Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ShooterMcGavin, Jul 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    630
    For a long time, I have held that licensing for concealed carry was unconstitutional. It seems to go against the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. The opposing argument that I have heard is that OC is (or should be) covered in the amendment, but the 2nd A says nothing about concealing :rolleyes: Should it also be made illegal to carry in a horizontal shoulder holster because that is not specifically listed in the 2nd? /sarcasm
    Aside from holding the gun in my hand (which I would agree is reasonably considered threatening), I think "bearing" arms includes any safe manner in which the person decides to carry.

    1. Is CCW licensing Constitutional, or is it simply another way for the gov't to control and make carrying more difficult (i.e. Unconstitutional)?

    2. Is there a reason for requiring licensing to CCW (i.e. public safety)? What am I missing here?
     
  2. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Whoever said that is reading much further into the amendment! I'm no history major but does "bear" mean "to carry in the open"?
    1. I think it's unconstitutional. The people you need to worry about or keep tabs on don't get licenses, they just carry them, and they sure as hell don't obey "no weapons" signs.
    2. Well, if Red Dawn taught us anything...:neener:
    The only safety issue I could see is if a cop could pull up your record and see that you went through the garbage to get their permission, you are probably one of the good guys. Like I said, the ones that are going to stick a gun in the cop's face don't have licenses and sure aren't going to inform they are carrying.
     
  3. ColinthePilot

    ColinthePilot Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,029
    Location:
    I don't even know anymore
    Nope. Its just those of us who are law abiding that willingly let the state track us. The BGs are gonna carry anyway.
     
  4. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    nope. just another way to make us pay more money, just like dang near every other permit, license, application, etc out there. money money money.

    Bobby
     
  5. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,352
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Its like a poll tax, trying to prevent us from exercising our rights. The only good I see from the CHL is in the 12+ years I've had mine, is showing it has got me warning instead of tickets three of the four times I been pulled over. I went to court and beat the d**m speed trap as I'd rather pay the lawyer than support this Houston revenue source.

    --wally.
     
  6. Thernlund

    Thernlund Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,347
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I've always seen it as a revenue generating measure. Like a drivers license and how those fees go to pay for roads and such.

    Generally I have no problem with CCW licensing so long as it's kept in that light (revenue generating). We have one of the nicest state-owned ranges in the country here. CCW fees ought to go towards supporting it (not sure if they actually do directly, but they might in some fashion).


    -T.
     
  7. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    There are some states where they make money off CCW( not like its alot) but for the most part they are charging about what it cost to issue them.


    For example in CA it cost you $90 for your 1st time. now they use the life scan progarm, I use the same for my employees. that costs me around $10 + the $32 doj back ground check... it basicly cost me around $50. Right there thats more then half the cost, it would not be unreasonable for the addiontal man hours needed to complete the rest of the required stuff to cost $40.
     
  8. just carl

    just carl Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    All gun laws are and should be more of a local addition as to what is legal and what is not. In some areas of our courtry just about every kid has a gun and no crime either. Now in Illinois, Chicago, Cook County there are so many gun laws that it would probably take days to read them all. They don't even sell guns, ammunition or even gun cleaning equipment here. If you want a gun you have to get a state FOI card, then if you were allowed to have a gun you would have to register it with the city. Now if you read the newspapers or watch TV you would see just how fantastic all those laws are.
    For some unknown reason to our polititians, the criminals here just don't read those laws.
    Instead of any new gun laws we should spend more time and money educating the criminals so they could read those laws and see it's not nice to commit crimes with guns.:):)
     
  9. macadore

    macadore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    San Antonio
    My CCW course was quite beneficial. Most of it covered when I could or could not use deadly force and where I could not carry. I think it made me a more responsible firearms owner.

    Whether or not it is unconstitutional or not depends on whether the Bill of Rights constrains the states or just the federal government. There is a very long thread already going on over that.
     
  10. Thernlund

    Thernlund Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,347
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Somehow I don't think that that would be the first thing on their mind even if they did read the law.


    -T.
     
  11. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Nope. "Bear" means "carry," and carries neither denotation nor connotation of method.

    Taxing rights is an unconscionable infringement.
     
  12. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Nope.
    It's unconstitutional.
    I go along with it because it's the only legal way to carry concealed in my state. Even an idiot can figure out that paying $25 and jumping through some hoops is better than doing prison time.

