.

What's a "obvious" high-cap magazine? For that matter, what is a high-cap magazine? Most full-size 9 mm semi-auto pistols hold at least 15 rounds in their standard, non-California magazines. Loughner fired 31 shots; that's less than two magazines for the typical modern 9 mm pistol.

I have a Beretta PX4 Storm F. With the optional 20-round magazine, it mostly looks like it has a grip extension. Its standard magazine capacity is 17 rounds.

Now if I saw someone with a Glock with a 30-round stick and a couple of spare 30-rounds sticks, or somebody with a bunch (i.e., more than two) of extra magazines, I might notice enough to actually call in a report. That's not self-defense; that's either somebody looking to start a war or an over-the-top Mall Ninja that needs a serious talking-to.

Just One Shot
February 1, 2011, 01:51 PM
Here in Ohio you don't need a permit to open carry and I'm against anyone even suggesting that one should be required. It's my opinion that we shouldn't need a permit at all, even to CC. But hey, the law is the law so until we can get it changed I'll abide by it. ;)

Standing Wolf
February 1, 2011, 02:10 PM
Would you be in favor of suggesting a two-tier permit system?

Nope. Sorry. We need to take steps forward, not sideways or backward into still more government meddling.

Walkalong
February 1, 2011, 08:05 PM
Exactly

IlikeSA
February 2, 2011, 01:13 AM
Perhaps tools shouldn't be regulated, but rather actions. We all agree that a firearm is just another tool, and is nothing special. Non-gun related, but related story:

I currently reside in S. Korea where weapons laws are very much enforced, and my pocketknife was called a "sword" at the airport. Yeah, it's got a 3.5 inch blade, but it is not a sword, and it is not a translation error. Where I am from in the US, most men carry a pocketknife, but my colleagues flipped out over my 3.5 inch folder. For me, it was normal, but for them, abnormal. When she asked why I had it, I simply peeled an apple. If people stop focusing on the tool and see it as normal, then others will see the ones who overreact as nutcases.

In the same way, when I first saw my students carrying razor blades, I was a bit taken back. But then I realized that it is normal for students to carry them, and no one is out cutting each other. They use them to sharpen pencils. They do agree though that my knife if more effective than their razor at sharpening pencils though. Back on track:

Open carry of a firearm is the same way...the more people open carry, the more used to it people get, and then the ones who overreact over nothing are the ones who are thought of as crazy.

That is why I believe actions should be regulated, not tools. The guy with 3 30 round extended magazines may be funny looking, but...is he doing anything wrong? Should we make a law to hinder his freedom? If he hasn't and isn't doing anything wrong, why react over it?

Hanzerik
February 2, 2011, 01:16 AM
I would prefer the system that Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have in place - namely, if you can own a gun, you can carry it. I don't see the point to, or advantage of a "tiered" system.

Hopefully Wyoming will be joining those states. There is a Bill in the works.

killchain
February 2, 2011, 06:41 AM
Absolutely not, the 2nd Amendment is the only "permit" you need for carry, open or concealed. Period.

mcdonl
February 2, 2011, 07:22 AM
Killchain, I think you mean the 2nd Amendment SHOULD be the only "permit" required as there are certainly laws in place saying otherwise.

In Maine you need a permit to CCW and anyone can OC but I hardly do.

It is like my tattoos. I like them, they are for me. But I have them in places I can conceal as I know a lot of people do not feel comfortable around 250 pound men with tattoos. I have no intention of making my fellow citizens uncomfortable.

Same with CCW. I carry for my own personal protection, not to prove a point or push a cause.

NJ Accountant
February 2, 2011, 05:55 PM
My opinion is there should just be carry. Open or concealed is in the end the same. You are carrying a firearm.

Open carry everyone can see it. Thus might make them uncomfortable. Tactically it means a loss of element of surprise and having the bad Guy going for the pistol first. Upside they may be reluctant to attack due to the clear presence of the firearm and if they do most gun owners will be able to draw faster.

Concealed carry removes the frightened public aspect but added complications with printing and whatnot depending on the laws. Tactically you gain the element of surprise and make it difficult for assailants to grab the gun while its holstered. Public benefits from the conceal carrier as bad guys do not know who is packing
This may add a general discomfort to the uneducated public that they don't know who is carrying. They just don't realize that they don't know who is carrying illegally regardless of the law.

It all breaks down to emotions not logic when they say you have to do one or another.

kingpin008
February 2, 2011, 06:22 PM
That is why I believe actions should be regulated, not tools. The guy with 3 30 round extended magazines may be funny looking, but...is he doing anything wrong? Should we make a law to hinder his freedom? If he hasn't and isn't doing anything wrong, why react over it?

