Does your CCW admit defeat to the antis?

[RKBABob]

Ditto what Cosmoline said.

Just a few years ago, concealed carry was illegal in many states. Now most states have a shall-issue permit process. We did not make any concessions, the antis did!

Interest in keeping firearms for self defense, and carrying them, is growing rapidly. Forums like this one are spreading the word. We're headed in the right direction.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Is a carry permit a concession?

Nope. It's a big, important step on the road to renormalization of the armed citizen.

I REMIND people that "shall issue" permit laws are REFORMS. They reformed the corrupt and racist manner in which such permits are selectively granted in the few remaining places that have not cleaned up their acts.

 

[30 cal slob]

interesting in some jurisdictions ... open carry is a "right" (that gets abridged anyways with silly off-limits zones) and concealed carry is a "privilege."

In his book, Mas Ayoob even refers to concealed carry in public as a "privilege."

somebody edumacate me on the difference.

 

[gunsmith]

also

In the 17th and 18th century, only bad guys would bother to carry concealed.
Most gun laws were "aimed" at Blacks and Indians, and politicians openly said so.
(unlike today, when the prisons are full of Blacks, who committed "gun crime").
Only a "ruffian" would need to conceal a pistol, or hookers and gamblers.

It was never imagined (until the infamous Sullivan act in NYC) that free white people would be denied arms.

 

[wbh]

double post, my bad.

 

[RKBABob]

Only a "ruffian" would need to conceal a pistol, or hookers and gamblers.

Why would a ruffian need to conceal hookers and gamblers?

I got a good chuckle out of that!

 

[wbh]

all very valid points. Maybe I have been looking at this backwards. (not the first time I've been turned around on something) It does seem to be an intermediate step towards less restrictive gun laws, so long as we do what we can to ensure that these steps are progressive and not regressive.

 

[El Tejon]

Well, the Sullivan act was aimed at a particular group, Italians. Maybe modify that to "white people from northwest Europe".

From those "staunch defenders" of civil rights at the New York Times:

January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -

[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.

 

[MakAttak]

Well, the Sullivan act was aimed at a particular group, Italians. Maybe modify that to "white people from northwest Europe".

But they're not white! They're sort of... off white. And those dirty irish, we don't want them with guns either.

(For those without a sarcasm detector, the meter should look like this ]............./[)

 

[Grizzly Adams]

EL I didn't know Italians came from Austria-Hungary!

 

[Soybomb]

The idea of requiring permits seems to make the transition from right to privilege.

I look at it more as a transition from being completely denied a right to making progress in the right direction. Concealed carry is now legal in more places than it has been in quite some time. I'm sure the anti's don't like that at all. Ideally we'll keep working on it and eventually eliminate the license requirement. From some of the recent topics on here though I believe a large number of gun owners are fine with gun control and may not be interested in reaching that goal. Its up to us to get there if we want.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

EL, I didn't know Italians came from Austria-Hungary!

CWPs are a far piece from where we were back in the fifties and sixties. So lets count out blessings and keep fighting!

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Anybody here have a problem with asking the government's permission to get married in your church? It really bothers me that I had to ask for a permit to undergo a religious ceremony.

As someone who swore up and down that he'd never get married, I've thought a lot about this concept. I'm going to be getting married in a few months. It's my understanding that you're not actually asking permission from the government to be married -- you're asking for permission to get supposed benefits from the government based on your status of being married. Two very different things. I told my fiancee that the only reason I'd ever get married is to ask God to bless our union and share the joy with our family and friends. Nothing more.

Now, on topic: I have been lucky to have lived in two states over the majority of my life which have no laws against unlicensed open carry. Nonetheless, I have had a CWP for over fifteen years. I let it lapse for the first time last year and am not sure I'll be renewing because I'm really of two minds on the subject. While I do like the fact that I can proclaim that I've been vetted and proven to have no criminal history nor mental disorders, I still think that it's dangerous to rely so heavily on it when the vast majority of our history, we as society have gotten along well enough with trusting people enough to carry weapons without having to go through this process in the first place.

