Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing


PDA






BSA1
September 21, 2013, 02:39 PM
The privilege to carry concealed weapons has been a hard and long fought battle that has resulted in practical concealed carry laws in most of the States. I rejoice in the victories we have scored in this very fundamental need for self-defense.

However I have a number of concerns about ( delete citizens and edited to civilians to clarify I am not discussing LEO's who are allowed to carry when off duty) being required to purchase permits to exercise their privilege of concealed carry and right of self-defense. They are the following;

It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.

Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female.

First as part of the process many States require the applicant to attend a class. This requires the applicant to incur travel expense.
Depending on when the class is held in may require them to take time off work. This may result in loss of income if their job does not provide benefits for PTO which many low paying and part time jobs do not have.
For single parent households the applicant must make arrangements for child care which may incur expenses in taking the child(ern) to the babysitter and paying the sitter to watch them.

The second part is a shooting range qualification. If it is held on a different day then all of issues with attending the first day occur again and double the cost of obtaining the permit. It also requires the applicant to purchase their own ammunition which for non-reloaders living on a fixed income may be expensive.

For all intents and purposes the fee is not different than POLL taxes that were used to prevent certain groups from being able to vote.

Reason; Can’t afford it? Step aside. Are there any States that allows the applicants to pay on a installment basis? Is the need for self-defense less because someone can’t afford the costs of getting a permit or during the period of time it may require for someone to save up enough money to obtain a permit?

It discriminates against the physically disabled.

Reason; It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents. For example consider the following types of disabilities;

The applicant is to physically too weak to shoot the arbitrary number of rounds (most often 50) to qualify. This is common due to age and/or disease. The general FBI statistic I see cited the most often is the typical shooting occurs at distance closer than 7 yards, less than 3 rounds and in low light.

Or the applicant lacks the physical mobility.

Or(delete comment "the applicant can not leave their home due to medical condition") to the applicant may not be able to leave their home long enough due to their medical condition to complete the requirements. For example a exception would be leaving their home for visits to the Doctor

Or the applicant is visually handicapped or legally blind.

Since the average gunfight occurs at less than 7 yards how is shooting at 10, 15 or longer distances relevant?

Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window.

Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?

I have not heard of any State requiring shooting in low light to be part of the qualification process. For those of you that have never shot on a range in low/dark light the results are, how shall I say it, very interesting. In this situation a blind or visually disabled person actually has an advantage!

It expands the power and size of Government.

Reason; Responsibility for issuing c.c. permits has to be assigned to a government agency. The agency in turn to develop policies and procedures, hire and train personnel to process permits and purchase office equipment and space.

By requiring permission of the State it makes concealed carry a privilege. Even in shall issue States the applicant must meet certain licensing criteria.

Reason; This is contrary to the concept cited in the Constitution that all men (Citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Ron Paul summarizes it much better than I can. He writes;

“The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.”

It is de facto registration of gun owners.

Reason; It creates a government database that lists all concealed carry owners and in some states even the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) they are permitted to carry.

It is very easily misused and lack of confidentially.

Reason; The are several instances in different states where the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders have be released to other Government agencies in direct violation of State law (Missouri for example) and where their names and addresses have been publicity published by the media.

It only places restrictions on the law-abiding.

Reason; Simply put criminals and those intent on not complying with the law will ignore it and carrying whatever and whenever they want.

C.C. permit holders, on the other hand, have to comply with a number of requirements and restrictions such as telling a LEO you are armed and not carrying it businesses and places where c.c. is not allowed.

In summary I believe in unrestricted no permit concealed carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NavyLCDR
September 21, 2013, 03:06 PM
But... but... however.... Oh, heck, no argument from me! :D

Also, the reason behind the very first pistol permit system, which was sponsored by "Big" Tim Sullivan and enacted in New York in 1911 was because the mobsters that were giving kickbacks to him and other corrupt politicians were starting to experience resistance from their victims who were starting to arm themselves and resist more and more. That's why New York's pistol permit was (and still is?) required to be signed by a judge and was not shall issue. The corrupt judge could then determine who did and did not get the permit which, I would imagine, was greatly affected by who the applicant was connected to or how much they paid. The first pistol permit system was enacted to disarm law abiding citizens, to protect the criminals, and to enable criminal acts - not reduce crime. All of which pistol permits still accomplish today.

http://nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

vamo
September 21, 2013, 03:16 PM
I am with you about 80% here. Yeah it can act as a form of registration, but a pretty poor one since the majority of gun owners don't actually have a carry permit.

I think the blind argument is a losing one. I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun. I know theres a lot of room between legally blind and completely blind, but lets just use the Always know your target and what is beyond rule if a person can't do that they shouldn't use a gun.

NavyLCDR
September 21, 2013, 03:20 PM
You watch, though, someone is going to come along and post, "Well, permits are good because I don't want just any untrained yahoo to be able to carry a gun in public and be a danger to everyone because they have no training....."

and then I will have to respond, "and can you show us where this is a problem in states like Washington, Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and many others where training is not required to get the permit or where no permit is even required to carry a gun?"

Just thought we could get that all out in one post ;)

NavyLCDR
September 21, 2013, 03:22 PM
I am with you about 80% here. Yeah it can act as a form of registration, but a pretty poor one since the majority of gun owners don't actually have a carry permit.

I think the blind argument is a losing one. I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun. I know theres a lot of room between legally blind and completely blind, but lets just use the Always know your target and what is beyond rule if a person can't do that they shouldn't use a gun.
If a blind person is being attacked, why can't they draw their firearm, press it into the body of their attacker and pull the trigger safely? If you had a daughter who was blind, would you rather she just be the victim of a violent rape, or would you rather she was able to carry a firearm to do just what I proposed?

Always know your target and what is beyond.... it is a day after a natural disaster, like the floods in Colorado. Your house is on a hill, so wasn't flooded, but is without power and no phone service. Late at night you are awakened by the sound of glass breaking or a door being kicked open. You investigate the noise with gun in hand in the darkness and discover an intruder rummaging through your stuff with a flashlight.

Or - how about what happened to my wife - I left for work one morning at 5 am and the criminal(s) had my house staked out. 5 minutes after I left they kicked my door in and entered my house. The front door is a straight shot right into our living room where my wife happened to be sitting in the dark at the time. Should she politely ask the perpetrator to step aside so she can check outside the door for bystanders before she shoots them?

herrwalther
September 21, 2013, 03:26 PM
By and large I agree, even though I didn't read the whole post word for word I got the basic idea. The only benefit of taking a CCW class is to demonstrate some sort of proficiency with a firearm. Now I am not saying that everyone who carries should be able to qualify for Top Shot in order to carry. But the basic understanding of how to load/unload, clean, trigger squeeze, sight picture, hand technique, holster selection etc are all important things to know about owning and carrying a firearm. I know far too many people who do not even know the makes and models of their firearms off the top of their head if they ask me for help shopping for one. For example
"Can you recommend a holster for my handgun?"
"Sure what do you have?"
"Sig 9mm"
"Alright which one"
"Uhhhh"

Basic knowledge goes a long way towards safely carrying a firearm.

MedWheeler
September 21, 2013, 03:34 PM
I believe in the concept of Constitutional Carry. However, since carry-licensing laws are already in place, I'll point out one benefit they have had.

Carry-licensing laws do our cause well in maintaining inarguable statistics on the growing number of people who are exercising lawful, firearms-carrying, lifestyles, without the doom and gloom the other side has always predicted.

Now, had Constitutional Carry been the norm from the get-go, I believe such statistics would never have been necessary.

BSA1
September 21, 2013, 04:06 PM
I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun.

So what you proposing is denying a entire class of citizens (in this case blind) from being to defend themselves with a firearm solely based on you perceive to be a disability. How much of a disability is a blind person at compared to a sighted person in the dark? Actually I submit a blind person has a significant advantage as they have spend a long time living in the dark (possibly their entire life) and have trained their other senses, especially hearing, to detect things sighted people can't.

But the basic understanding of how to load/unload, clean, trigger squeeze, sight picture, hand technique, holster selection etc are all important things to know about owning and carrying a firearm.

Is that a duty of the State (i.e. Government)?

vamo
September 21, 2013, 04:17 PM
So what you proposing is denying a entire class of citizens (in this case blind) from being to defend themselves with a firearm solely based on you perceive to be a disability. How much of a disability is a blind person at compared to a sighted person in the dark? Actually I submit a blind person has a significant advantage as they have spend a long time living in the dark (possibly their entire life) and have trained their other senses, especially hearing, to detect things sighted people can't.

Yes if you don't know what is beyond your target it is irresponsible to shoot a gun period.

Sam1911
September 21, 2013, 04:51 PM
We can pretty much divert the "guns for the blind" argument from derailing this one as we've got a really informative thread on it here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=728097

BSA1
September 21, 2013, 05:20 PM
Yes if you don't know what is beyond your target it is irresponsible to shoot a gun period.

Can you explain what that has to do with concealed carry permits?

Midwest
September 21, 2013, 05:25 PM
By and large I agree, even though I didn't read the whole post word for word I got the basic idea. The only benefit of taking a CCW class is to demonstrate some sort of proficiency with a firearm. Now I am not saying that everyone who carries should be able to qualify for Top Shot in order to carry. But the basic understanding of how to load/unload, clean, trigger squeeze, sight picture, hand technique, holster selection etc are all important things to know about owning and carrying a firearm. I know far too many people who do not even know the makes and models of their firearms off the top of their head if they ask me for help shopping for one.

Basic knowledge goes a long way towards safely carrying a firearm.
Except for one thing...Here in Kentucky we can OPEN CARRY without a permit, we need no training to OPEN CARRY, we don't need government permission for OPEN CARRY, we don't need to pay $160 for the right to OPEN CARRY, we don't need to wait 2 months for a permit to OPEN CARRY, we don't need permission to carry a loaded gun in our glove compartment, center console, or in any factory installed compartment in the car.


However ...Lord help us the minute we cover that same gun with a piece of cloth...we better have the 8 hr training, the $160 in fees, the background checks, the pictures of us, the 2 month wait and our name tied to the state database (checked monthly) and the piece of paper saying that we are 'ok' to cover a gun with a piece of cloth....

A piece of cloth...........

Onward Allusion
September 21, 2013, 06:44 PM
It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.

It discriminates against the physically disabled.

I pretty much agree with all of your arguments. The two above makes my blood boil. Anyone disagreeing need to walk a mile...as the saying goes.

A number of years ago, I'd asked a colleague in Texas why he doesn't have his CCW. His response was that he just had a kid, moved, his wife is now a stay at home mom, and that there is no way in hell he could afford the $400 for the fees & training for his permit. What? He shouldn't be able to protect his family outside the home just because he can't fork over the $400?

How about IL? Yeah, they got "Shall Issue", but how much is it going to cost the average person? A buck & a half for the permit and another buck & a half for the training class? $300 just to be able to defend yourself outside the home? Might as well tell the poor folks that they have no right to defend themselves legally with a firearm outside their property. Oh wait, it was just ruled unconstitutional by the IL Supreme Court...

Some States have such a challenging set of live-round qualifications that not many people with Parkinson's, Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis or any other number of physical disability would be able to pass. Hell, even someone who got into a really bad car accident might not be able to pass. Do those people not deserve to be able to defend themselves outside the home?

