Which state has the least intrusive requriements for non-resident CCL?

Hello,

you could say I am in the market for a concealed carry permit.

Here's the deal: I am strongly against the whole notion of asking permission to exercise a natural right. However, I am considering submitting to the tyranny of getting a concealed carry license just to make my life a little easier and care-free. I have no problem with igonring laws that violate my liberty if I believe the benefit to be worth the risk, but unfortunately my profession (attorney) is highly regulated by the state, and even a misdemeanor concealed weapon conviction could potentially be a problem for me.

I could get a license through my home state of Oklahoma, but I really detest some of the requirements, especially the requirement that I be fingerprinted. Having to ask permission to exercise the right is bad enough, but being treated like a criminal just for wanting to protect myself and my loved ones is outrageous. Also, the fees are somewhat high, and it takes quite a while for the license to actually be issued.

So anyway, I am looking for the state that offers a non-resident permit with the least-intrusive requirements. Please post which state or states you believe holds this title.

I could check every state's law one by one, but I thought you guys might be able to save me some trouble... if you give me several ideas, I can look them up and decide which I want to go with.

Thanks in advance.

Actually I do have something to hide -- it's called my privacy.

Thanks for posting the link to that other thread, Sam. That was very helpful. In that thread, there was a list of states that do not require fingerprinting. I just went down the list and checked what the requirements are for a non-resident permit.

Maine is looking pretty good... you can apply by mail for a non-resident permit for $60. They do not require fingerprints, though the form does have you agree that you will provide them in the event that it becomes necessary to verify your identity. It doesn't ask for your SSN or anything, which is nice. I just downloaded the application from here http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/weapons_permits.html and filled it out. Pretty straightforward.

Maine requires you to take a handgun safety course within the past 5 years that is recognized either by the issuing authority, or by the state in which it was taken. The law states that a completion certificate is satisfactory proof of this. I found a free online handgun safety course from the State of Maryland that only takes about 30 minutes and issues you a certificate when you're done: http://www.mdgunsafety.com/ It ought to fit the bill. I am taking it now, and it is really easy stuff.

Man, this is a lot easier than getting an Oklahoma concealed carry license. I can do it all sitting here at my computer! For an Oklahoma CCL, you have to go to a CLEET-certified course that costs $60 and takes a whole Saturday, and involves a written test and live firing. Then you have to go to the Sheriff's office and get printed and photographed (which costs $25). Then you have to fill out an application and pay the state $100, and then in 6 months if you're lucky, they will send you a letter saying you can go pick up your license. To hell with all that -- my money is going to a slightly more free state.

The nice thing is that Oklahoma recognizes all other states' concealed carry licenses, even those with less oppressive requirements (including ME, according to handgunlaw.us). They also do not have any law requring Oklahoma residents to get an Oklahoma license in order to carry -- another state's license will do just fine.

Well, I won't say I'm happy to have to be getting permission from any government to exercise my liberty, but I have to say that this is a lot easier than I thought it would be. I don't know why all Okies don't do it this way.

Oklahoma, you can take your license and fingerprints and SHOVE IT!!!

What, you mean that law that was ruled unconstitutional back in 1995, over the government's commerce clause argument, and then reenacted the next year with token changes that basically quoted the government's argument that was rejected in the earlier SC case?

I guess if I ever get pulled over by a fed within 1000 feet of a school, I'll start worrying about that one. I seriously doubt it would be upheld in Court anyway.

It absolutely falls into the category of laws I will cheerfully break. The risk of getting caught for that one is not high enough for me to worry about.

Yes, my government masters did indeed require my prints to give me permission to practice my chosen profession. I was under duress there... I didn't really have an alternative, if I wanted to work in the area that I chose. Plus it is a lot harder to get away with practicing law without a license than it is to carry a handgun without a license.

Not wanting to get a CCL that requires this is more about the principle of the thing. If there is a way around it, I will take it.

I would have dubious standing unless I was actually charged under the law... I would have to claim that the law harms me by requiring me to take convoluted paths to my destinations, makes some desitnations unreachable, and requires me to look up every school zone in my planned path. It would be easy for a court to dodge this issue by denying standing. For a criminal statute, you generally have to be charged under it in order to have standing to challenge its constitutionality. It would be a lot of trouble and expense for a doubtful outcome.

Now if someone actually was charged with that crime, I would represent them pro bono.