I don't think that the acceptance of a permit admits defeat, though I think it does make it more difficult to argue against *some* level of restriction at all, when, IMHO, the 2nd reads quite plainly that there shall be no restriction at all at the federal level, as well as most individual state constitutions.

 

[JohnBT]

"Well, in Va open carry is legal (and in fact if you are going to carry in a bar you currently HAVE to open carry). So getting a Carry Concealed permit is kinda optional."

Nonsense, by carrying openly you give up the advantage of surprise. And around here - downtown Richmond - you'd probably get blindsided by somebody who wanted your gun. Openly carrying a valuable handgun makes about as much sense as walking around with gold chains and a Rolex on and hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets. No thanks.

John

 

[The Unknown User]

No.

Concealed carry is the opposite of that the "antis" want, so no--it doesn't admit defeat.

 

[Superlite27]

Nonsense, by carrying openly you give up the advantage of surprise.

I thought the idea of carrying a firearm was to defend yourself? Here in Missouri, state law dictates that if a person carries, they carry concealed. Many of my friends like it this way. They refer to having "an ace in the hole", or the "element of surprise".

Isn't the best way to survive a gunfight to avoid getting into one in the first place?

How does a firearm act as a deterrent to crime when the criminal can't see it?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather let the world know I've got a pistol. A smart criminal will walk the other way. Maybe he'll run into you. You can surprise him and deal with the resulting experiment in social confrontation.

 

[DDude]

When I became a US citizen I read the Constitution to have an understanding of how things worked in this country. Basically I understood the Constitution as being written limits on the "federal" government since the founders were pretty much wanting a small, limited central government and keeping the real power with the individual states since they had just gotten out from the control of King George (not to be confused with King George Bush).

Then along came the civil war. The federal government gained power as a result of the outcome and the individual states lost power. I personally maintain that Abe Lincoln was not a supporter of the Constitution or limited government. The 10th Amendment basically lost it's meaning as the now victorious federal government began to grow into an ever increasing monster we deal with today.

Although the states began enacting CCW legislation for their respective citizens we're still under the control of a large, dominating federal government that has only grown larger under the current administration. The way things are between the states and the federal now leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out how it all meshes and is a bit hard for my simply mind to get a wrap on. If the federal government were small and limited as the Constitution prescribes, then I could better understand how it "should" work. But it's not so I stay perpetually confused trying to figure out how it all meshes.

 

[antsi]

Q: Are carry laws that require permits a step toward restoration of RKBA, or a step toward further restriction of RKBA?

A: It depends on where you are starting from.

If, in the UK, they passed a law tomorrow allowing "subjects" the ability to own handguns and carry them for personal protection, it would be a definite step toward freedom for them. A HUGE freaking step. Any Briton who rejected this law on the grounds that it wasn't 100% instant restoration of RKBA would be a fool.

If, in Vermont, a law was passed requiring permits to own and carry handguns, it would be a big step backward - a big step toward restriction of RKBA. Vermonters would and should rightly reject such a law.

It isn't always about where you are. Often times, just as important, is knowing what direction you are moving and how fast.

 

[Roswell 1847]

DDUde

Then along came the civil war.

The American Civil War was the result of twenty percent of the citizens of the southern states controling enough wealth that they could institute terrorist campaigns to derail the Democratic process in those states and in this state where they had a great deal less support than anywhere else.

With Tenessee as an example the Voters of this state soundly defeated the referendum on secession. The Confederates then invaded this state and forced another referendum this time kidnapping torturing and/or murdering unionist that stood in their way and registering Confederate troops as residents of the state so they could vote while setting up roadblocks to prevent the citizens from reaching the polls. In some counties they simply disapeared the ballot boxes, along with a few voters.