I could be a poster child for the physical disability thing. I had sudden quadruple bypass about 6 weeks ago (yeah, that's why I didn't post for about 3 weeks & thank the Lord that it wasn't preceded by a heart attack). There would be no way in hell that I could pass the qualification portion of the CCW class in MANY States. AND I wouldn't be able to pass for probably 6 months after my surgery. I know this because I've gone to the range last week and it was a physical challenge just to lift and hold my pistol while maintaining a modified Weaver stance. My performance was crap... When they break your sternum and cut you open, it is hell trying to put your arms together while trying to lift something directly straight in front of you. So what? I shouldn't be able to protect myself outside my home until I could qualify???

vamo
September 21, 2013, 06:45 PM
an you explain what that has to do with concealed carry permits?

You were the person that brought up the subject. My point is you are going to sound absolutely insane to fence sitters and otherwise logical anti gun people if your argument is permitting is unfair to blind people.

Sam1911
September 21, 2013, 06:52 PM
My point is you are going to sound absolutely insane to fence sitters and otherwise logical anti gun people if your argument is permitting is unfair to blind people.Again, please go read the thread I linked which explains the matter completely. Let's not sidetrack this thread with that explanation.

Gordon
September 21, 2013, 07:36 PM
I don't know about the rest of the talking points, I'll leave that to the cone heads BUT I sure as well KNOW
"
Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window."

"Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?"
- is pure BS in the real world I been in and around. So your information FACTS are flawed from the outset.

Solo
September 21, 2013, 07:38 PM
Or the applicant can not leave their home due to medical condition.You may want to remove this one; if a patient cannot leave his home, he won't be carrying concealed.

BSA1
September 21, 2013, 07:42 PM
Midwest,

That is a very good point about Open Carrying. It is the same way here in the Land of Oz.

40-82
September 21, 2013, 07:44 PM
BSA1,

I agree with your sentiments, but if we had gone for our rights as defined in the U.S. Constitution or even as defined in our own Virginia Constitution, we would have lost, as I suspect most people in most states would have lost. Our concealed weapons laws represent a huge victory, and each year we chip away and gain back recognition of a few more of our rights.

The battle in Virginia is not necessarily that easy. We have two anti-gun U.S. Senators. The state went for Obama in the last election, and in the urban eastern and northern sections of the state, the average person may not understand why anyone but a criminal would want to carry a gun, and even many of the people who feel the need to be armed have been so indoctrinated against individual rights for so long that they fear the social consequences of carrying a gun more than they fear a criminal attack. Yet, with all this against us each year in the legislature, we continue to chip away and gain a little more recognition for our rights.

hso
September 21, 2013, 09:17 PM
Permits have never made any statistically important impact on crime.

Criminals carry regardless of permits so a permit system plays no role in preventing crime to any significant extent.

Mentally incompetent individuals are a statistically insignificant group in firearms related crimes so a permit system restricting them has no value in a population the size of ours.

Permits as a means of meaningfully stopping improper use of firearms is a fiction.

Frank Ettin
September 21, 2013, 10:06 PM
...Permits as a means of meaningfully stopping improper use of firearms is a fiction.But the political reality is that in many States a permit requirement is the political price for concealed carry. The political climate in only a relatively few States will be congenial to Constitutional Carry.

Old Dog
September 21, 2013, 10:33 PM
OP claimed: It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window.
Huh? Say what? Really? Well established by whom? Statements such as that might seem to immediately rob the original post of any credibility whatsoever.

I currently reside in a state that doesn't require its citizens to obtain any training as a condition of getting a CPL, and I have zero problems with that, but please, don't go throwing up bogus facts in an effort to support your argument.

Midwest
September 21, 2013, 10:37 PM
People should keep trying for constitutional carry in their respective states. I know we tried passing it here in Kentucky, I believe in New Hampshire they tried to pass it and Montana was said to have tried passing it.

As I understand it Montana is almost constitutional carry. I believe it is in the cities that a permit is needed for concealed carry while the rest of the state is constitutional carry. That is an interesting approach although of course full constitutional carry would be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry#Montana

"In addition to Montana's concealed weapons permit system, state law allows for Constitutional Carry through an exemption to the ban on carrying concealed weapons outside the official boundaries of a city or town.[14] In 2011 Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) which would have expanded it to all areas of the state.[11]"

BSA1
September 22, 2013, 12:38 AM
Old Dog,

There are volumes, and I mean literally volumes, of incidents where the fundamentals of shooting and marksmanship go out the window when the shooting starts.

it is very well documented in shootings involving LEO's and is covered in police academies across the nation. By whom how about the FBI for starters.

I personally know of one such incident.

Don't believe me. Read articles and books by Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith, Jeff Cooper or attend a shooting course at Gunsite or any other of the respected shooting schools.

You don't want to believe those respected trainers just read the newspapers. A quick search of google of NYPD shootings alone gave me these results;

Officer #1 fires one shot and Officer #2 fires two shots at suspect. All three shots miss the suspect but the cops manage to hit two bystanders. Heck the perp didn't even have a gun. He had 'simulated' a gun with his hands.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/shots-fired-times-square-bystander-struck-article-1.1456418

Here's even a better one involving NYPD's finest. Officer #1 fired 39 rounds and Officer #2 fired 45 rounds for a total of 84 rounds at one suspect hitting him 14 times. (er, that means they MISSED 70 TIMES). According to the report the suspect even after being shot 14 times still refused to drop his gun. And the suspect lived to stand trial!
http://newyorkcityguns.com/2012/04/two-nypd-cops-fire-84-rounds-at-murder-suspect/

These are only two incidents. When I typed in "New York police fire multiple rounds at suspect" I had 9,920,000 results!!!

Still don't believe me. Research data from the U.S. Army and Marines training programs.

I stand by my statement "Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window'"and "It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents."

Please feel free to cite any author, case studies or articles that you feel prove your position.

mljdeckard
September 22, 2013, 01:01 AM
There is an actual cost associated with getting the permit. The majority of Utah's fee goes to the federal background check. And it takes someone some time to crank that card through the laminator.

It can be said that accepting the permit process is an admission that carrying is a privilege rather than a right. However, look at it this way. If, 25 years ago, we had insisted on Constitutional Carry rather than carry permits, where would we be now? We have used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them. They might have been suspicious, asking; "Oh sure. NOW they only want carry permits. But where does it lead? Eventually they will be asserting the right to carry WITHOUT a permit!" to which we would have replied; "Don't be silly. We are thrilled to death to submit to a background check and pay a small fee to get to be able to carry a gun in public!" It was the concealed carry revolution that gained us enough real estate to even BEGIN to talk about Constitutional Carry. WE weren't even thinking that way when this all started.

So, yes, we can agree that Constitutional Carry is the goal here, but it must also be acknowledged that the reason we are where we are now is because of carry permits.

Sam1911
September 22, 2013, 01:09 AM
I stand by my statement "Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window'"and "It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents."

Perhaps there's a bit of a disconnect here in what we're actually saying or think we're discussing.

"Range marksmanship and skill," if referring to bullseye-type "square range" shooting certainly may have little effect on a shooter's performance in a gun fight -- which has little similarity at all to stand-and-deliver marksmanship.

However, you do fight as you train. Practical training and practice in dynamic defensive scenario shooting may be a critical factor in whether a shooter prevails or fails when he has to draw his gun defensively.

two gun charlie
September 22, 2013, 04:03 AM
hehehehe here in the united states of south africa you are encouraged to carry concealed , only and idiot would open carry here and I agree with the op it's just downright ridiculous.
Concealed carry is just so much better in so many ways .

firstly what people don't see doesn't bother them , so if they can't see you are carrying a gun they won't be making a fuss about it.

secondly if criminals can't see you are carrying a gun they won't target you for it.

thirdly if criminals can't see you are packing heat they won't be preparing themselves for a hard target and you will have the benefit in the event of an attack

fourth point , if you walk into a violent situation and you are surprised you have a choice not to draw your weapon and ESCALATE the situation , you can wait for a better opportunity , with open carry you will be compromised because everybody will see you are a carrying a gun and the people perpetrating the violence will actually target you.

and that is my five cents worth :)

MaterDei
September 22, 2013, 04:25 AM
Great essay. I agree 100%.

BSA1
September 22, 2013, 10:53 AM
You may want to remove this one; if a patient cannot leave his home, he won't be carrying concealed.

Solo,

Touche'.

Point well taken.

Perhaps a clearer statement is the person may not be able to leave their home long enough due to their medical condition to complete the requirements. For example a exception would be leaving their home for visits to the Doctor.

BSA1
September 22, 2013, 10:58 AM
However, you do fight as you train.

In the case of the NYPD shootings it gives rise to the question of how Officers are trained. In theory, at least, LEO's are trained how to react in combat situations whereas many, and I think it is fair say, most civilians do not have any such training. (I don't think military combat tactics apply well to most civilian situations especially since most soldiers since The Southeast War Games in the '60's have not seen combat).

j1
September 22, 2013, 11:19 AM
If you cannot afford a pistol permit carry a good knife. No knife permits yet.

Eldraque
September 22, 2013, 11:29 AM
Here in Florida it cost me a total $175, and the license is good for 7 years. Thats $25 a year. Seems reasonably priced to me.


<-->

40-82
September 22, 2013, 11:32 AM
BSAI,

I think, if I understand what you're saying, you're making a subtle point about training. You're saying that a great many people, despite their shooting backgrounds, may not be as well prepared as they think they are. Surely, you're not going so far as to say that familiarity with firearms and practice shooting is a waste of time because under pressure you'll forget it all anyway. It seems to me that any kind of familiarity with firearms is better than nothing, and the right kind of training is invaluable--not that I would presume to define for anyone else exactly what kind of training has value.

Sam1911
September 22, 2013, 12:47 PM
In the case of the NYPD shootings it gives rise to the question of how Officers are trained. In theory, at least, LEO's are trained how to react in combat situations whereas many, and I think it is fair say, most civilians do not have any such training.

OMG, you've never shot or trained with police officers have you? :D :D :D

Trust me, you wouldn't want to go armed with only the training that most of them get and/or skill they possess, and NY seems to be best of the worst from some personal experience I've had training with their officers and hearing about their home training programs.

Old Dog
September 22, 2013, 01:38 PM
I see the OP edited his original statement a bit.

Then this:
There are volumes, and I mean literally volumes, of incidents where the fundamentals of shooting and marksmanship go out the window when the shooting starts.One could otherwise posit that when this happens, it only serves to reflect that the fundamentals of shooting and marksmanship were never mastered.

For the record, Mr BSA1, I have read probably almost everything Mas Ayoob, Clint Smith and Jeff Cooper ever wrote. And since I have worked for many years as a firearms instructor for a large law enforcement agency, I will continue to strongly disagree with this statement:
It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window'which seems to imply that everyone -- everyone! -- involved in self-defense situations "forgets" the basic skills and fundamentals they've learned, resulting in mostly misses and innocent bystanders being shot.

Certainly, anyone who has actually read Mssrs. Ayoob, Smith and Cooper would not agree that their writings support your ridiculous contention. And using the worst examples of NYPD officer-involved shootings to "document" your case? C'mon, now. For every ugly example you could possibly come up with, I'm pretty sure with a little actual research you could come up with a hundred examples of law enforcement officers expertly applying skills and fundamentals in righteously shooting their intended targets.

Now, if the OP had stated that one's being able to punch small groups of holes in paper targets from a static position on a range at seven yards, with no bullets coming back at one, has little or no bearing on one's ability to successfully defend one's self in a real, life-or-death scenario, I might agree.

Pistola
September 22, 2013, 01:50 PM
I agree... mostly.

Buzznrose
September 22, 2013, 02:10 PM
Great post OP! Thanks...

