Are CCW permits an infringement?

[The Lone Haranguer]

I tolerate carry permit systems as a compromise where the alternative is nothing at all.

 

[skidder]

I had my own preconceived Ideas about CCW's, but when the admin of the other site deleted my post, I started poking around the internet and found many who see like most of us. I don't believe that buying into the ccw's makes all that much progression but an option for safety. I believe the internet has aided more in this progression than people think. When I was able to see others were on the same boat I had more confidence in speaking out. The internet has crap, but it does unite individuals in a common cause, and lets people decide for themselves from the opinions of others. People can look up facts for themselves rather being force fed through the Holywood feeding tube.

Unfortunately, these changes from the internet go both ways.

Thanks a bunch guys for showing me some good nuggets.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm pretty OK with requiring a course to carry as a legitimate safety reason. The same thing you would expect to operate an automobile. And shall issue carry comes pretty close to that. I don't consider shall issue an infringement. May issue on the other hand is a totally different story.

Merely carrying a weapon carries as much safety concern as having a car parked in your driveway. Driving a car is something in which one engages regularly and for extended periods of time. Almost nobody shoots guns for a living, or even shoots guns for hours every day, unlike with driving cars. Shooting your sidearm in public generally means you're in a life or death situation, and frankly I wouldn't mind an unlicensed driver taking the wheel to drive a dying friend or family member to the hospital, or taking the wheel to escape an approaching threat. In the end it's still said unlicensed driver's responsibility to know his or her limitations and make a judgement call on whether them driving on the road constitutes more danger than they wish to avert by driving for whatever reason.

 

[HD Fboy]

FWIW, in my state a ccw permit cost $10 and requires no test but does require a background check.

In my state they use it as a way to further penalize the criminals. My 22 year old son got stopped for a minor traffic violation. Told the officer he was packing. The LEO check the gun, told my son nice choice and that it was the same weapon he carries off duty. He did not get a ticket. More importantly, my daughter and her husband were in the car. This turned into a very positive experience all around.

 

[mes227]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BigN]

Of course it is but keep in mind the true purpose of any permit/license. To separate you from just a little bit more of your money...

 

[skidder]

"well regulated" is what Hollywood does with the 2nd amendment.

 

[orionengnr]

Of course they are...but that is where we are at the moment. I have chosen to accept that and pay the fee in order to excercise my rights, and more importantly, to add to the number of individuals who possess a CHL.

For every gun owner who joins the NRA and gets his CHL/CCW/CWP/what-have-you, our collective power increases.

AARP is the most powerful lobby in Washington, due entirely to numbers. Nearly all retirees join AARP, regardless of their views on political issues. And AARP sucks. But that is a separate issue.

Just think of what would happen if 80-100 milion gun owners joined NRA and got their CHL.

Constitutional Carry would sweep across the Nation, and 10-round magazines would disappear.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Of course it is but keep in mind the true purpose of any permit/license. To separate you from just a little bit more of your money...

That's not necessarily true. In 1911 Tim Sullivan, a New York politician pushed through his handgun permit system which is still New York's permit system today. He did so because he was a crime boss and the criminal gangs that worked for him were getting shot by their law abiding citizen victims. They pushed Senator Sullivan to enact the permit system to take guns away from the law abiding citizens who couldn't afford the permits, so that they would quit getting shot at. Just like all the permit systems that have followed, they only affect law abiding citizens, to the benefit of the criminal.

 

[skidder]

I have chosen to accept that and pay the fee in order to excercise my rights, and more importantly, to add to the number of individuals who possess a CHL

You are not exercising your right by paying a fee and having your license plate registered with a weapon. The only way to exercise your rights is to obey the 2nd amendment.

 

[CapnMac]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.

Which actually means we ordinary citizens are supposed to be drilled and exercised and cognizant with "every terrible arm of the soldier" to borrow Tench Coxe's phrase.

Since Tench brings up swords in that quote, it allows me to again ruminate on how, recently, for public safety, the poltroons in Austin made it illegal to wear swords in public (and failed to address things like pipe bands, RenFaire, reenactors and the like). They tucked this in with a requirement that only LE and licensed Security could carry batons, asps, kubotan and the like, and then only under orders and after an official training class.

 

[skidder]

"well regulated" means highly trained, not Hollywood approved.

 

[langenc]

I'm pretty OK with requiring a course to carry as a legitimate safety reason. The same thing you would expect to operate an automobile. And shall issue carry comes pretty close to that. I don't consider shall issue an infringement. May issue on the other hand is a totally different story. From #25

Driving a car is NOT mentioned in the constitution. The founding fathers never dreamed of AUTOs, TV, radios.