Perfectly stated.

hso
February 2, 2011, 06:29 PM
While AK/VA/AZ carry rules should be the norm, no concealed carry permit system is reasonable since any exposure of the firearm is technically a violation of "concealed" requirement of those carry permits.

NavyLCDR
February 2, 2011, 07:55 PM
Say... a Open Carry permit if a person has successfully maintained a CCW for 4 years?

How about open carry for four years and then we'll trust you to carry concealed? Or carry for four years, then you can put cartridges in it (we'll call it the Barney Fife Gun Control Act)?

I'm with Texas Bill on this one. I think the original proposed idea is backwards.

If a person is planning on using a gun for nefarious purposes, such as an armed robbery, do you see them carrying that gun in a visible holster on a public street prior to the robbery? Ummmm.... no. Open carry should be the basic right of law abiding citizens to carry guns for self defense, not regulated by government - if there is going to be any compromising the 2nd Amendment to begin with. I believe it is compromising the 2nd amendment to regulate any method of carry, though to include regulating where people can/cannot carry.

zoom6zoom
February 2, 2011, 09:19 PM
Open carry everyone can see it. Thus might make them uncomfortable.
Remind me, which part of the Constitution lists the right not to feel uncomfortable?

Fewer permits, not more. I can and do OC without a permit in my state.

Chuck41
February 2, 2011, 09:35 PM
Open carry is currently being debated in the Arkansas legislature. I sincerely hope it passes.

Unfortunately if it does pass there will be a few idiots that will think it is really cool to wear their big huge Glock on one hip and their 44 mag on the other when they go to the grocery store or Wal Mart in downtown Little Rock just because they can. That will pass in a while as folks get used to the law, but it will happen and freak some folks out that are not used to seeing it.

I grew up in Louisiana where open carry is legal and never ever heard of a problem. CCW is the best way for self-protection, but the threat of hassles if you have an inadvertent exposure of the weapon is a real bummer.

stuckinsocal
February 2, 2011, 09:47 PM
You mean like a Glock with a 30-round stick? Or a FN FiveSeveN like the one used by Nalik Hasan, the Army major who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood? It has a standard 20-round magazine.

What's a "obvious" high-cap magazine? For that matter, what is a high-cap magazine? Most full-size 9 mm semi-auto pistols hold at least 15 rounds in their standard, non-California magazines. Loughner fired 31 shots; that's less than two magazines for the typical modern 9 mm pistol.

I have a Beretta PX4 Storm F. With the optional 20-round magazine, it mostly looks like it has a grip extension. Its standard magazine capacity is 17 rounds.

Now if I saw someone with a Glock with a 30-round stick and a couple of spare 30-rounds sticks, or somebody with a bunch (i.e., more than two) of extra magazines, I might notice enough to actually call in a report. That's not self-defense; that's either somebody looking to start a war or an over-the-top Mall Ninja that needs a serious talking-to.

Why????? Calling the police on someone when you have no legitimate reason to believe he's committing or about to commit a crime is just plain pathetic and stupid. It's what the anti's do here in CA when people open carry anunloaded gun....merely for carrying the gun, they don't have any reason to believe a crime is being committed. Who are you to decide what he should and shouldn't be able to carry for self defense? Why bring the law into a situation where you're imposing your standards on what constitutes legit self defense tools when there's no reason to?
As for "an over-the-top Mall Ninja"......*** does he need a "serious talking-to" about, doing something that you don't approve of?

killchain
February 2, 2011, 10:50 PM
Killchain, I think you mean the 2nd Amendment SHOULD be the only "permit" required as there are certainly laws in place saying otherwise.

In Maine you need a permit to CCW and anyone can OC but I hardly do.

It is like my tattoos. I like them, they are for me. But I have them in places I can conceal as I know a lot of people do not feel comfortable around 250 pound men with tattoos. I have no intention of making my fellow citizens uncomfortable.

Same with CCW. I carry for my own personal protection, not to prove a point or push a cause.
Let me correct you... it's not "SHOULD..." it's "IS."

Otherwise we agree. I support and do open carry once in a while, but I prefer to conceal. I won't hold it against anyone who wants to open carry though.

TheProf
February 2, 2011, 11:00 PM
I think you guys missed my original point:

The proposed suggestion was for states that would have no possible chance of having "open carry" laws. Perhaps an "incremental" approach would get us closer to the ideal.

In no way was I suggesting a "two-tier" system for states that have even a half way chance of getting open carry laws passed.