BSA1
September 22, 2013, 09:58 PM
Old Dog,

Your comments about the excellent firearms training of your department, the superior marksmanship of all of it's officers and the high quality of training you gave them as a Instructor only serve as a exception of the rule.

However the topic of my post is about my reasons why I object to concealed carry permits for civilians (and those law enforcement agencies that do not allow their officers to carry when off duty.)

Based on your comments I edited my original post from citizens to civilians. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Perhaps you could take the time to start a new thread about the training program you taught in your department. I'm sure it will be of interest.

Old Dog
September 22, 2013, 10:30 PM
Pardon me, but are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you not actually read my remarks? I said nothing about my department's training, which is probably about average for our region; I merely pointed out that you are wrong when saying that there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that shooting fundamentals and marksmanship automatically go out the window during real-life shooting incidents.

For the record, however, I'll say that it's my belief that anyone who decides to carry a firearm for self-defense/defense of home and family should avail themselves of all the training they can afford or find the time for ... Should the state mandate this? I don't believe so.

At this point, I'm not even sure what your real position is, since in one thread, you argue for willing registration of firearms, yet in another, argue against the state's licensing carry permits.

You seem to be arguing that because it's your belief that anyone involved in a defensive shooting will default to zero, why should the state mandate a level of training?

Atom Smasher
September 22, 2013, 10:41 PM
Pretty much the only reason I've not gotten my permit is the cost. I can't justify spending that money when I already spend too much on guns as it is, and with a kid on the way it's a little harder to feel good about spending that extra cash. You'll get no argument from me!

HankR
September 23, 2013, 01:38 PM
Let's just start at the top:

It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.

Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes;


It doesn't have to be expensive (in my state, less than a pre-Obama brick of .22lr for 5 years), and how could it ever be more expensive for low income people? That doesn't make any sense at all.


First as part of the process many States require the applicant to attend a class.

Not always required, not an integral part of the licensing

(lots of "many", "may", "ifs" skipped over)


The second part is a shooting range qualification.

Not always required, not an integral part of the CCW process.

So basically, you don't like the way a couple of states handle the process and are therefore against the process in its entirety? I would prefer Vermont style, but your arguments fail to make the case.

Sam1911
September 23, 2013, 01:51 PM
It doesn't have to be expensive (in my state, less than a pre-Obama brick of .22lr for 5 years), and how could it ever be more expensive for low income people? That doesn't make any sense at all.Not costing more dollars for low income people. I think it was pretty clear he meant costing a larger percentage of their available funds. E.g.: To some of us a Mercedes is a very expensive car. For others it isn't.

I agree that some states present less of these burdens than others (mine, like yours, is almost no burden at all) but they are burdens which should not exist regardless.

Unfortunately most states are much more burdensome than yours or mine making his arguments fairly compelling to the residents of a great many states.

Those specific arguments don't speak to the very most fundamental reasons to oppose required licensing, of course, but many arguments may help win the point.

krupparms
September 23, 2013, 07:55 PM
As a disabled person living on a fixed income I would have to agree with most of the OP.s original post. But I would also disagree with some of the statements made about training going out the window at the first sign of trouble! And the statement about veterans not seeing action. As an open carry advocate in my state, one of the reasons most citizens say they don't get one is the cost of the permit! The second reason is the red tape that intrudes into our lives. Constitutional Carry Should be our next goal! But people are right, We Have Come ALONG WAY! Just my thoughts on the subject.

RandyRay41
September 23, 2013, 09:29 PM
This whole thread should be a moot point. Politicians have picked away at the 2nd amendment to the point where "infringed" should just be removed.

BSA1
September 23, 2013, 10:34 PM
Old Dog,

Let's keep the discussion civil and avoid name calling.

Since you state you disagree with me about training being forgotten in a gunfight and have cited your experience as a Instructor I suggest you start your thread on that topic and have a separate discussion. I, for one, would be interested in reading about your knowledge and experiences.

This way we can stay keep the topic of my post on track.

answerguy
September 23, 2013, 10:56 PM
There is an actual cost associated with getting the permit. The majority of Utah's fee goes to the federal background check. And it takes someone some time to crank that card through the laminator.

Are you sure about that? Isn't the federal background check free when you purchase a weapon at a gun store? So how expensive could it be when you are getting a permit?

BSA1
September 23, 2013, 10:56 PM
RandyRay41,

The banning of concealed carry extends way back into the 1800's with towns in the West banned carrying of firearms to convince rich bankers back East that their community was progressive and safe enough for safe investments.

It has been essentially a uphill battle since then. We lost some battles this year and in some states concealed carry for the population does not exist. In addition c.c. laws vary greatly from state to state. I find Delawares requirements a c.c. premit to be, well, very interesting.

The anti-2A are never going to stop their attacks. However the more reasons we can come up to change things like Conceal Carry Laws helps us to be more convincing with policy makers.

jrod
September 23, 2013, 11:06 PM
+1 for the comment SAM1911 made on LEO training.

NavyLCDR
September 24, 2013, 12:49 AM
If you cannot afford a pistol permit carry a good knife. No knife permits yet.
Many states and cities make it illegal to carry a knife. In Seattle it is against the law to carry any fixed blade knife, and any folding knife with a blade over 3 1/2" even if the person has a Concealed Pistol License!

NavyLCDR
September 24, 2013, 12:54 AM
Here in Florida it cost me a total $175, and the license is good for 7 years. Thats $25 a year. Seems reasonably priced to me.


<-->
This is part of the problem, IMHO. This whole idea of "reasonable regulation" that we have been led to believe is "reasonable". The Federal government will not allow any state to charge even $25 to vote because that infringes upon people's right to vote that might not be able to afford such a fee - even if charged under the excuse of paying for everything required for polling places and to run the election. So why is any tax on the right to bear arms "reasonable"?

Frank Ettin
September 24, 2013, 01:15 AM
...So why is any tax on the right to bear arms "reasonable"?On the other hand courts have upheld fees for a permit required to hold a public assembly.

The bottom line is that it is established law that some limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right is permissible. The exact scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment is still to be worked out in the courts.

Cosmoline
September 24, 2013, 02:45 PM
The state level CCW revolution has been a huge leap forward for gun rights. It's not perfect, but it beats the heck out of the anti-CCW laws that existed before! Folks seem to forget, back in the "good old days" it was almost universally illegal to carry a concealed firearm.

HankR
September 24, 2013, 04:47 PM
Exactly right Cosmo. We now need to take a page from the anti's playbook and "compromise" to get them better and better. I wish the CCW wasn't necessary, and would prefer Vermont style in all 50 states, but if we have to have the license I don't think $10-15 for 5 years, no training, only a typical 4473 background check, temporary license issued on the spot is so onerous.

If your state charges too much, lobby to bring it down. If they have a burdensome training requirement, lobby to do away with it.

goon
September 24, 2013, 08:43 PM
I think the blind argument is a losing one. I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun. I know theres a lot of room between legally blind and completely blind, but lets just use the Always know your target and what is beyond rule if a person can't do that they shouldn't use a gun.

Realistically, the argument against blind carry is like an argument against being probed by aliens.
Being shot by a blind person is just about statistically impossible and even if it does happen to you, no one will believe you.


Seriously though, what percentage of the population carries to begin with? Maybe 10%? So on top of that, what percentage of blind people carry? What percentage of blind people ever need to fire a shot in self-defense?
Now after all of that, what is your chance of being hit by a stray round fired by a blind person?

The blind person thing is a great issue for Piers Morgan to sling out when he wants to rail against something, but in the real world, it's practically a non-issue.

I mostly agree with BSA1 on the premise of CCW licensing though. It restricts a right and discriminates not only against certain groups, but also against anyone who just has a job and a shortage of time. Even in my home state of PA, which isn't too bad for gun laws, it still sucks.
First, as I recall, you need a couple character references. What if you just moved to PA and don't know anyone yet? Does that make it OK for criminals to rape you because you can't carry for defense? Especially when you can pass a background check?
Second, although the fee is only $26 for five years and there is no training requirement, you still have to find time to go jump through the hoops to get your permit.

DNS
September 24, 2013, 09:09 PM
I personally think licensing is good thing.

Living in a free society still requires certain things of the people in it. Licensing to drive a car, build a house, be a doctor, fly a plane, treating your drinking water; seems like a good thing right?

Why should carrying a firearm in public be any different? Imho showing proficiency and basic understanding of the laws is a must. I'm fairly certain I'll be in the minority on this one though.:D

NavyLCDR
September 24, 2013, 09:24 PM
I personally think licensing is good thing.

Living in a free society still requires certain things of the people in it. Licensing to drive a car, build a house, be a doctor, fly a plane, treating your drinking water; seems like a good thing right?

Why should carrying a firearm in public be any different? Imho showing proficiency and basic understanding of the laws is a must. I'm fairly certain I'll be in the minority on this one though.:D

Would you be in favor of a government license required to attend church? After all there are dangerous, extremists church groups in this world. Would you be in favor of a government license required to post on the internet? People use the internet to commit crimes with. Just curious.

How about a 4th or 5th amendment license? You pay for the government to do a background check on you, and you get a good guy card. When a police officer stops a person for a traffic stop, they are allowed to search the car for contraband and evidence of a crime committed, unless you have paid the government for your 4th amendment card which you can show the officer to prevent them from searching your vehicle without consent. Think of the advantage that would have on getting all those illegal drugs and guns off the street, if Law Enforcement was just able to search anyone's vehicle that didn't have a 4th amendment license!

It's all about public safety, right? Think about how much safer we would be if it wasn't for things like the 4th amendment getting in the way of law enforcement looking for evidence of a crime being committed. Wouldn't society be so much better if the criminals could not exercise their 4th or 5th amendment rights? And think about the benefits of training! How many people have no idea how to exercise their 4th amendment rights! They could teach things like "Officer, are you detaining me?" and "No, officer, I do not consent to this search" as a requirement to get your 4th amendment license!

Oh, here's one. How about a license required to get through airport security to fly on a commercial plane? You know - you pay $85 and submit your fingerprints to the TSA, and they give you an ID card in return good for 5 years so that you don't have to do silly things like take off your shoes, or take your laptop out of your bag at airport screening. That would be a good one, right?
http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck

BSA1
September 24, 2013, 11:39 PM
DNS,

The heart of concealed carry licensing is you are surrendering your ability and right for self-defense to the Government.

To carry your belief that gun owners should have to pass a test before being issued a c.c. permit than why not require all gun owners to be licensed and have to pass a test before being allowed to buy a gun as more accidents occur in the home? And since various types of small arms operate differently than shouldn't the buyer be required to take a test each time they purchase a gun?

None of the things you mentioned are guaranteed in either the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The right to self-defense is.

HexHead
September 24, 2013, 11:53 PM
There should be no permits. It should not be a crime to carry a gun you passed a background check to buy. Carrying a gun should not be an issue if you are acting in a lawful manner. Using that gun to commit a criminal offense should carry stiff penalties. Adding a charge of carrying a gun should be unnecessary.

DNS
September 25, 2013, 11:45 PM
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.

NavyLCDR
September 26, 2013, 01:29 AM
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.

Here's the problem with your logic, DNS. The Concealed Carry permit requirement is only going to affect one group of people - those people that are responsible enough to obey the law. The Concealed Carry permit requirement is not going to affect the group of people that you are concerned about - if they aren't responsible enough to know the basics about owning a firearm, then they more than likely won't be responsible to get the permit - especially if you keep increasing the prerequisites and cost to get the permit.