    But it's still BS.
     
  13. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    630
    If the licensing provides NO benefit of any kind, and I believe that to be the case, then the part in bold above is a complete waste of money. I don't know why saying that part (in bold) is even relevant. You might as well tell me, "the money you spent for that plastic CCW license goes to pay for clowns to entertain our politicians, but the clowns are totally worth it".
     
  14. makarovnik

    makarovnik Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,677
    Some of our founding father like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were against a bill of rights. They feared that if we had a list of "rights" that someday the government would say if it's not on the list then you don't have that right. That is why they talk about inalienable rights.
     
  15. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    Since we are comfortable with the idea that doctors, lawyers, building contractors, etc. be licensed for our safety, it is logical that society will require that those who carry weapons concealed in public be licensed.

    Pilgrim
     
  16. chris in va

    chris in va Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Louisville KY
    I dunno. Training usually comes with the CC permit. Maybe it is unconstitutional, but it's nice knowing you've at least had *some* gun familiarization/useage training rather than just buying a gun and sticking it in your pants.
     
  17. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251

    Don't mean to come down hard on you man, but where does it end then?

    Should a license be required to keep a firearm in your home for protection?
    If you can't be trusted to carry a gun for self defense, how can you be trusted with a gun in a residential neighborhood?

    Maybe a license to purchase ammunition...
    Ammunition is very dangerous in the wrong hands and not subject to nearly as many restrictions as firearms themselves. What is there to stop a criminal from walking into Wal-mart and purchasing a hundred-round value pack of 9mm, then using the ammo to kill a dozen innocents?
    Maybe a good solution to that would be to require all gunowners to apply for a license. Actually, maybe it could be like a Hunter's safety course in my state. All you have to do is take the course, which you'll probably have to pay for. Then, every year, you just apply for a license and pay your nominal fee. Then you can buy ammunition. Sounds like a good way to keep ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.

    What about reloading? Smokeless powder could pose a hazard to your neighborhood. Eventhough it isn't really explosive, it is very flammable and could lead to a fire that would burn down the whole block. Can't really take the risk of that, so maybe a license is in order.
    Plus, an inexperienced handloader can make a mistake when loading ammunition. His handloads could cause an explosion while he's at the range, presenting a hazard to bystanders and to himself. Maybe we should require reloaders to carry special insurance in case that happens - for the public good.

    I guess you could come to the conclusion that any ammunition could cause a dangerous malfunction though. Even factory ammunition is known to KB from time to time. So maybe the special insurance requirement should be extended to all gunowners.
    Don't worry though - I'm sure it won't cost any more than regular health insurance. I mean, surely every gun owner could easily afford another insurance policy along with their health insurance.

    And don't forget about those blackpowder guys. Black powder is an explosive. Do you really want just anyone to be able to walk into a gun store and buy an explosive? How do you keep the wrong type of people from being able to obtain black powder? What about terrorists, criminals, and people who have difficulty reading. Don't want those old guys with outdated bi-focals buying black powder and not being able to read the warnings on the can. Because if they can't read the warnings, how would they know not to use a can of black powder as a candle holder? They could blow themselves and many others to kindgom come!
    A license sounds like a good solution.
    And while we're at it, better make these guys carry even more insurance because black powder is very sensitive stuff - more likely for something to wrong. Even the slightest spark, even static electricity, can potentially set it off. Along with the insurance, don't forget about special storage for the black powder. Not a huge inconvenience though: Any licensed contractor could easily build you a safe storage bunker for your black powder, for only a nominal fee. Because contractors don't charge much money for their work. Actually, maybe all gunowners should be required to store their firearms in small, underground bunkers. This would boost the economy by providing work for all those contractors, and provide revenue for the state when we all have our bunkers ispected by the state employed bunker inspectors.
    Looks like a new civil service job is on its way!

    These safety measures may seem extreme, but just like a Concealed Carry Permit, they are going to be necessary for the public good. And if they put the price of gun ownership out of the reach of a few people on the lower rungs of the economy, so be it. At least we'll all sleep better at night knowing that everyone who carries or possesses a gun has undergone licensing and is properly insured.

    Except for the criminals.
    The laws and licensing won't affect them at all.
    Because they don't care.

    Like I said, I don't mean to offend you, but you gotta use your imagination. If you open the door for the anti-gun crowd they'll storm right in and take over.