Again...for me... it should be evident that the "right to bear arms" is a God-given right.
Of course, that includes "open carry" of arms.

LemmyCaution
February 3, 2011, 07:41 PM
Remind me, which part of the Constitution lists the right not to feel uncomfortable?

That would be the "Clinging Tightly to Mommy's Skirts Clause" of the Preamble. Perhaps you missed it.

Let me correct you... it's not "SHOULD..." it's "IS."

Not if you've read Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision. SCOTUS has clearly stated that there are legitimate restrictions on the 2A. They just haven't had the cojones to establish a level of judicial scrutiny, yet.

Count me firmly in the single tiered carry camp- You own a gun; you carry it however you damn well please.

NJ Accountant
February 3, 2011, 08:36 PM
+1 to the above

And Zoom read my whole post, I agree with you, people perception of carry should have nothing to do with it.

catnphx
February 3, 2011, 09:26 PM
AZ isn't done yet either ... there are many legislative bills on the docket that will make things even better here for the good guys. AZ, VT and AK might be the holy grail for gun ownership but each still has a ways to go ... they are just further along the path than most states. There is always another layer of the legislative onion that needs to be pulled back. The government has piled on so many layers of gun restrictions that it will take years to undo what they have done.

Good luck in whichever state you live.

TexasBill
February 4, 2011, 01:56 AM
[/B]

Why????? Calling the police on someone when you have no legitimate reason to believe he's committing or about to commit a crime is just plain pathetic and stupid. It's what the anti's do here in CA when people open carry anunloaded gun....merely for carrying the gun, they don't have any reason to believe a crime is being committed. Who are you to decide what he should and shouldn't be able to carry for self defense? Why bring the law into a situation where you're imposing your standards on what constitutes legit self defense tools when there's no reason to?
As for "an over-the-top Mall Ninja"......*** does he need a "serious talking-to" about, doing something that you don't approve of?

In my case (and I speaking strictly for myself), the mere carrying of the magazines wouldn't make me whip out the cell phone. And I am not talking about a person who is going about his business openly carrying a holstered pistol and a couple of magazines, high capacity or not, in a carrier. If we had open carry, that would be me. As I mentioned earlier, I have 20-round magazines for my Beretta PX4, so I could easily be carrying 61 rounds of 9 mm.

Heck, if someone wants to walk down the street with a fancy, tooled-leather two-gun rig, I might ask him to stop for a moment so I could admire it but that would be it.

Outside of that, a call would depend on the carrier's demeanor and actions. Lurking? Nervous? In the case of the Mall Ninja, acting like a total jerk? Believe it or not, there is a difference between open carrying for self-defense and dripping with ordnance.

And, yeah, I don't approve of total jerks who give all of us a bad name by going over the top. They're more ammo for the anti-gun crowd who already see all of us that way. Leave the fully stocked Molle vest at home.

But I wouldn't call the police if I didn't have some reason beyond the mere presence of a firearm and spare ammunition. Beyond not wanting to disturb the peace of a fellow traveler, it would be a waste of the cop's time and mine.

In California, some district attorneys and law enforcement agencies have adopted a policy of harassing lawful open carriers with repeated stops and over-aggressive approaches. I certainly haven't forgotten that one cop who "would prone them out" while covering the law-abiding open-carrier with an M16. BTW: He was later "disciplined" but he should have been relieved of his badge, job and pension as an example to others. It must give an anti a frisson of delight to be able to bring about the public humiliation of a person with whom they disagree.

But Californians are masters of their own fate. A look at the political leanings of California counties shows relatively small pockets of ultra-liberalism in a sea of moderate-to-conservative with significant areas of ultra-conservative. This indicates to me Californians are perfectly capable of electing representatives that will not only curtail the harassment but repeal the 1967 act that stripped Californians of their right to open carry loaded handguns. That law, signed by Ronald Reagan, was the direct result of an "invasion" of the state capitol by radicals exercising their right (at the time) to open carry loaded weapons into the capitol. In other words, the legislators felt threatened and, instead of making the capitol a no-carry zone, passed a law prohibiting the carrying of a loaded weapon.

I have been somewhat surprised, and rather disappointed, that lawsuits haven't been filed against either the state of California or the more hostile agencies for official oppression.

Nevertheless, the abuse of police power in one state does not mean one should not be watchful in another. I believe we call it "situational awareness."