In all of the states where we have no training required for the permit, or no permit required to carry a gun, there simply is no increased issue with irresponsible people carrying guns - because the permit system isn't going to affect them anyway - it is only going to affect the already responsible people. It's funny, you say, "I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm." and yet you have all the faith in the world in them to obey a permit law.

j1
September 27, 2013, 10:07 AM
It has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The same could be said of almost any fee or charge.

PedalBiker
September 27, 2013, 10:44 AM
http://www.9news.com/news/article/357127/339/Fatal-crash-kills-1-near-CSU-campus

Tell me about licenses DNS.

I put in 4000 miles per year on a bicycle. I'd love to discuss licensing with you.

This is the second fatality in Fort Collins in just two weeks. Both were due to what is most likely criminal negligence on the part of the offending drivers.

xfyrfiter
September 27, 2013, 03:55 PM
Driving a car and carrying a firearm are subjects for different questions, as one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other is a privilige granted by the separate states.

goon
September 28, 2013, 06:52 PM
Licensing makes us all safer...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/driver-plows-crowd-venice-beach-boardwalk-article-1.1417146

except when it makes no difference at all.

But if knowing that people are "vetted" by the state and deemed safe to operate potentially dangerous devices makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then good for you I guess.

beatledog7
September 28, 2013, 07:23 PM
A license or permit is granted to the holder as official permission to do something by some authority, generally government at some level.

So, in an awful lot of areas, if we say we want some activity to be licensed we are actually saying that we want government to be in charge of who can legally do it and who can't. I don't know about you, but I'm less than certain that government at any level is worthy of such trust.

HighExpert
September 28, 2013, 07:31 PM
I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on. Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle. I have both a VA and a FL permit. The one change I want is total reciprocity. If I am cool to carry here why shouldn't I be there?

Sam1911
September 28, 2013, 07:41 PM
If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.Uh, how? I mean, if he knows that pretty much EVERYONE is legal to carry, how would that mean he's got more problems to resolve than having to run a permit.

Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle.Good heavens! How often do you get pulled over? Everyone seems to get tagged once every 5 or 10 years or so -- I get that. But "not worth the hassle" would seem to require an insanely high frequency of traffic violations. Once or even twice a year wouldn't make it "not worth the hassle" and that's a LOT of tickets!

I have both a VA and a FL permit. The one change I want is total reciprocity. If I am cool to carry here why shouldn't I be there?Heck, if you're cool to BUY and OWN a gun, why shouldn't you be COOL to have it with you wherever you are?

BSA1
September 29, 2013, 12:28 AM
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.

DNS,

Since you don't trust me is their any reason for me to trust you?

Since we mutually do not trust each other then shouldn't I have the right to protect myself from whatever nefarious intentions you have?

goon
September 29, 2013, 12:34 AM
The premise of DNS' argument only works in an ideal world where everyone follows the law.
You can have little faith in you fellow man... but that doesn't stop the truly bad people from carrying. Permit or not, if they want to rob you, they're gonna carry a Glock and they're gonna stick it in your face. That's that.

Permits only affect people who aren't carrying illegally anyhow. They don't make you safer and only serve to inconvenience those who are no threat to anyone anyway.

NavyLCDR
September 29, 2013, 03:33 AM
Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle.

What is the first thing the officer says once he gets your driver's license during a traffic stop? With me it has been, "Let me go run this and I'll be right back." or in about 50% of the cases, "Let me go run this, and if there isn't anything else, we'll let you go with a warning."

Do police officers just assume your driver's license is valid because you give it to them and tell them or imply that it is? NO. So tell me again how a pistol permit is going to change anything?

I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.

Hmmm... the 4th amendment says that I am innocent until proven guilty, and the 4th amendment also makes it illegal for police to detain me in order to attempt to obtain evidence of a crime unless they have a reasonable suspicion to do so. So, what you are saying, in essence, is that the mere act of carrying a gun, by itself, absent all other factors, is suspicion that the person is carrying it illegally.

Like I asked in an earlier post. Would it be a good thing to apply the same standard to the 4th amendment? You pay a fee for a background check and for the government to issue you a 4th amendment permit that entitles you to refuse consent to a warrantless search. You know - less hassle for the officer when he stops you. If you don't have your 4th amendment permit with you, all the officer has to say is get out of the car and open the trunk, I am going to search for evidence of a crime being committed and you must comply, unless you can show me your 4th amendment permit/license.

Would that be OK with you too? And, if not, why are you all good with applying the same standard to carrying a gun?

Torian
September 29, 2013, 10:51 AM
I do not believe the government should be able to insert themselves between citizens and their lawful exercising of Constitutional rights. The fees, paperwork, fingerprints, training, invasion of privacy (depending the state), wait times, and having to explain WHY you deserve a CHL, all constitute a certain amount of "infringement" to me.

A database of CCW holders (to include registration in some states) is simply too ripe for abuse by any gun grabbing politicians that decide to come after gun owners at a later date. The attitude of POTUS in politicizing mass-shootings in order to further anti 2nd amendment agenda is a perfect example of how politicians don't respect the Constitution, and can't be trusted to preserve our rights.

In reference to DNA's post:
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.

Your moral judgments on your fellow Americans are completely irrelevant and hold zero bearing to their right to own and bear arms. Blanket assumptions based on general experiences and limited interactions with certain groups of individuals are pretty much baseless in my book.

BSA1
September 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.

How the heck did I get so old and dumb???

When I worked the streets I assumed that the occupants of all vehicles I stopped were armed and dangerous and conducted myself accordingly until I was satisfied otherwise.

As all as they didn't pull their gun on me I really didn't (and still don't) consider them having a gun on them or in their vehicle as a "problem".

Resist Evil
September 29, 2013, 01:40 PM
I agree with the premise that prohibitive gun laws are no more than a tool to enable an ignoble government and its minions to operate freely without fear of their victim's ability to fight back effectively.

The government and its obsequious attendants both are terrified of the prospect that uppity citizens would dare to live free and take responsibility for their freedom. They might even dare to think for themselves, rise up, and fight back against oppression. Can't have that, now can we Jim Crow?

Is it possible to believe that laws, including permitting processes, designed to prevent crimes that might happen are less effective in society than laws which surely, certainly, and in a timely manner punish actual criminal behavior?

Do citizens actually need to be issued permits to be certified as safe to exercise their rights in society by their government? Now it's about permits to enjoy the Second Amendment-recognized right. What's next and how much is that going to cost us?

I might be more in favor of a poll tax (or other poll requirement) than a CC permit because certainly irresponsible voters are more dangerous to society than the possibility of irresponsible gun owners. Just kidding.

Mostly. ;)

beatledog7
September 29, 2013, 02:22 PM
Resist Evil, I'm on the same page except for the poll tax. I'd be for a test, maybe, to see of the voter has a clue about who and what is on the ballot.

BSA1
September 29, 2013, 02:50 PM
Resist Evil, I'm on the same page except for the poll tax. I'd be for a test, maybe, to see of the voter has a clue about who and what is on the ballot.

Interesting comment.

The Declaration of Independence states;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This powerful statement clearly means our Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of better, educated ruling class.

On the other hand voting is not a right but merely a privilege. A such the Government can restrict the voting rights of any person they wish. First let's get rid of the low-information voter, then extremists such as gun owners who do not believe in registering their firearms.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

beatledog7
September 29, 2013, 03:35 PM
I'm not suggesting we should actually have a voter test, but it is arguable that the ballot box has not truly given us "government of the people, by the people, for the people." I grant that the Gettysburg Address is not the law of the land, but neither is the Declaration of Independence.

We vote, but the elected do not do our will. Many voters get their information about candidates from TV ads in which all they learn is why the guy who's campaign didn't buy the ad is supposedly a creep. Candidates say just about anything to gain office then spend their legislative terms giving paybacks and making reelection their top priority.

This powerful statement clearly means our Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of better, educated ruling class.

There's nobody more opposed to an American ruling class than I am, but that is what we have.

On the other hand voting is not a right but merely a privilege. A such the Government can restrict the voting rights of any person they wish.

It is a right inasmuch as the Constitution prescribes vast categories of people for whom it cannot be denied. It is not a right in the same way as those spelled out in the Bill of Rights (which include uninfringed RKBA and are law) or those described in the Declaration (which are not law). For those who have it, it can't be taken without due process.

First let's get rid of the low-information voter, then extremists such as gun owners who do not believe in registering their firearms.

How would you get rid of the low-information voter? I would educate him. As for those "extremist" gun owners, I'd say they're just the ones that read the Constitution and can recognize that "shall not" doesn't mean, "OK, a little bit, when the rulers say so".

annanake
September 29, 2013, 04:02 PM
Arizona baby, no permit required although I still kept mine so I can carry on federal land and in other states that allow with AZ permit. when the law first came out I was worried as a few people I knew who really shouldn't carry started, but they got bored with it in a few months and stopped carrying and I believe both got rid of there guns as well .

and as for low info voters I used to get pissed at these people then I realized in a democracy
majority rules well the majority of Americans are uninformed and just care about when breaking bad , and duck dynasty are on next so they vote and we get what we get.

also uncorrupted democracy is impossible money will (almost) always talk i.e.

I am at a red light my father is with me when I was little he used to "count my ribs" cuz he knew I was ticklish.
anyway my friend is with us in the back seat

because my dad is old and coggedy im getting him back messing with him whilke were waiting at the red light he tells me to stop and I say "well this is democracy lets vote on it I vote I mess with you all day" , I say my dad , " I vote you leave me alone." I ask my friend his vote and my father chimes in "do you want to stop for burgers im buying " knowing my friend is a burger junky so my friend patting my dad on the shoulder " I vote you leave him alone."

see even in the smallest possible group the pay off gets the win .

Old Dog
September 29, 2013, 04:36 PM
I agree with the premise that prohibitive gun laws are no more than a tool to enable an ignoble government and its minions to operate freely without fear of their victim's ability to fight back effectively.I think you give the government too much credit. Perhaps in the post-Civil War period, and again during Prohibition, the Great Depression ... "Its minions?" Do you really think that at the highest levels of government, the leadership sits around and discusses ways to disarm the citizenry because of a fear of the citizens fighting back effectively? Do you really believe these same government officials consider us, the citizenry, "victims?" In my experience, most that go into government service do so in the belief that they are truly protecting us ... the control issues simply evolve naturally, but it's not out of fear.

The government and its obsequious attendants both are terrified of the prospect that uppity citizens would dare to live free and take responsibility for their freedom. They might even dare to think for themselves, rise up, and fight back against oppression
"Obsequious attendants?" "Terrified?" Hyperbole aside, all the government and its obsequious attendants are really concerned about is leaving some sort of legacy (it's all about ego), so having one's name on legislation or tied to some major program is huge) and setting themselves up for nice upper six-figure incomes in their post public-service lives ...

The bottom line is that the folks in government actually believe they know best. And since there's no effective mechanism anymore for the citizens to communicate common sense to the government, we are where we are. Our government is simply reactive, with no collective ability to be proactive -- although, the elected officials do believe they're doing good when they do what they do, which is simply writing and passing more and more laws ...

Is it possible to believe that laws, including permitting processes, designed to prevent crimes that might happen are less effective in society than laws which surely, certainly, and in a timely manner punish actual criminal behavior? If you haven't figured out that it's easier for government to control objects rather than behavior, you haven't been paying attention. Controlling firearms, and the associated licensing of, to include carry permits, is far easier than modifying behavior, to include effective sanctions for criminal activity. And if you believe that there are truly effective sanctions out there that deter criminal activity, you haven't spent enough time around criminals (which is not a bad thing, of course).

Witness our confusing history of penal theories in the U.S. -- from warehousing convicts, penitence to reformatories to "corrections" and here now we're all about "programming." And it's still not working.

