Arguments for "shall issue" versus "may issue"

[HIcarry]

Recently I had a conversation with one of our State Senators about our current system of getting a concealed carry permit. While we are a "may issue" state, the reality of the situation is that the police chief is a big "anti" and almost never issues permits. I think he has issued a whopping 5 permits since 2000, and it's possible two of those were to political cronies. As I was speaking to the Senator, I brought up these facts as a means to demonstrate why we needed a "shall issue" system. The senator's reply was that maybe we needed to remove it the police chief and assign the job of issuing permits to someone else less biased, like a judge. He didn't seem to get that such an arrangement would still be subject to the whims of whoever was given that authority.
Here's the question I hope you can help me with: What arguments support the "shall issue" system? I already mentioned the arbitray nature of the "may issue" situation, so I got that one.
As a little background on the Senator: he's not really anti-gun as he is a rancher and owns (per his statements) two rifles. But he's not a handgun kinda guy and he's got a definite left lean on his politics.
Thanks for any suggestions or comments.
Aloha,

 

[Drgong]

Fairness to all citizens, in that in a shall issue you set up all the requirements, then if they meet it they get a permit.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am not familiar with your state's constitution, but it would help if it defines a right to keep and bear arms. Then you could cite that and point out that any system which interposes any sort of opportunity for capriciousness is a violation of the constitution. If your state constitution doesn't have a RKBA, keep quiet about it and use the same argument but base it solely on the United States Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

 

[NonConformist]

How about we do away w/ permit requirements all together? They are violations of the 2A anyhow!


Fortunantly Florida is a 'shall issue' state, but permit requirements are BS as criminals carry regardless yet I am punished and then have to pay, ask and prove I should have a permit

 

[AK103K]

How about we do away w/ permit requirements all together? They are violations of the 2A anyhow!

Thats my feeling too.

Why do we need to ask permission either way, for something supposed to be a right?

 

[Pat-inCO]

Why do we need to ask permission either way, for something supposed to be a right?

So the PD has yet another charge against the BG. Courts seem to not pay attention to a BG unless he has multiple charges against him.

 

[Old Fuff]

In most "may issue" states, permits are handed out to the favored few, with no special qualification requirement. "Shall issue" states generally require classroom instruction, a marksmanship test, passing a written exam, and passing an FBI background test. If you are able to get a "may issue" CCW it's because you have money, influence, and know the right people.

 

[Frog48]

"May issue" policies are a lingering vestige of Jim Crow laws. The laws were originally written to enable the local police chief and/or sheriff to deny licenses to "certain kinds" of folks, if you get my drift.

They're blatantly discriminatory, and that bothers me.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The senator's reply was that maybe we needed to remove it the police chief and assign the job of issuing permits to someone else less biased, like a judge.

Highly ranked government trough feeders always look after the prerogatives of other highly ranked government trough feeders.

I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about commoners having to petition high ranking government trough feeders for permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think you need a different tact...

A state senator is part of the ruling class. The general mindset of that class is that they are there to rule, and you are there to take it.

A state senator would therefore find it absurd to REMOVE the decision from someone in charge, and give it to YOU (that is, if you choose to apply, you get the CCW).

Arguments I would try:

"I have this 1000 signature petition..."

"I have pledges here for 100 people that they would be willing to contribute $200 each to the campaign of a state senator who would..."

"I urge you to introduce shall-issue CCW legislation" (on a postcard, one of about 5000).

I believe that this is the type of persuasive argument which pricks up a senator's ears.

(I am sure that the above is a cynical over-simplification, and I do offer my apology to any good-hearted state senator who did--or does--support shall-issue because he/she knows it's right, even though it cost him/her politically. But somehow, I think the above arguments will be just as successful with the good-hearted senators as with with the cynical ones.)

 

[brickeyee]

The senator's reply was that maybe we needed to remove it the police chief and assign the job of issuing permits to someone else less biased, like a judge.

This is the system Virginia had for many years.
Judges in liberal areas simply refused ALL permits except for 'the chosen.'

Virginia switched to 'shall issue,' still administered by the judicial system and has had few problems.
Some judges have wandered out of line, but they usually are quickly brought back to the law.