The Lone Haranguer
February 4, 2011, 07:27 AM
No affront intended, but I fail to see practical utility in your proposal. Life is complicated enough without "tiered" carry permits. ;)

x_wrench
February 4, 2011, 08:39 AM
Criminal laws should regulate criminals - not law-abiding citizens :what::confused::eek:

MAN, WHAT A CONCEPT! maybe our GOVERNMENT should READ this post!

i have never been able to understand why the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens had to pay for what our criminal element does. this applies to all aspects of our lives, not just the firearm area. in other countries, they have public punishment, that is supposed to do two things. 1) it adds humiliation to the punishment, and 2) it shows the rest of their society what to expect if they are dumb enough to follow in the guilty persons footsteps. :cuss::banghead::fire:

stuckinsocal
February 4, 2011, 04:08 PM
In my case (and I speaking strictly for myself), the mere carrying of the magazines wouldn't make me whip out the cell phone. And I am not talking about a person who is going about his business openly carrying a holstered pistol and a couple of magazines, high capacity or not, in a carrier. If we had open carry, that would be me. As I mentioned earlier, I have 20-round magazines for my Beretta PX4, so I could easily be carrying 61 rounds of 9 mm.

Heck, if someone wants to walk down the street with a fancy, tooled-leather two-gun rig, I might ask him to stop for a moment so I could admire it but that would be it.

Outside of that, a call would depend on the carrier's demeanor and actions. Lurking? Nervous? In the case of the Mall Ninja, acting like a total jerk? Believe it or not, there is a difference between open carrying for self-defense and dripping with ordnance.

And, yeah, I don't approve of total jerks who give all of us a bad name by going over the top. They're more ammo for the anti-gun crowd who already see all of us that way. Leave the fully stocked Molle vest at home.

But I wouldn't call the police if I didn't have some reason beyond the mere presence of a firearm and spare ammunition. Beyond not wanting to disturb the peace of a fellow traveler, it would be a waste of the cop's time and mine.

In California, some district attorneys and law enforcement agencies have adopted a policy of harassing lawful open carriers with repeated stops and over-aggressive approaches. I certainly haven't forgotten that one cop who "would prone them out" while covering the law-abiding open-carrier with an M16. BTW: He was later "disciplined" but he should have been relieved of his badge, job and pension as an example to others. It must give an anti a frisson of delight to be able to bring about the public humiliation of a person with whom they disagree.

But Californians are masters of their own fate. A look at the political leanings of California counties shows relatively small pockets of ultra-liberalism in a sea of moderate-to-conservative with significant areas of ultra-conservative. This indicates to me Californians are perfectly capable of electing representatives that will not only curtail the harassment but repeal the 1967 act that stripped Californians of their right to open carry loaded handguns. That law, signed by Ronald Reagan, was the direct result of an "invasion" of the state capitol by radicals exercising their right (at the time) to open carry loaded weapons into the capitol. In other words, the legislators felt threatened and, instead of making the capitol a no-carry zone, passed a law prohibiting the carrying of a loaded weapon.

I have been somewhat surprised, and rather disappointed, that lawsuits haven't been filed against either the state of California or the more hostile agencies for official oppression.

Nevertheless, the abuse of police power in one state does not mean one should not be watchful in another. I believe we call it "situational awareness."


In that case, I agree with you. In your other post, it sounded like you'd call the police simply because of the method of carry and/or what he's carrying. I misunderstood that. There definitely needs to be a legitimate reason for calling the police.

As far as the Mall Ninja type goes, if it's a polite suggestion that he doesn't wear that type of gear, I'd be fine with that as long you didn't push the issue with him. I think there's a fine line between being so careful to not offend anybody and being bold in the exercise of our rights. For example, I've heard many people say that if you're going to open carry that you should dress semi casually (or at least not work clothes) so people won't get offended by a guy wearing a gun and dirty working clothes. That's not acceptance of the practice of a right...it's acceptance of a certain group's exercise of that right. Bottem line is that both talking to someone about not wearing Mall Ninja gear and wearing whatever gear you want needs to be done with tact and in a manner that doesn't cause damage to our cause.

And I agree with you about California. I live in California and I hate only having the options of openly carrying an unloaded gun (one reason I don't like Regan so much), or carrying an unloaded gun in a locked case. People- at least where I live in socal- are slowly becoming more accustomed to the idea of openly displayed firearms in public.

Every once in while conservative candidates will run for office and it'll actually a close race. A big problem is apathey...many conservative voters have the mentality that their one vote won't make a difference since there's so many libs, so they don't vote.

There are actually quite a few lawsuits going on against the state and county governments, mainly due to the Calguns Foundation. Slowly but surely more counties are becoming shall issue. There are, however, currently no lawsuits against the state of California to change the "may issue" laws..yet.

If you enjoyed reading about "Two tier Carry Permit System" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!