We cannot figure out effective ways to deter crime or rehabilitate criminals, so we simply look for ways to manage objects ... while earning money for government in the form of taxes, fees and licenses.

Do citizens actually need to be issued permits to be certified as safe to exercise their rights in society by their government? Now it's about permits to enjoy the Second Amendment-recognized right.On a gun rights forum, you need actually ask?

Midwest
September 29, 2013, 05:13 PM
Permits to buy and for home possession

Licenses and permits can be revoked or made too difficult or expensive to get later on. A good point is the original fee for handgun permit was $3.00 for New York City in 1911 when the Sullivan Act was enacted. Now what is it? $400 ??? If you need permission from the police or the state to buy a firearm or possess a firearm in your own home, you do not have any firearm rights.

What you do have is a right to APPLY to seek permission from the police and or the state to get a permit or license to buy or possess a firearm in your own home subject to revocation and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by you by the police and or state. That is a contract, not a right. Permits and Licenses are an invasion of privacy and subject to abuse by the state and politicians. They are a blatant infringement of the second amendment and these laws in New York, Illinois, Hawaii and I guess soon to be Maryland that require a license for home possession are illegal and should be overturned.

Carry Permits

Like I said earlier, some states have no requirements, no permits, no training, no background checks, high fees or fingerprints for open carrying. Kentucky is one of those states. The minute that pistol becomes concealed (as deemed by the state) then a carry permit is required.

Much like in the earlier case of Permits to purchase and to possess in one's home. Carry permits are also subject to revocation, are an invasion of privacy. They also could be made more difficult to acquire in the future by increasing fees and making the process more difficult.

In addition some states (Kentucky included) run monthly background checks on all the holders of carry permits in the database. Now some may look it as a good thing since you don't have to go through NICS (in some states) since the carry permit serves as a bypass to NICS. But now you are on a database as someone who has firearms. They know who you are, where you live, possibly what cars you drive or own, what you look like, what your fingerprints are. Suppose you decide for some reason or another you don't want that permit anymore. Are you still on a database? Are you 'still in the system'? Who else besides the state and Law Enforcement is sharing that information? Suppose you move to a constitutional carry state, are you still in the system?

If the state does monthly NICS on it's carry permit holders. Suppose those NICS come back as a delay? Is your carry permit in jeopardy? Or suppose your monthly NICS (conducted by the state) suddenly comes back as prohibited because of erroneous information in the system? (It has happened to people going through NICS even though they have a clean record). Does the police come to your house and confiscate your firearms as well as your permit?

Think about that for a second, if there is a glitch in (the monthly) NICS (conducted by the state) and it comes back prohibited due to a glitch or corrupt entry in the database and you live in a state that does not require a permit or license for possession.

But because you have that carry permit (tied to a monthly NICS) , wouldn't it be like if you lived in Illinois or New York State where they would come and confiscate your firearms without YOU being aware that there is an issue to begin with?

If you didn't have a carry permit (and thus not subject to the monthly NICS checks by the state) and went to buy a firearm and it came back you being prohibited due to corrupt data. You have legal recourse to try to get the data glitch corrected, but you would know that there is an issue and you can take proactive measures before some agency comes to your door with an order to confiscate your firearms.

Bottom line, I think being able to carry outside of ones home with a permit in a state that allows it is certainly far superior than living in an area or state that doesn't allow it. I am grateful that my state, Kentucky...; allows for open and conceal carry. And, I am grateful I can legally carry in other states as well.

However just remember a permit or a license is a contract and subject to terms and conditions. You meet requirements and pay the fee, you get to carry concealed without the concern of going to jail for carrying concealed in a lawful manner.

But contracts or terms and conditions CAN be changed, it can be made more expensive or the requirements more onerous like in the case of New York City. And in the case of database glitches or corrupted data, the system can be ripe for errors. Or if some draconian legislation is handed down, your information can be there for some over zealous politician to exploit. Or the database could be hacked.

Until your state adopts constitutional carry. You are subject to the terms and conditions imposed on you by that concealed carry contract.

Resist Evil
September 29, 2013, 05:20 PM
(Chuckle) Yeah, I was just teasing with the poll tax thing.

Furthermore, bombast and hyperbole are ways to project my own fears that if the divide between the government and its citizens continues to widen, what will life be like then?

I'm worried.

goon
September 29, 2013, 05:25 PM
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.



Your moral judgments on your fellow Americans are completely irrelevant and hold zero bearing to their right to own and bear arms. Blanket assumptions based on general experiences and limited interactions with certain groups of individuals are pretty much baseless in my book.



Not only that, but this would also imply that he puts more faith in elected officials (who wield the enormous power of police agencies and the military) than he does in ordinary people.
What makes elected officials more trustworthy than the guy who does your brakes down at the local garage or the teacher who puts up with your kids for 8 hours a day?

DNS
September 29, 2013, 09:35 PM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. Sit back and watch the body count and how the liberal media/political machine reacts.

And then the pendulum will swing the other way.

If theres one thing any rational adult knows about government or any group of people in control; they will punish the majority for the misdeeds of a few. You can take that to the bank.

Sam1911
September 29, 2013, 10:02 PM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. You do realize that the Second Amendment enumerates a right to KEEP and BEAR arms for ALL Americans.


Right?

Not just those you like or those you trust or those you approve of.

Sit back and watch the body countWHAT "body count?" We have several states wherein every person within the state who is lawful to possess a firearm may carry it as he or she wishes. No "body count."

So I guess you can relax and take that worry right off your list. :) We tried it and it works! No problems! Don't you feel better knowing that?


If theres one thing any rational adult knows about government or any group of people in control; they will punish the majority for the misdeeds of a few. You can take that to the bank.They tried. It failed. The last year has showed that at what appears to be the last great push they'll have a chance to mount, possibly for this generation, their efforts were fruitless.

goon
September 29, 2013, 10:40 PM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. Sit back and watch the body count and how the liberal media/political machine reacts.

And then the pendulum will swing the other way.

If theres one thing any rational adult knows about government or any group of people in control; they will punish the majority for the misdeeds of a few. You can take that to the bank.

It doesn't matter whether law-abiding people can carry or not, criminals will. They'll continue doing what they do whether you and I can carry or not. They'll rob you or do things like shoot up schools and Navy Yards. They don't care. As long as guns exist, bad people will misuse them and do bad things with them.
Personally, I want as many good people carrying as possible. It makes them safer and by extension, it makes me safer.

And after the last discussion I was in regarding gun rights, I'm caring less and less what the media or anti-gun groups think. No matter what I do or how patient I am, I feel like they'll never get what rights are or where they come from. The argument always comes back to "need."
Why do you "need" to own a gun?
Why do you "need" to carry a gun?
Why do you "need" to carry a gun with a 17 round magazine?
Why do you "need" to own a rifle with 30 round magazines?

Honestly, I'm tired of explaining or justifying myself.
If you come right down to it, I only "need" food, clothing, and shelter. I don't "need" free speech, the freedom to worship how I want or not at all, or the right to peacefully elect my government. Gay people don't "need" to be able to marry each other, women don't need to be able to vote, and minorities don't "need to be able to sit in the front of the bus... blah, blah, blah.
People all over the world still live without many or all of the rights we take for granted. They live to be 70 or 80 and they never even realize what they don't have. So you don't "need" those rights to live. People survive without them every day.
But the Bill of Rights isn't about "needs" - it's about free people living in peace with their liberties intact. And one of those rights enumerated is bearing arms in defense of myself and my nation.

Increasingly, my answer to "why do you need that" is becoming "well you don't need the right to free speech, so shut the hole under your nose and let me alone."

Obviously, my patience with anti-gun rhetoric is wearing kind of thin.

beatledog7
September 29, 2013, 11:16 PM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. Sit back and watch the body count...

2A doesn't require arming everyone, but it also doesn't list any groups of American citizens to be excluded. The people most folks think ought to be excluded by law don't care about laws and would find an illegal way to get a gun anyway--unless they're restricted from mingling in the general society.

I was in a couple of gun stores last weekend, and I'm pretty sure the entire population of those stores, on both sides of the counter, was armed. No body count. Zero. Nada. I've been to several different ranges in the last couple of years, and I know everyone there was armed. Same zero body count.

How would you account for that?

I honestly think that for some people, the desire to make CCW a license-only thing stems from their need to have something that other people don't have--it's a form of snobbish exclusivity.

Torian
September 29, 2013, 11:43 PM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. Sit back and watch the body count and how the liberal media/political machine reacts.

And then the pendulum will swing the other way.

If theres one thing any rational adult knows about government or any group of people in control; they will punish the majority for the misdeeds of a few. You can take that to the bank.

I really don't understand your post. We already have a Constitutional right right to own and bear arms. The Constitution applies to everyone. Also, just because I own guns and have a CHL does not equate to me walking around all the time armed.

Nor am I concerned with what irrational and illogical people think. We can't control the media or the biases inherent to how they report. They will always find some kind of gun-related drama to politicize, whether or not they have any help from us.

NavyLCDR
September 30, 2013, 03:58 AM
If you really want to see your gun rights taken away then go ahead, arm everyone. Sit back and watch the body count and how the liberal media/political machine reacts.

Wow. But expected. Every time there is a discussion about loosening gun control laws there is always a group of people (usually law enforcement and anti-gun groups) that will predict "blood running in the streets". Yet, not only is there no blood in the streets when gun control laws are relaxed, there is actually a drop in violent crime.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

BSA1
September 30, 2013, 10:49 AM
Goon,

"If you come right down to it, I only "need" food, clothing, and shelter."

I would also add security. Generally living a group of like minded folks in a commune of such sort. Even the earliest caveman recognize their chances of survival was greater living in a tribe.

goon
September 30, 2013, 12:16 PM
Goon,

"If you come right down to it, I only "need" food, clothing, and shelter."

I would also add security. Generally living a group of like minded folks in a commune of such sort. Even the earliest caveman recognize their chances of survival was greater living in a tribe.


Several women in Ohio were held captive and tortured by a psychopath for years. They had no security and their most basic rights as human beings were trampled by that monster, but they kept on drawing breath and their hearts kept pumping blood.


But all that's beside the point. I only use it to show the people who start talking about "needs" that their lives are also far better with their rights being respected. Unfortunately, it's generally a waste of my breath. They're generally fools who are too blinded by their misguided ideologies to challenge their own thinking, even for a second.

BSA1
September 30, 2013, 09:30 PM
Goon,

I understand the point you are trying to make about the difference between wants and needs. However if you include the need for security in your argument then that opens the door to what tools a person needs to maintain their security even within the group.

Tcruse
September 30, 2013, 10:27 PM
I think that the CCW permit process is really about the same process as a driver's license. Now, as most other people that commented the price is way too high. Maybe, we could float CCW as merely an endorcement on our DL or state ID card. We should probably work on getting gun education in high schools and adult education. I think classes and practice are necessary, but not something that the government needs to be mandating. The high cost is no accident, the anti-gun groups know that if the cost is high enough they can discourage a lot of people.
I actually have a bigger problem with background checks for gun purchase, it that even the existing system is a proxy registration scheme. Same with CCW, the names on the list need to be kept much like medical records and not shared with federal government or public disclosure. Maybe something like "car insurance verification" if an officer needs to know if you have a permit, call in your DL/ID number and the response is valid or not valid.

goon
September 30, 2013, 10:33 PM
IIRC, PA's permit fee is $26 for five years. That's just over five bucks a year.
That's not too much. I've wasted $5 on countless stupid things over the years.
But if you tried to charge me $5 when I went to vote for President, would that ever fly?
I highly doubt it.

