Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

[berettaprofessor]

Fellow THR'ers, please don't stone me or string me up for feeling a little Fuddness right now. I thought I understood and agreed with the "no compromises" group here but I need to hear some reasoned arguments for or against the following issue because I guess my soul isn't as accepting as my reasoning:

A bill to change Kansas's concealed carry law and recognize permitless concealed carry has been introduced into the Kansas legislature. I know permitless carry is, in theory,always a step towards personal freedom, but I have the following reservations about supporting this bill in the interests of societal freedom:

a) I'm worried that permitless carry here and in other states will hold up any national reciprocity legislation....if there are no permits in more and more states, will others be less likely to recognize carry rights across borders?

b) Truthfully, I don't mind knowing that 10 people around me in a crowd might be carrying concealed, but I also appreciate the peace of mind knowing that at least the majority, those carrying legally, have had some extra training and has some demonstrated knowledge of the pertinent laws and when firearms may and may not be used legally. I guess those are all the same reasons I support driver's licenses, and yes, I recognize that driving is not a "right" but a privledge; yet the need for demonstrated ability and education is similar. Not sure I want every less-than-knowledgeable Tom, Dick, and Bubba to be running around carrying granddad's old revolver tucked into their belt. Yes, I know that Tom and Dick are probably doing it illegally right now. But why encourage Bubba?

c) I don't have access to the full text of the bill, but currently, with a CCH, I can bypass the NICS check here when purchasing firearms. I'm afraid this bill will change that convenience.

d) I frankly wasn't bothered to have a background check and go through the small hoops and cost here to get a CCH, particularly since it has had several other benefits (I've noticed that TSA waives me through the lines more often without the no shoes rigmarole and I don't believe it's a coincidence. Also my encounters with law enforcement here have seemed more positive, not that they were bad before...). Kansas is not a hard state in which to obtain a CCH permit.

I guess I'm viewing all this a little like the open carry debate; I agree that open carry should be completely legal, but I'm also not sure that it helps the ultimate cause if we're pushing the issue and panicking the hoplophobes with it.

Okay, have at me....tell me why I shouldn't have any reservations about permitless carry legislation.

Addendum; still haven't found the text of the bill, but a summary suggests that the current law re. concealed carry will still be in effect and we can obtain permits for the purposes of bypassing NICS or carry concealed in other states with Kansas reciprocity.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

A.) For one thing, the more states that recognize no-permit-required carry, the less NEED there is for reciprocity.

B.) If you can get 3-4 30-minute sessions with a competent instructor, you have (sadly but probably true) more training than 75% of the people around you.

C.) States and BATFE can do away with NICS exemption any time. Courts have ruled that it is not an undue burden.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

I agree that a license should be needed to carry a firearm in public.

Why?

Being an idiot on your own property will most likely only injure yourself.

Being an idiot in public can injure yourself and others around you.

It comes with great stupidity to let just anyone carry a firearm in public, and not expect them to have a good deal of safety training along with it.

Not ONE STATE in the US allows someone to drive a car without being trained on how to do so, because then you raise the possibility of someone killing another motorist due to now knowing how to operate their car.

The same can be said for a pistol or revolver.

Putting a device that has the power to take another one's life, into the hands of a untrained moron, is just asking for trouble.

I fear the actions of untrained firearm holders would cause more movement from the anti's than safely giving licenses to people who have proved they can safely use a firearm.

 

[Sam1911]

berettaprofessor, we have an ongoing thread about this, including a lot of your questions:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=771112

 

[Red Wind]

Vermont has not required permits or training or anything to carry a firearm since at least 1903 and probably since 1777. They rank about 47th in overall crime.

Four other states,AK,AR,AZ and WY have joined them. This is the way to go. Stop worrying about Bubba. These 5 states certainly don't.

 

[Sam1911]

Rather than merge these threads, I'll just make a few quotes from that one:

Quote:


1) The second amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If a government agency says, "you may not bear arms if you don't x,y,z" that's an infringement. Some government agency's theory about how much training you need, or how much you must pay for it, or what level of proficiency you must prove, or under what conditions should NOT be levied against a citizen in order for them to exercise a right that the framers said belonged to everyone and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

2) The experience of many other states proves the fallacy of your implication about all those "experts" you're saying we "let" carry arms. In states where NO training is required -- in fact in states where NO licencing or permitting is required -- there is not one (not one bit of evidence that lawful gun carriers commit more negligent or criminal acts with their weapons than in states which require hundreds or thousands of dollars to get a special permit to carry.


So, while your innate elitism tells you all "those people" can't be trusted to bear arms, you really don't have anything you can point to as proof of a concrete risk posed by that. And our Constitution says you shall not infringe the right, even if it WAS especially dangerous.

 

[Sam1911]

Further: Kansas is a "traditional" Open Carry state. In other words, KS requires NO permit or training or any other hoop-jumping to carry a gun openly.


What is it about draping the hem of your shirt over your gun that makes you suddenly need special training and a government certification? Is that what this really is? You want the government to vet people before they drape their shirt tail or jacket a certain way? That's the only difference...

 

[thirty-ought-six]

They rank about 47th in overall crime.

Overall crime is a very loose statistic.


According to a study released this week by the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C., Vermont had 78 gun deaths in 2011, compared to 54 fatal car accidents as reported by the Governor's Highway Safety Program.


I bet if gun owners had to prove safety training, it would be more deadly car crashes than gun deaths.

I'm all for open and concealed carry, I just think it's stupid to let someone have a loaded gun without any training.

 

[Red Wind]

2) The experience of many other states proves the fallacy of your implication about all those "experts" you're saying we "let" carry arms. In states where NO training is required -- in fact in states where NO licencing or permitting is required -- there is not one (not one bit of evidence that lawful gun carriers commit more negligent or criminal acts with their weapons than in states which require hundreds or thousands of dollars to get a special permit to carry.