 

[HIcarry]

I am not familiar with your state's constitution, but it would help if it defines a right to keep and bear arms. Then you could cite that and point out that any system which interposes any sort of opportunity for capriciousness is a violation of the constitution. If your state constitution doesn't have a RKBA, keep quiet about it and use the same argument but base it solely on the United States Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

Hawaii's Constitution mirrors the US Constitution. Unfortunately, much like the Ninth Circuit and many other Circuits, the courts have interpreted this as a "collective right" and not an individual one. We even had a guy file a pro se action based on this last year (against the advice of many due to the pending Heller case) and lost it due to the collective interpretation. That being said, the Senator was willing (at least he said he was...I'll have to wait to see if he actually makes himself available for more discussions on the subject) to talk about it, so I wanted to try and prepare a more convincing argument.
I completely understand and agree that any system that allows one person the discretion of allowing a permit is flawed for the reason you mention (capriciousness), but I need some "debating" tips to make him realize that as well.
Thanks for the comments.
Aloha,

 

[HIcarry]

In most "may issue" states, permits are handed out to the favored few, with no special qualification requirement. "Shall issue" states generally require classroom instruction, a marksmanship test, passing a written exam, and passing an FBI background test. If you are able to get a "may issue" CCW it's because you have money, influence, and know the right people.

We are doing a little bit of research on the CCW permits issued and one of the things that came up was that a permit was issued to a family member of a politician....I haven't been able to verify the story, but it appears that the permit was pulled when the press/public found out about it.
It is clear that here, to get a permit, it is definitely who you know.
Thanks.

 

[HIcarry]

"May issue" policies are a lingering vestige of Jim Crow laws. The laws were originally written to enable the local police chief and/or sheriff to deny licenses to "certain kinds" of folks, if you get my drift.

They're blatantly discriminatory, and that bothers me.

I didn't mention that, but that may be something I use. Thanks!

 

[HIcarry]

Arguments I would try:

"I have this 1000 signature petition..."

"I have pledges here for 100 people that they would be willing to contribute $200 each to the campaign of a state senator who would..."

"I urge you to introduce shall-issue CCW legislation" (on a postcard, one of about 5000).

I believe that this is the type of persuasive argument which pricks up a senator's ears.

All good suggestions, but I also have to be a little cautious. Hawaii is a very liberal, Democratic state (who has been caught up in the Obama frenzy because the Senator spent some time here as a youth) and my Senator is one of the few Democrats who have been generally supportive of gun rights here. So I don't want to come off as threatening lest we lose the (albeit minimal) support we get from him. Because he (my Senator) portrays himself as a bit of an intellectual, I wanted to try to sway him with logic and rational debate.
I appreciate your suggestions, and if we had someone more supportive of gun rights sitting in the wings, I wouldn't hesitate using some of the suggestions you mention.
Thanks.

 

[Soybomb]

The majority of states are shall issue and there are just not any real problems that have resulted from it. If someone opposes shall issue, they need to be able to show the failure of the shall issue system.

 

[ilbob]

It might be better to have a judge issue it, but that has not been a whole lot of help in many NY counties.

Shall issue is the way to go.

If the police chief does not want to issue and it is his choice, there are no permits. If he is required by law to issue, he will, or face sanctions.

Personally, I have never understood why gun permits are controlled by LE agencies at all. They are not in charge of determining whether you can start a newspaper, or write in a blog. Why should they have anything to do with expression f any right at all?

 

[HIcarry]

The majority of states are shall issue and there are just not any real problems that have resulted from it. If someone opposes shall issue, they need to be able to show the failure of the shall issue system.

I agree that "they" should have to prove why a "shall issue" system would not work, but we know that is not the case. Since the law currently is "May Issue" we need to change the law. That unfortunately involves "us" convincing "them" that a "Shall Issue" law is "preferable" or "better" for the myriad of reasons we know to be true. All "they" need to do is prevent passage of any introduced legislation, usually thru legislative tactics intended to stall or prevent voting on the measure.

 

[ArmedBear]

How about this:

The owner of Da Moke's Malasadas, if he knows the right people, can get a CCW permit because he carries a bag with a couple hundred bucks in it to the bank at closing, even though he is half the size of Samoa.

His neighbor, a 5'1" 100 lb. bartender who goes home at 2:30AM, can't get one, even though two of her coworkers have gotten raped this year, because she doesn't have a "good reason" for a permit.

"Shall issue" levels the field. Most people won't get a CCW permit. However, by spelling out the requirements to qualify, and allowing anyone who meets them to get a permit, you let individuals decide whether they need a gun for protection. This also supports the idea of the rule of law, instead of arbitrary rule by the local old boy network. Hawaiians may be used to the latter, but that doesn't make it right.