I oppose CCW permits on principle, not because of cost.

Atom Smasher
October 2, 2013, 11:20 AM
Texas is $140. This is completely unacceptable. I've been wanting a CHL for a long time now, but between life and a kid I cannot spend that money responsibly. I could afford $20 or even $50 but $140 is too much, which is sad. Not only do we not have open carry but they bilk us for tons of cash for CHL too. I don't know what to do about it, as lobbying for such a change in Austin is probably not going to have much of an effect, being the most liberal part of Texas.

NavyLCDR
October 3, 2013, 01:21 AM
I wrote this in reply to another post on another forum. My person opinion is that there is a lot of misintreptation as to what "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment:

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the US Military, if that is what you are implying. The word in the 2nd Amendment is "militia", not military. Two entirely different words with entirely different meanings.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a very true statement. Who is the militia?

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers
a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
a body of citizens organized for military service
the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The importance of the militia in the ability to maintain the security of a free state is declared in the Declaration of Independece:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Who was the 2nd Amendment written by? The 2nd Amendment was written by some of the very members of the "militia" that had just succeeded in a violent overthrow of their previous government. The 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee that the citizens would not be helpless to have their unalienable rights deprived from them by the actions of any governemnt - whether that government be a foreign government, or their own government.

One must also understand what "well regulated" means in this context. Regulated does not mean licenses, permits, background checks, and where a person can and cannot carry a firearm. Regulated in this context means to control in order to make useful. A scuba diver's or firefighter's air tanks hold air that is under such pressure that it is unuasble for the purpose intended. It is not until that air is regulated that it becomes useful. The meaning is the same in the 2nd Amendment. 10,000 men under arms going in 10,000 different directions with 10,000 individual and personal missions cannot accomplish anything towards maintaining the security of a free state. It is only when those 10,000 men are "regulated" towards one goal, mission and purpose do they become powerful.

goon
October 3, 2013, 02:21 AM
Regulated in this context means to control in order to make useful.

I'd gladly turn out for a regular training session with my rifle. I'd buy my own ammo (though I'd greatly appreciate a subsidized deal for some training ammo through the CMP) and donate my time.
It'd be great to get gun owners and the government on the same side for a change.
The same people who so vehemently oppose restrictions on the RKBA could help ensure the liberty and security of this nation and many would gladly do so. It could augment national defense or just give local, state, and even federal authorities a large pool of people to mobilize in the event of an emergency (even if you didn't need people to be under arms).

But I don't see that kind of "regulation" happening in the near future.
Sad really... such a waste of resources on both sides.

Armybrat
October 3, 2013, 10:05 PM
One thing for sure, I would not ask Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion on this more refined 2nd Amendment topic, what with his twisted "logic" on declaring Obamacare as Constitutional.

Tcruse
October 6, 2013, 04:52 PM
Texas is $140. This is completely unacceptable. I've been wanting a CHL for a long time now, but between life and a kid I cannot spend that money responsibly. I could afford $20 or even $50 but $140 is too much, which is sad. Not only do we not have open carry but they bilk us for tons of cash for CHL too. I don't know what to do about it, as lobbying for such a change in Austin is probably not going to have much of an effect, being the most liberal part of Texas.
Agreed the cost is too high and OC should also be included in the CHL. The shorter class has reduced the class course many places, but still it does not seem good to pay $140 for something that is already a RIGHT. However, there are places that are much worse like NY, CA, NJ, CO .... I think our top priority in TX should be OC handguns and Campus Carry.

Torian
October 8, 2013, 08:34 AM
Agreed the cost is too high and OC should also be included in the CHL. The shorter class has reduced the class course many places, but still it does not seem good to pay $140 for something that is already a RIGHT. However, there are places that are much worse like NY, CA, NJ, CO .... I think our top priority in TX should be OC handguns and Campus Carry.
Agreed on the cost. I believe it is constituting a barrier to those desiring to carry a weapon. The very first CHL I obtained was in PA about 10 years ago, at a cost of 25.00.

Don't expect the ACLU to come to your rescue any time soon.

Atom Smasher
October 8, 2013, 11:33 AM
I've actually had several people come forward to offer me free a free CHL class, which is amazing (kindness of strangers :) ) but I still can't justify the $140. I wrote a letter to the Governor's office but haven't heard anything back. Guess I'll just have to save up!

Tcruse
October 9, 2013, 10:07 AM
Yes, there seems to many gun dealers that will include one or even 2 CHL classes with purchase. Also, I suspect that many of the CHL instructors are not in the effort for the money, most are happy to just cover their cost.
Looking at the requirements to become a CHL instructor and my estimate was between $1000 and $2000 for the classes and certifications it takes to become a TX CHL instructor.
Another way to look at the $140 state fee is that it is less than 500 rounds of ammo, so if you practice regularly the $140 is not out of line with the other costs.

BSA1
October 9, 2013, 11:04 AM
Tcruse,

The licensing fees are separate, stand alone costs. What you seem to be saying is a person that wants to get their ccw permit should forego purchasing ammunition in order to pay for it. Your comment also overlooks the other expenses of taking the class, purchasing ammo, time off from work, transportation.

"It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.

Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female."

Would you care to be the person to tell these groups of people that they are just out of luck until they can pay for the right of self-protection when in public?

goon
October 9, 2013, 01:40 PM
Another way to look at the $140 state fee is that it is less than 500 rounds of ammo, so if you practice regularly the $140 is not out of line with the other costs.

What if the class was required to vote? I know a lot of voters who could use a class or two before they went to the polls, but if you required a class with a $140 fee to vote, that would never fly.
And yet, it flies with this right. And we tell ourselves "well, it's OK because if you factor the cost out over a few years, it's not that much to pay to exercise my right."

We all comply because we're more than less a law-abiding group, but don't kid yourself about it. It is an infringement.

NavyLCDR
October 10, 2013, 02:04 AM
Another way to look at the $140 state fee is that it is less than 500 rounds of ammo, so if you practice regularly the $140 is not out of line with the other costs.

That is another way to look at it, just not one that I agree with. :scrutiny: By the same justification, would a $140 state permit required to post on the internet not be out of line considering my internet provider bill is $50/month and the data fee for my phone is $10/month? Heck, the state could even use the excuse that the internet permit fee would go towards maintaining the state's websites that provided useful public information and towards internet access at libraries, right? And then, we could even pass a law that if a police officer observed you using the internet in public, you would be required to show him your internet permit.

powder
October 10, 2013, 10:13 AM
Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female."

Would you care to be the person to tell these groups of people that they are just out of luck until they can pay for the right of self-protection when in public?

Here are the FREE scheduled classes in WI, as sponsored by Wisconsin Carry . org.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/classes


I believe the permit here is just $50 for a 5 year card.

goon
October 10, 2013, 12:59 PM
Here are the FREE scheduled classes in WI, as sponsored by Wisconsin voting . org.

.............


I believe the permit here is just $50 for a 5 year card.

Yep, just a little $10 fee per year to vote.
It's such a small fee and keeping polls open costs so much. It's not too much to ask that those who want to vote pay a small fee. Let's just call it a "poll tax" because that has a better ring to it.

Now why does the lunacy of a policy like that not sound so bad when you apply it to guns?

We need to stop minimizing this to ourselves.
"It's only $50 for five years..."
Face the truth - we are being victimized. Maybe we try to do something about it through the courts and our legislatures and maybe we don't.
Maybe, compared to 20 years ago, even with the fees it's still progress.
But at least don't lie to yourselves about what is happening.

Mike1234567
October 10, 2013, 02:23 PM
I lost my job and haven't had a paycheck for nearly two years due to a health issue. I can't afford to get a CCL. I carry on my property and in my vehicle but cannot carry elsewhere. I can no longer physically defend myself so having a firearm at my side would be welcome. I have a neighbor who threatened my life twice because he disagreed with me over silly things. He's an extreme hot-head. Once he had my neck ready to twist it broken and another time he pulled a pistol. The guy is a nut-case. I'm just glad I can carry on my property and in my truck. If I'm caught elsewhere I'm essentially defenseless these days.

So... I agree with the OP.

BSA1
October 10, 2013, 07:36 PM
Tcruse,

It sounds like you have been fortunate to never have been poor. I was raised literally on the wrong side of the tracks and can recall times we didn't have two nickels to rub together. There was no way my widowed mother raising three children by herself could have afforded a conceal carry permit.

gamestalker
October 10, 2013, 11:21 PM
Which is why I love my state of Arizona so much! I am dead set against CWP laws that out right prohibit someone from carrying a firearm without one. Even here in Arizona it has been legal to carry open if you chose to not attain a CWP. And now things have become even better for us, in that, it is now legal for us to carry in any manner we so choose with, or without a permit. I carry my side arm into banks, grocery stores and just about any other place, without having to be concerned about some stupid permit, which I can't afford in the first place.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but, it is my understanding that if someone has a permit, that regardless of state carry laws, if you are carrying a weapon and either your permit has expired, or you have just inadvertently forgot to bring it with you, you are in violation of a Federal law.

I encountered a Border Patrol check point once when traveling from one city to another here in Arizona. When the agent was asking the general questions they ask, he saw my weapon and asked me if I had my permit, to which I responded, I don't have to have one in our state. He asked the same question again, and I responded with the same answer. He finally told me that if I am a permit holder, I must tell him, and I must have it on me when carrying, or I am in violation of a federal gun law. After he checked me out and found that I was not, and never have been a permit holder, I was sent on my merry way.

GS

NavyLCDR
October 11, 2013, 01:47 AM
And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but, it is my understanding that if someone has a permit, that regardless of state carry laws, if you are carrying a weapon and either your permit has expired, or you have just inadvertently forgot to bring it with you, you are in violation of a Federal law.

I encountered a Border Patrol check point once when traveling from one city to another here in Arizona. When the agent was asking the general questions they ask, he saw my weapon and asked me if I had my permit, to which I responded, I don't have to have one in our state. He asked the same question again, and I responded with the same answer. He finally told me that if I am a permit holder, I must tell him, and I must have it on me when carrying, or I am in violation of a federal gun law. After he checked me out and found that I was not, and never have been a permit holder, I was sent on my merry way.

The Border Patrol lied to you, or was ignorant. There are only two mentions of carry permits in Federal law. One mention is that a permit issued by the same state a school zone is located in will exempt you from the Federal 1000' School Zone prohibition known as the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA). The GFSZA does not require you to carry your permit/license at any time, it only requires that the state has issued you a license.

The only other mention is in the Federal regulations regarding NICS checks. If you possess a permit that meets certain requirements, the permit can exempt you from the NICS check when making a firearms purchase from an FFL.

The Border Patrol Agent was obviously..... we will be nice and say mistaken. Also, there is no requirement in Federal law for you to inform the officer of a firearm or permit, nor to produce one on demand - although state laws may require it.

goon
October 11, 2013, 02:46 AM
It sounds like you have been fortunate to never have been poor. I was raised literally on the wrong side of the tracks and can recall times we didn't have two nickels to rub together. There was no way my widowed mother raising three children by herself could have afforded a conceal carry permit.

I remember having to return my allowance and the little bit I'd saved as a kid to my dad a couple of times to help buy heating oil when we were growing up.
Poor people don't have money, but you're right that if you haven't been there, you may not really get what that means.