The Union made no move until the Confederates kidnapped US Navy personel, seized US Government vessels and stores and fired on US Military installations.
Kind of difficult to ignore that now wasn't it.

If the federal government were small and limited as the Constitution prescribes, then I could better understand how it "should" work. But it's not so I stay perpetually confused trying to figure out how it all meshes.

No more powdered wigs either.
Times change and everything adapts or dies.

 

[230RN]

wbh:

Just to clarify, I do NOT intend to carry without my permit. I do NOT intend to break any standing laws, local, state, or federal. I will apply for and see no reason why I won't receive my permit. I just feel that the whole idea goes against what our rights truely are. I do hope to see this law challenged and reversed, and do all that is appropriate to see that happen.

I agree. However, remember that the best qualification for you to change the law is to be a law-abiding citizen in the first place.

In Colorado, the State Constitution confirms the right to bear arms, but qualifies it by saying that this does not prohibit regulation of concealed carry.

And with A2 "unincorporated," that's the law of the land in Colorado.

I agree that too many "privileges" should be "rights to be revoked," and not "privileges to be granted."

Like driver's licenses for example.

One example.

 

[Zundfolge]

How does a firearm act as a deterrent to crime when the criminal can't see it?

A few criminals get shot and the rest of them start worrying about all the guns they can't see.

The imagination of a criminal is much more powerful than simply seeing a gun ... if there are 20 people in a room and one is carrying openly (and concealed is illegal) he knows there's only one gun there so he can walk in, drop that guy and have his way with the room. With concealed carry being legal, if there are 20 people in the room Mr. Criminal has no idea if there are 0 or 20 guns in the room, nor does he know who has them so when he draws his weapon he doesn't know who to shoot first.

Open carry really only works when the vast majority of people carry ... and I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Soybomb]

A few criminals get shot and the rest of them start worrying about all the guns they can't see.

Do you really think that even enter's the head of most criminals? According to the 2006 UCR, there were 154 cases of justifiable homicide in 2006 by private citizens with handguns. Its probably safe to assume that the majority of those did not involve concealed carry but people at home with handguns. It also says there were 1.3 million instances of violent crime. I think we've got a long way to go before any criminals have to worry about getting shot.

 

[230RN]

soybomb

Do you really think that even enters the head of most criminals? According to the 2006 UCR, there were 154 cases of justifiable homicide in 2006 by private citizens with handguns.

Selected sample.

Somebody "guessed" that presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, stops one or two million crimes a year. (No ref.)

Regardless of whether it's one or two million, or 500,000, word gets around. Many of these cases go unreported and cannot be part of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).

I like to think that the time I dumped one in the grass next to me while a guy was running away from my car after trying to hot wire it, discouraged him from further attempts at hot-wiring for a while.

Boy, the sound of that shot echoing off the Flatirons in Boulder, CO, was loud!

 

[KelVarnson]

Nolo wrote:

If the government requires you to have a permit to carry, then get the permit. Don't disobey the law, it makes you look like one of the very lawless individuals that we are combating by carrying.

Try to imagine how offensive that statement might be to someone from a state that won't allow them to carry, no matter how good a person they might be.

 

[A. Patriot]

The problem is that we cannot change history. Until the legislatures of the states of GA and Fl and others first legalized "shall issue" permits that most other states now have, it was pretty much illegal for the serfs like us to carry in most of the states unless you were politically connected.

In other words, our RIGHTS had already been taken away from us from the time of the War Between the States until present day.

I see the current permit systems in the states as a gradual restoration of our rights. "Shall issue" permits are a first step. The next step is a Vermont type law where any non-felon can carry without a permit.

In my state, (in the deep, deep South), we have "shall issue" permits with no training class required. We can carry concealed, loaded handguns in our vehicles with no permit. Not too bad especially since before the current permit system, you had to be deputized by the sheriff or a "security guard" to get a legal permit to carry.