Again, most people won't get a permit. However, "shall issue" lets a bartender, not the sheriff, decide if her body is worth as much as a bag of dollar bills and change.

(All of that said, I'm not sure there's a lot of hope for this in a state where there's a significant movement to bring back the monarchy, any more than there's a lot of hope in California, the land of "liberal" fascism. I mean, who the hell are the rebels who will help support the rule of law, when they're busy clamoring for being ruled?)

 

[FLA2760]

Grant 48 wrote,""May issue" policies are a lingering vestige of Jim Crow laws. The laws were originally written to enable the local police chief and/or sheriff to deny licenses to "certain kinds" of folks, if you get my drift.

They're blatantly discriminatory, and that bothers me".

Very true Grant. Check out the links on the "Sullivan Act" the discriminatory law that NYC bases it draconian gun laws on.



http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html

 

[ArmedBear]

Grant 48 wrote,""May issue" policies are a lingering vestige of Jim Crow laws. The laws were originally written to enable the local police chief and/or sheriff to deny licenses to "certain kinds" of folks, if you get my drift.

They're blatantly discriminatory, and that bothers me".

Hell, Hawaii has perfected Jim Crow. They've developed multiracial racism, without any public outcry or Federal resistance.

Don't expect accusations of racism to sway anyone in power...

Unfortunately, I wonder whether the 10 states that haven't yet gone "shall issue" have a critical mass of the sort of culture and political attitudes that will provide any support for it. I do wish anyone luck, but I've given up on California, short of the courts' forcing something on the government here.

 

[crashresidue]

Cheers HIcarry,

Glad to aee aother HIwiian - mispelled on purpose.

Take the time to "smooze" him. When my wife and I moved here 10+ years ago, we both had carry permits from another state. Like a "good" citizen, I chose to abide by the idiotic gun laws here and went down and registered the weapons that were specified under the law. Did the fingerprint/picture thing - was told that it was "just for in-house information". Yea RIGHT!

They ran it all through the federal database - which in our case was no problem.

I then asked the county clerk about getting a local carry permit. The look on her face was priceless! "See the PIO at the end of the hall".

So, I diddy-bop down and approached the specified individual. Showed him my out of state permit. INSTANT hostillity! "You DON'T need a gun here - the police will protect you".

OK, I'm a wise-*ss, so I leaned onto his desk and asked in a LOUD voice "And just how many bullets do they let YOU carry in your pocket, Barney?" I thought he was going to come over the desk when the older people in his office started to laugh. He, apparently was too young or dumb to understand the reference.

The point I'm trying to make is do your 'pushing' low keyed.

Had a lady cop stop by one afternoon last year, while I was cleaning some rifles. There had been a call about possible prowlers in the neighborhood and she was checking it out. We chatted for a few, and then she said "You're the one that p*ssed off that LT at the clerks office aren't you."

THEY DO REMEMBER!

I'm dealing with an ex-ADA, who pig hunts with pistols, about pushing this states laws based on the Heller decission. His advice is do it under the radar and keep it low keyed. He remembers my little incident also - even though it happened years before he moved here.

It also came up in the "jack-lighting" incident I postd here a couple of years ago.

The advice in previous posts is good - just remember - under the radar!!!

PM if you want.

Gentle winds,
cr

 

[ArmedBear]

Well that's the question, isn't it.

Do you want to find out how to do things "under the RADAR", or do you want legislation introduced?

You may not have a choice, in the real world. But if you want to change things, then clearly you have objectives that go far beyond carrying a gun yourself. And I commend you for it.

 

[romma]

Well till you get "May Issue" in Hawaii, at least there is no crime to speak of there...

Kidding, keep fighting and organize your ranks HIcarry!

Point out how well Shall Issue works in other states!

 

[HIcarry]

If the police chief does not want to issue and it is his choice, there are no permits. If he is required by law to issue, he will, or face sanctions.

I am not sure that is true...while he (the police chief) has the discretion to issue permits based on his perception of "need" he cannot (at least per a 9th Circuit decision, see: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html) decide not to issue any permits. Additionally, I believe another case (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/guillory.html) said that if you issue a CCW to one person, another person with essentially the same sated "needs" could not be denied a permit. Essentially saying that the criteria for issuing had to be "fair" to everyone applying.
IANAL, so I may be misstating the cases, so feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.