If a fee must be applied to a CCW permit, it should be no more than the cost of a background check. I think that fee is $3 added on to a gun purchase here in PA.
This is one place where the ideas floated to have a combo driver's license/CCW permit may make sense.
But you know what makes more sense?
The way Vermont and Alaska deal with CCW.

powder
October 17, 2013, 02:47 AM
Oh, I get what poor means. By 12 I had a paper route, cut grass, caddied at the local country club after a 6 mile bike ride, shoveled snow, sold golf balls from the water holes, you name it. It's called WORK, and yeah, I can see to some that looks like a four-letter word?! Allowance? I was allowed to get a job and do my chores.

Free (WI) classes and $10 a year for a permit is too much? How'd you come up with the money for the pistol or ammunition?

I don't like the "license" either but it's cheaper than going to jail!!

BSA1
October 17, 2013, 02:04 PM
A personal discussion of how I obtained enough money and ammo is not relevant and ignores the central point of my argument.

Indeed I would expect someone that has experienced what you perceive to be poverty would be more sympathetic to the plight of the poor and their need for self defense outside the home.

The core difference between you and me is I am opposed to the Government giving permission for when and where I can carry a firearm outside the home for the most basic need of self-protection whereas you support the concept that carrying a firearm is not a right and the Government should determine if a person has a need for self-defense (i.e. the Government is deciding if your contribute enough good to society to preserve your life) and then regulate that need.

goon
October 18, 2013, 12:36 AM
Oh, I get what poor means. By 12 I had a paper route, cut grass, caddied at the local country club after a 6 mile bike ride, shoveled snow, sold golf balls from the water holes, you name it. It's called WORK, and yeah, I can see to some that looks like a four-letter word?! Allowance? I was allowed to get a job and do my chores.

Free (WI) classes and $10 a year for a permit is too much? How'd you come up with the money for the pistol or ammunition?

I don't like the "license" either but it's cheaper than going to jail!!

It's not only the money, it's also the principle.
If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say to you, but I'll ask you again - Would you pay a $10 fee to vote?
Anyone who can make it to the polls can afford $10, right?

Of course we comply with the law to avoid going to jail... which is why a PA LTCF resides in my wallet right now.
But it is an infringement. At least accept the truth about what is being done to you.

And in your case or mine, it's not that expensive. The breakdown in my state is just over $5 a year. I think the permit costs $26 for five years in PA... which is an insanely low amount. And if it's only $10 in your state, that's also not too idiotic. You'd be hard-pressed to not be able to scrape up $10 worth of change from your couch cushions over the course of a year.
But not all states have such low costs. Some states also require classes which are cost prohibitive to some or that some people can't get to simply because they have to work.
Should your ability to protect yourself be stripped away because of that?

As for the WORK you describe, I've been doing that since I was on my own. Grew up rural though... and there wasn't really any of that within walking distance. The nearest country club was a good 12 miles away and even if I had got there, they wouldn't have had any use for some poor white-trash kid like me. Didn't have a car until I came back from the Army with my own money. Until then, the motto was "make do or do without" so that's what we did. About the only money I had came from a little odd work where the old man would take pity on me or birthday presents from the grandparents.
Was your family ever so poor that the $5 you got in a birthday card from grandma went to buy a couple gallons of kerosene that literally heated your house that night? Mine was. I have felt cold and hunger and faced a few days when we didn't have enough to go around. If you haven't, then I guess you should thank Providence for your good fortune.
But that's all beside the point. Because the Second Amendment doesn't come with an income requirement.
I KNOW there are people who have had it worse than you or me. But if they happened to be lucky enough to inherit an old S&W revolver from their parents, they should be able to carry it for defense.

Indeed, that very system seems to be working out just fine in Alaska and Vermont. I haven't heard of any massive bloodbath shootouts in Burlington or Anchorage over a parking space... so what reasons can you provide for imposing any kind of an infringement?

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 05:28 PM
Ditto

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 05:33 PM
...

powder
October 18, 2013, 06:43 PM
Hmmm, a "fee" to vote?

Yeah, it's (fee) called the blood of our USAF who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to maintain such aspects of this republic like voting and RKBA. It's the fee of many thousands of young men and women who left their families and returned with less limbs, but who hold a pride you will never know.

I pay a "fee" for other American privileges like driving, sending our kids to schools, trash pick up, sewer and water.

Don't like your state/local policies or ordinances? Run for office, win, and change them! It's America-you can do that here!

Sam1911
October 18, 2013, 07:28 PM
Ok, that makes sense. Join the military, lose a limb, then you can vote. And carry a gun. And get your trash picked up.

'Till then? Tough luck.

That's the right the USAF bled for? (Uh ... what? :confused:)

powder
October 18, 2013, 07:41 PM
Well Sam, if somebody is going to extend the debate per the cost of getting a CCP, to somehow being linear to the non-existent idea of a fee for voting?

Yeah, there are "fees" for voting in this republic, freedom aint free.

Again, I agree with the basic premise of how there should NOT be a permitting process/fees, for CCP, but that aint the way it has been built.

Classes here in WI are available for FREE. If you believe sooo much about the process being too expensive, register with your state for credentials to teach, and give the classes for free in your area. Shuttle the indigent and non-driving to the class on your dime. Here's an opportunity to actually do something active. Wow, an idea for true RKBA activism?! Yes...

goon
October 18, 2013, 07:52 PM
Hmmm, a "fee" to vote?

Yeah, it's (fee) called the blood of our USAF who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to maintain such aspects of this republic like voting and RKBA. It's the fee of many thousands of young men and women who left their families and returned with less limbs, but who hold a pride you will never know.

I pay a "fee" for other American privileges like driving, sending our kids to schools, trash pick up, sewer and water.

Don't like your state/local policies or ordinances? Run for office, win, and change them! It's America-you can do that here!

In that case, I guess I paid my "fees" already.
If I ever see you in person maybe I'll show you a copy of my DD-214 and point out to you on line 24 where it lists my character of service as "honorable".
But probably not... because that doesn't matter here.

Your fees for other "American privileges" also have nothing to do with rights that are enshrined in our founding documents. Do you honestly equate city water and sanitation services with self government and the essential rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights?

Again, I'm asking you point blank... would you pay $10 a year to vote? It's just a little fee, probably far less than you pay for city water and trash pick up.
If you wouldn't be OK with that, why are you in denial about what concealed carry permits are?

Rights are rights. Rights are also not privileges. You shouldn't have to pay to exercise them. If you do, they are not rights to anyone who cannot pay the fee.
At the end of the day, a great many of us have the permits required to carry legally in our states. I do, you do, etc...
But there is still that nagging thing about having to pay for a right. Let's not be OK with that.

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 08:54 PM
Powder,

The fact that I jumped through the arbitrary steps (remember my comment about range qualification) and paid the application (which is much higher than your free and $10.00 a year) doesn't mean I agree with the law to any degree. It merely means that my need for self-defense outweighs the burden of paying for it. Nor does it mean that I will quit pushing for changing the law.

"Hold a pride you will never know" how self-righteous and elitist.

goon
October 18, 2013, 09:07 PM
Hold a pride I will never know" how self-righteous and elitist.

Not to mention prejudicial.
You could be a CMH winner and Purple Heart recipient for all the more I know. I would never take the chance of insulting someone who'd served by throwing out an ill-informed comment like that.
Because... turns out I've been insulted like that a time or two.

But it still has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. None of us served because we expected special treatment or favors. And our system of government isn't built so as to give us any. I'm fine with that.
The Bill of Rights applies to us all. And so does the Second Amendment. That's my objection to CCW permits, even though (like you) I also find it necessary to comply with them.

Sam1911
October 18, 2013, 10:15 PM
Well Sam, if somebody is going to extend the debate per the cost of getting a CCP, to somehow being linear to the non-existent idea of a fee for voting?

Yeah, there are "fees" for voting in this republic, freedom aint free.

Nope. Gonna have to call BS on that one. There is no FEE to vote. That's a right. There should be no FEE to go armed. That's a right (keep and bear).

The fact that you did or didn't serve the country and your fellow citizens in any way has NOTHING to do with whether or not you may exercise your rights. Nor should it.

Conflating the right to keep and bear arms with some ... what, RIGHT to city sanitation and water services? :scrutiny: That's weak sauce indeed!

You pay for a SERVICE. You do not pay to exercise a RIGHT.

powder
October 18, 2013, 11:22 PM
You pay for a SERVICE. You do not pay to exercise a RIGHT.

Seemed to skip a beat there Sam: I'm not the one talking about paying $10 fees to vote. Voting is the same privilege as gun ownership, and driving: Get caught breaking those societal contracts and the privilege is lost, IE becoming a convicted felon, drunk driver, etc..

Talking about fees to vote as an analogy for CCP was not my idea, as it has no bearing on the real world. However, it is a perfect analogy per privileges that are/can be lost.

An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not.

Don't like the policies/statutes/fees in your state? Run for office, win, and change the game therein. It's still America-we can do that here. However, it's easier to complain about it, rather than do something about it.

I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws. Finding a convicted felon with a concealed firearm is a beautiful thing. That's what you want cops to do right? Prosecute the lawbreakers per firearms? Right? Encouraging legal activity on The High Road, correct?

goon
October 18, 2013, 11:52 PM
Voting is the same privilege as gun ownership, and driving:

OK.
Voting is a privilege to you. That clears that up.
So you'd be OK with the fee to exercise that privilege then? Maybe some tests too? Like a driver's license.
Maybe you should also have to pass an eye exam to get a voter registration card. No one could claim they accidentally voted for the wrong candidate that way.
Let's add a written test requirement too. After all, if you can't read, how can you vote?

An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not.

The Founders probably would have disagreed with you on that... at least based on what they wrote down.

I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws. Finding a convicted felon with a concealed firearm is a beautiful thing. That's what you want cops to do right? Prosecute the lawbreakers per firearms? Right? Encouraging legal activity on The High Road, correct?

Nice how you tried to swing anyone who sees CCW requirements as infringements into the realm of supporting criminal activity there. Especially when several of us have stated that though we think the laws suck, we still comply with them.

Meanwhile, several states don't see the need to issue such permits. Laws apparently get enforced just fine in those states. Open carry is also legal in many states. Police officers are also apparently able to distinguish between criminals and law abiding citizens in those circumstances too.

What CCW permits really do is separate people into "haves" and "have nots." If you can pony up the money for the permit and invest the time and money to meet onerous training requirements (in many states), then you get to join the elite club that can carry for self-defense. You get the little ID card with your name on it and you can feel all special.
But if you happen to be unfortunate enough to need to work a lot of hours to support yourself (for little pay) and don't have the time and money to jump through unnecessary hoops, then too bad for you. Use a restraining order and a cell phone to protect yourself instead.
You and I are fortunate to be in relatively pro-gun states with pretty light restrictions. But they still are infringements.

The thing about freedom though... sometimes it can make you a little uncomfortable. I've felt it myself. Some of the things that other people use their freedom to do make me uncomfortable.
But I much prefer the discomfort of freedom to the weight of chains, regardless of how light those chains may be.
Others may disagree.

Jaxondog
October 18, 2013, 11:57 PM
I think everyone should have what they want, say what they want, go where they want, and do what they want whenever they want. I'm sick of people telling other's that you can't have that, you shouldn't say that, hey you can't go there, and stop doing that. OK, let me have it with all the "what ifs". :uhoh:

powder
October 19, 2013, 01:43 AM
LOL! Wow, you've gone off the far end of the pool.


While you are out there, let me run another scenario by you: You are driving an unregistered vehicle w/o the proper auto insurance per your state's guidelines, and I have you on a traffic stop as the LEO on duty. I pulled you over for speeding, and found the other two possible citations. What's your reasoning?