    Licensing is BAD!
     
  18. HK G3

    HK G3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    The Grand Canyon State
    Let's ask those who live in Vermont and Alaska if they're endangered by the lack of CCW licensing.

    I bet their rivers run red with the blood of innocent children and LEOs :rolleyes:
     
  19. Just Jim

    Just Jim Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    It might keep the cops from killing you for carrying a gun.

    jj
     
  20. Logan5

    Logan5 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,155
    Location:
    CT
    Are CCW holders offering their gunslinging skills to the general public for profit via yellow pages ads? That's basically what someone does as an attorney, doctor, or what you'd do as a licensed tradesman.

    Certainly I hope that you are very well trained and equipped to defend your home and family, but I'm not about to pay you to do it, or call the state attorney general and demand a crackdown on you if you screw it up. See where the analogy falls apart?
     
  21. Catherine

    Catherine member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    879
    Location:
    Montana
    NO. It does not serve a purpose except for the NWO gun control and liberty control freaks, to keep track of you, to generate $$$ for the goobmint$, etc.

    It is NOT Constitutional.

    Gun control = CONTROL. Period!

    Catherine
     
  22. Just Jim

    Just Jim Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    A ccw permit is just an insurance policy that if someone sees your gun and reports you the cops will have no right to take it from you, that is if you haven't broken the law by letting someone see it.

    jj
     
  23. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Only if you have one of those little mall-ninja CCW badges. Flash it to the cops before they start shooting and you should be fine.

    Other than that, it would most likely look like "Gee Sarge, check this guy's wallet out. Sixty bucks and this little card that looks like a drivers' license only not quite. Gun permit? Oops, guess maybe se shouldn't have just killed him without asking him what was up..."

    If it gets to the point where the cops can automatically target anyone just for having a gun, we're in big trouble.
    Thank God that the police in my area, even with their faults, are not morons.

    Why would the cops have any right to take your firearm from you anyway?
    Is that a power that was set aside and specifically granted to the police?
    If not, what the hell are they doing just assuming that they can do whatever they want?
    IMO, if you're just minding your business, going about your daily stuff with a hogleg on your right hip and not doing anything threatening, the police have no business hassling you. If you try to rob a liquor store, well then they should do what they get paid to do. Other than that, let people be.
    And why should it be illegal for someone to see your CCW? I'm sure I've flashed people before with mine. It is almost inevitable if you carry often enough. Eventually, your shirt will ride up over the grip or your pant leg will come up over top of your ankle holster. No big deal. Just pull your shirt back down and go on about your shopping.
    No offense, but the concept of calling the cops on anyone who has a firearm is crazy in my opinion.
    If they're not shooting at me or pointing their gun at the check-out girl at Wal-mart, who cares?
    If they are, they are going to have a problem. That problem will answer to goon, and it will be carrying a handgun.


    As Catherine put it, gun-control is about control.
    It really is that simple.
    No offense to you or anyone else, but anyone who doesn't see that even something as simple as a permit is a way for the state to say "We have POWER over you and WE will decide whether or not you get OUR PERMISSION to do this" is kidding himself.

    I put up with it because it wasn't likely to change (although Heller may eventually open a door to correct that) and because it was more prudent to just put up with the BS and pay my $25, but it's still unconstitutional.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,437
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    First, the courts for years have recognized the regulation of Constitutionally protected rights. Under the applicable legal standard, such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny, must serve a compelling state interest, be no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose and must not obviate the right entirely. I have no doubt that current "shall issue" carry laws would survive a Constitutional challenge.

    I also think appropriate licensing, with a training and qualification requirement, of anyone carrying a loaded weapon in public is a good idea. I see way too much atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship at the public ranges I visit from time to time. And I hear too many fanciful notions about the laws of self defense.

    Among other things, a licensing and training requirement should at least help impress upon people who want to carry guns that it is a significant responsibility.
     
  25. Catherine

    Catherine member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    879
    Location:
    Montana
    PS

    PS:

    What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't some people understand? Geesh!

    Open carry, conceal carry, vehicle carry, home carry, choose to carry in ANY WAY or choose NOT to carry if you don't believe in some things.

    Free will - we all have it and it was given to us by our Creator.

    Freedom - use it or lose it.

    Catherine
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page