The first amendment should not cover TV and radio....


"well regulated" is what Hollywood does with the 2nd amendment. From 3#2
I believe it is what the news media dose with the 2nd amandment.

 

[skidder]

Is "operating a motor vehicle" amendment #3 or #4. I hope we do not compromise beyond common sense. I fear for some that we have already accepted the norm.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Even laws regulating the operation of a motor vehicle only apply on government owned roads, not private property.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

I believe in the CCW rules-one has to get a more detailed background check to get a CPL. My question is, what's wrong with that?
Plus, the CCW class offers a lot of information, gun safety, tactics, legal. Education. What's wrong with that?
I found my class very instructive and helpful. If you have no criminal record or mental illness history then you should not worry about the application process. There is nothing wrong with screening someone who will be carrying a firearm concealed in public.
As a health care provider I don't want to see anyone hurt because either safety was violated or someone with a mental history slipped through.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ask yourself this way. What is wrong with requiring people to pass a literacy test before they are allowed to vote? I mean, it's a serious responsibility, and only those who have demonstrated their ability to do so responsibly should be allowed to do it, right?

 

[Manco]

Yes, the whole concept is absolutely an infringement as long as it exists in any form whatsoever. The reason for this seemingly extreme stance is that our right to life is one that the government cannot protect or in some way compensate for--if you're dead, that's it, there's no way to bring you back. Therefore our natural right to self-defense is absolute and we should all have the same freedom to be armed that criminals enjoy by breaking the laws of the land. For nearly everything else, the law-abiding citizen can generally feel adequately protected under the law, but protecting one's very life is far beyond the reach of the law and more fundamental.

 

[Classified00]

Yes.

 

[00]

Nope. You need a permit for a lot of things to ensure safety. Building permit, driving permit, and demonstration permit to name a few. It's part of living in a society, you can do it just as long as the level of safety is ensured and reasonable.

Don't like it, live away from society or find a new country.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have a better option. work to get the law changed.

The other things you named aren't rights. They are PRIVILEGES. Even for demonstrations, the right to assemble peacefully itself holds a condition, where the government may make reasonable restrictions to ensure it stays peaceful. The right to bear arms specifically says no infringements. The trouble with allowing REASONABLE restrictions, is that your idea and Diane Feinstein's ideas of REASONABLE are two very different things.

 

[Mags]

Post 2 summed it up for me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Ask yourself this way. What is wrong with requiring people to pass a literacy test before they are allowed to vote? I mean, it's a serious responsibility, and only those who have demonstrated their ability to do so responsibly should be allowed to do it, right?

And don't forgot, they should have to pay for the literacy test, and pay for a certificate from the government to take to the polling place to certify that they are qualified to vote. I don't know, what do you think, shootingthebreeze, something reasonable like $150 for the test and $100 or so for the certificate? Nothing wrong with that, right, we don't want people voting irresponsibly!

I believe in the CCW rules-one has to get a more detailed background check to get a CPL. My question is, what's wrong with that?
Plus, the CCW class offers a lot of information, gun safety, tactics, legal. Education. What's wrong with that?
I found my class very instructive and helpful. If you have no criminal record or mental illness history then you should not worry about the application process. There is nothing wrong with screening someone who will be carrying a firearm concealed in public.

Nothing wrong with it other than it takes a basic human right to self defense and turns it into a privilege that only an elite group of people who PAY for training and PAY the government for permission can engage in. Other than that... nope, nothing wrong with it.

The permit system that New York State Senator Tim Sullivan put into effect in New York in 1911 in order to take away guns from citizens who were shooting at the criminal gangs that worked for him is still in place and doing exactly the same thing today - helping to increase the number of unarmed victims available to the criminal. But, at least we don't have people defending themselves irresponsibly in New York...

 

[BeerSleeper]

What about felons and the mentally ill? (Don't take me the wrong way, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) I don't want those people buying or carrying, nor am I suggesting they should be allowed, but strictly speaking from a constitutional standpoint, aren't their rights being infringed?

Yes, I think the permits are infringement.

 

[General Geoff]

What about felons and the mentally ill? (Don't take me the wrong way, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) I don't want those people buying or carrying, nor am I suggesting they should be allowed, but strictly speaking from a constitutional standpoint, aren't their rights being infringed?

ex-Felons? Absolutely. Anyone not a fugitive from justice has the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what they've done in the past. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

As for the mentally ill, usually severely mentally ill people are not legally responsible for themselves and thus cannot be expected to bear the weight of responsibility in personal discretion of exercising their rights. If they can't legally represent themselves in a court of law, then they have no place exercising the rest of their rights themselves.