What CCW permits really do is separate people into "haves" and "have nots." If you can pony up the money for the permit and invest the time and money to meet onerous training requirements (in many states), then you get to join the elite club that can carry for self-defense. You get the little ID card with your name on it and you can feel all special.

Sure, you can extend that into all the other credentials we can possibly receive in our society: diplomas, driver's licenses, a membership at the Y, membership for a certain church, as being divided into the "haves" and "have nots". What's your point? There is no reasonable path of reasoning with your logic, that links to a sensible argument.

"Probably"s and "I feel" are not the foundation of the laws in your state-if you want to change them to make CCP free for everyone, do it! Change it, it's America, these policies/laws are NOT set in stone-how many more times are you going to continue to ignore your *felt* responsibility to do something about it, but only continue to complain?

Sam1911
October 19, 2013, 09:39 AM
Powder, being armed is NOT a privilege, it is a right. Yes you can lose that right if you violate the social arrangements that define you (in this particular time and place) as "law abiding." Driving on the public roads is NOT a right, that's a privilege and you can lose privileges more easily (without the dire extremes of due process) than you can be deprived of a RIGHT.

An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not. That's complete hogwash, fortunately as recognized by our founding fathers.

If the only things that are RIGHTS are things that simply CANNOT physically be removed from you, then there's no need to call them rights. What do you think are "rights" then, the right to THINK? The right to breathe if not being strangled? The right to void your bowels? The right for your hair to grow? (Hey that one works for a while even after your DEAD! Now there's a god-given right for you!)

That's all silly. There's no need to enumerate RIGHTS that literally can't be taken away. The founding fathers wrote down things they recognized as RIGHTS because they knew that governments and rulers could and did take these things away from the citizens/subjects when it suited them and they wanted to ensure that that would not happen to the lawful citizens of their new country.

Sam1911
October 19, 2013, 10:01 AM
I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws.

What? This doesn't even make sense. In fact, it is hardly comprehensible.

Concealed carry does what? How can which method you choose to carry a gun separate the lawful citizen from the felon? They both could carry a gun openly or concealed. If anything, felons would be MORE likely to carry concealed so as not to draw attention to themselves. Poor, poor argument.

Finding a convicted felon with a concealed firearm is a beautiful thing. That's what you want cops to do right? Prosecute the lawbreakers per firearms? Right? Not personally, no. I want the police stopping violent crime, not malum prohibitum rules. Laws that pretend to disarm and pacify the ex-con are a fairy tale lie we tell ourselves. But let's not go off down that road here. It's been debated heavily many times before at THR and there's no need to derail this thread with that argument.

Encouraging legal activity on The High Road, correct?Yes, we encourage lawful conduct. That doesn't mean we agree with the law or support it or enforce it.

Sam1911
October 19, 2013, 10:04 AM
Don't like the policies/statutes/fees in your state? Run for office, win, and change the game therein. It's still America-we can do that here. However, it's easier to complain about it, rather than do something about it.Stop with this. It is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

OF COURSE we're working to change the law. That goes without saying. The debate here is WHAT the law should be: should laws require licensing and/or fees?

Telling people to change the law if they don't like it is inane. It doesn't inform the question of what they should change the law TO.

BSA1
October 19, 2013, 10:42 AM
An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not.

Wow! You didn’t attend the same school as Obama by chance? You have very little grasp of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights nor do you understand why common citizens owning firearms is essential for maintaining a free society.

If firearms are not an inalienable right to defend oneself why did the King of England’s soldiers move against it’s subjects at Concord and Lexington in 1775 to seize the firearms and powder stored in those towns?

Our Founding Fathers were clear on their position of citizens having the right to own firearms;

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."- Thomas Paine
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

In The Federalist Papers that were published in 1787 - 1788 promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution that were published in 1787 – 1788 Alexander Hamilton made a repeated warning against tyranny, and the ability of the militia to protect against it:

“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”


I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws.

So you are trying to make the case that in “may issue” states when the Government refuses to issue a permit they are saying that person is unwilling to live within the law thus cannot be trusted with a firearm?

And since you have never replied to my previous comment "The core difference between you and me is I am opposed to the Government giving permission for when and where I can carry a firearm outside the home for the most basic need of self-protection whereas you support the concept that carrying a firearm is not a right and the Government should determine if a person has a need for self-defense (i.e. the Government is deciding if your contribute enough good to society to preserve your life) and then regulate that need" the reader is left within the inescapable conclusion that you believe the Government should decide which citizens contribute enough good to society to be allowed to live. This is a fundamental Socialist Principle and a key one in Obamacare as Government will decide what treatment will be paid for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

goon
October 19, 2013, 02:36 PM
LOL! Wow, you've gone off the far end of the pool.


While you are out there, let me run another scenario by you: You are driving an unregistered vehicle w/o the proper auto insurance per your state's guidelines, and I have you on a traffic stop as the LEO on duty. I pulled you over for speeding, and found the other two possible citations. What's your reasoning?

There is no reasoning.
Write up your citation and fine me.
There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving.

But... requiring a license doesn't stop unlicensed drivers. There are still lots of them in this country. And requiring a license doesn't stop people from using their cars as weapons. The guy who ran over eleven people on the Venice Boardwalk had a driver's license. He'd been vetted by the state and deemed to be safe to operate his vehicle by them... then he killed someone with his car.

Permits don't make you safer. They only make you feel safer... at least until you realize that the truly bad people on this earth couldn't care less about complying with the law.


Sure, you can extend that into all the other credentials we can possibly receive in our society: diplomas, driver's licenses, a membership at the Y, membership for a certain church, as being divided into the "haves" and "have nots". What's your point? There is no reasonable path of reasoning with your logic, that links to a sensible argument.

There is no constitutional right enumerated for a high school diploma or a membership at the Y. The Founders understood the ability to bear arms in defense of yourself and your nation as essential components of a free society. That right had existed and been enumerated prior to the creation of the U.S. Constitution and they felt it necessary to enshrine it right there next to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and due process of law to name a few.

And I really don't get how you can relate something as serious as your ability to defend yourself to a membership at the Y.
A woman in a parking lot with two rapists ripping her clothes off... her ability to protect herself from serious harm is no more important than a gym membership? If that's really what you think, then I can see why you're such a fan of permits.

"Probably"s and "I feel" are not the foundation of the laws in your state-if you want to change them to make CCP free for everyone, do it! Change it, it's America, these policies/laws are NOT set in stone-how many more times are you going to continue to ignore your *felt* responsibility to do something about it, but only continue to complain?

Right here, right now, we are having this conversation with you. Participating in this discussion in no way impairs our ability to participate in activities to alter or repeal bad laws. You throw that out like someone is incapable of doing both. In fact, this very conversation helps us sharpen our points for use in letters to our representatives and points to argue in future discussions.

Also, your arguments come down to "I think" and " I feel" more than Sam1911's, BSA1's, or my own. At least we can and do cite the U.S. Constitution as the basis for our reasoning and our dislike (not noncompliance with, but dislike) of CCW permit requirements. You're the one citing gym memberships and high school diplomas and how you "like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws" as what your opinion stands on.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's entirely your fault though.
Lots of Americans have lost touch with what the concept of rights really are and believe that they are granted by the state and that the state has legitimate authority to revoke them. In fact, rights existed before governments and the reason governments exist (or should exist) is to better protect those rights, not to decide who gets to enjoy them and who doesn't.

powder
October 19, 2013, 04:59 PM
There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving.

...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?

goon
October 19, 2013, 05:49 PM
...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But there is the more current version...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless said people be living in New York, Washington D.C., California, Maryland, or Connecticut. Additionally, a fee may be required to exercise said right.

Sam1911
October 19, 2013, 06:06 PM
...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?By Jove, I think he's GOT IT!
A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

It is an infringement added by meddling legislators who lost their way, or never understood what they were supposed to be upholding to begin with.

goon
October 19, 2013, 06:18 PM
A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

It is an infringement added by meddling legislators who lost their way, or never understood what they were supposed to be upholding to begin with.

Exactly.
I might add that the other part of the problem is that people have lost touch with what rights really are and where the authority to govern really flows from.
I'm ashamed to say that I didn't really get it myself until I got schooled by a history professor a few years ago.

DT Guy
October 19, 2013, 06:45 PM
Too many people today, when contemplating a new idea, wonder, "Is that allowed?"

Our forefathers would more likely have thought, "Who can stop me?" It's sad.



Larry

powder
October 20, 2013, 01:57 AM
By Jove, I think he's GOT IT!
A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

Where in the BOR is a CCP a stated "right"?

Hate to tell you guys: these are NOT my opinions-privileges can/will be taken as result of your illegal activities. These privileges which can be denied include things like driving, voting, and owning firearms, much less CC.

Those are indisputable fact. Sure, you CAN do MANY things denied to convicted felons, after being caught. I do not agree with them, but face the consequences if caught.
That's not a "right", it IS a privilege.

On the matter of changing your local/state laws about CCP matters: you can legally do that, with the footwork that goes along with it. Being that this is the "Legal" section of the site, this content needs to be included in the discussion-it is part of our democracy and republic today. Exercise it, or lose it.

goon
October 20, 2013, 04:23 AM
Where in the BOR is a CCP a stated "right"?

I'm sure you're a decent human being in person, but I think we're all kind of exasperated at this point.
To the rest of us, it's written plainly in the King's English for anyone with the reading comprehension of a six-year-old right there in the content of the Second Amendment. To "bear" arms means carrying them.

From People of the State of Illinois vs. Alberto Aguilar:

Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it
states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding
understood to be an individual right protecting against both public
and private violence.”

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, the ruling still does allow latitude for regulation in practically the very next sentence.
Does regulation mean you can price the cost of being able to carry out of the reach of much of the population?
I'd say no, but we'll probably need a couple more court cases to decide that one too, or even just to solidify the findings in this case. Really, it's a miracle that they found the way they did... basically with a criminal (a real one, not just a poor sap who ran afoul of the law) as a defendant.
But they did, in Illinois of all places, and that's that.

Powder, I apologize for any heated words that made their way into this conversation from me. Truth is that we're all just a bunch of people who have strong opinions, but I don't think your opinions make you a bad person.
Thank you for the lively debate.

silvermane_1
October 20, 2013, 11:20 AM
hey im with goon and BSA1 on this subject, i am the "poor", "physically disabled", "living on a fixed income" individual that is lucky enough to live in WA state where my CPL is affordable and doesn't require me have "training/classes" to get and to renew my CPL, and i agree with the fact that i shouldn't need my CPL to CC, since i consider it to be a "infringement" to my RKBA aka the 2nd Amendment.

Mike1234567
October 20, 2013, 11:48 AM
A CCL will cost me $230+ counting training, ammo and fuel cost (I live many miles from the nearest training). I recently had to decide between buying a rifle and a CCL. This time I chose the rifle because the only other rifles I had were a .30-06 and a .22WMR so, IMO, I needed a .223REM more than a CCL. I have exactly $30 in my account right now and I need to buy some food with that.

I can't work anymore and haven't had a paycheck in nearly two years... no money from the state or Uncle Sam either. No help from anyone... and I don't ask for any.

Many of us have choices and sacrifices we must make. Few of us can have everything we want.

IMO, that $230 total cost does infringe on my right to carry protection especially since I can no longer physically defend myself.

There are a lot of people in similar situations as I... and many are far worse off. Many of them have no voice here to speak up so we cannot hear them... they either cannot afford computers and internet connectivity or the latter isn't available to them.

Frank Ettin
October 20, 2013, 01:38 PM
I'll cut this off now. It looks like the ground has been pretty well covered.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!