So, while your innate elitism tells you all "those people" can't be trusted to bear arms, you really don't have anything you can point to as proof of a concrete risk posed by that. And our Constitution says you shall not infringe the right, even if it WAS especially dangerous.

Excellent points, Sam .#2 says it all.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

Also, if gun owners HAD to be trained, vs a permit-less state, I think more crime could be prevented, as someone who have the training on how to properly draw their weapon, vs someone who has no idea on how to even use the gun.

 

[berettaprofessor]

All good points. And thanks, Sam, I saw the other thread when it started, but wasn't interested in the early posts and didn't know it had veered into CCH training, permittless carry, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

Hey, thirty-ought-six, you do realize you just quoted statistics from the "Violence Policy Center?" That's pretty much the shell of the old line anti-gun movement from the '80s and '90s. Josh Sugarman and his small crowd. You really don't want to be "caught" quoting or repeating a single thing they've ever said. Might as well quote Mike Bloomberg and Sarah Brady and Dianne Feinstein while you're at it. ZERO credibility.

Also, if gun owners HAD to be trained, vs a permit-less state, I think more crime could be prevented, as someone who have the training on how to properly draw their weapon, vs someone who has no idea on how to even use the gun.

How do you even figure that? What crime is happening now that would not be happening if lawful gun carriers had to get state-mandated training? ANY? ANYWHERE? Find me some. Statistically speaking, you simply can't. The states that require NO training (or even permits/licenses) have zero higher rates of criminal or negligent acts by their lawful gun carriers than the states with the very strictest, most restrictive requirements.

It sure does sound "truthy" that forcing some kind of training should make society safer, but nothing in the real world supports that theory.

 

[Sam1911]

I just think it's stupid to let someone have a loaded gun without any training.

A person should absolutely get training. We all should. Everyone should. Some do. However, your right to bear arms (that's "BEAR" as in carry with you, not "own" or "possess") comes with no requirements. NONE, according to our US Constitution.

You have a responsibility not to break the law and/or harm someone else with your firearm. That's YOUR responsibility. Not the state's responsibility to control or limit or educate or impose. You have the same responsibility not to break the law or harm someone with your chainsaw, or your gallon of gas, or your 4-wheeler, or your knife, or any other potentially dangerous property. No one forces you to pay license fees or pay for training, or prove any other requirement before you're allowed to own, possess, and BEAR those items. This is no different. If you choose to be uneducated and reckless with them, that's your problem and your potential risk of injuring or killing someone else or yourself.

Life and freedom are not safe. They come with risk and responsibility. To have your freedom you in turn accept the risks of life among a society of others (and the world in general). In the end, any promise of relief from risk is an illusion anyway.

 

[wtr100]

I agree that a license should be needed to carry a firearm in public.

Why?

Being an idiot on your own property will most likely only injure yourself.

Being an idiot in public can injure yourself and others around you.

It comes with great stupidity to let just anyone carry a firearm in public, and not expect them to have a good deal of safety training along with it.

Not ONE STATE in the US allows someone to drive a car without being trained on how to do so, because then you raise the possibility of someone killing another motorist due to now knowing how to operate their car.

The same can be said for a pistol or revolver.

Putting a device that has the power to take another one's life, into the hands of a untrained moron, is just asking for trouble.

I fear the actions of untrained firearm holders would cause more movement from the anti's than safely giving licenses to people who have proved they can safely use a firearm.

Paperz please ...

Ist einen documentation in ordinung?

Oh and pick up that can citizen ...

Can you data to support a license or training requirement having any public good?

 

[Jim Watson]

Arizona does not require a carry permit but they will issue a permit which will set you up in a reciprocal state.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

Can you data to support a license or training requirement having any public good?

The bigger question is, what would it hurt?

 

[wtr100]

The bigger question is, what would it hurt?

It's not my job to prove the harm it's your job to prove a substantial benefit

But look at IL 16 hours of training to get your permission slip from the state to exercise your privilege to bear arms. While I enjoy teaching the classes greatly it's really little more than a barrier to entry

 

[Sam1911]

The bigger question is, what would it hurt?

(Assuming you aren't merely yanking our chains for yukks...)

You look at a serious infringement on a Constitutionally protected RIGHT and, with a straight face, claim the biggest question is "what would it hurt?"

That's -- NOT -- the right question. To infringe on a right, the first hurdle is figuring a way past that pesky "shall not be infringed" phrase. But lets say you're just not that big a Constitutional believer.

The very next thing you have to do is PROVE that there is a highly compelling social benefit that society really can't exist peaceably without. Not that you suspect, maybe, it sort of sounds like a good idea that we should try this because it might help prevent some crimes you don't have any evidence are happening anywhere.

 

[LocoGringo]

thirty-ought-six seems eager to determine who can carry and who can't or who should own guns or who shouldn't from both this thread and many other posts I've noticed he/she's made rather than following the principles of the Constitution and gun ownership laid out plainly in the second amendment AND the risks that go along with that freedom. Can't say I agree with anyone else determining what I can or can't own or under what circumstances I can carry when it's plainly stated in the Constitution. Sounds like tyranny to me when someone else makes decisions for me.

Also interesting how condescending he/she is when referring to "any idiot" owning a gun can carry without a CCW permit or some form of training. That's some "high horse" thinking right there...reminds me of a lot of northeastern politicians that are anti-gun.

 

[Sam1911]

[As an aside:]

"What's the harm?"

How about this? I'm a woman going through a bad breakup. My former lover is extremely angry and threatening me. I've seen him following me home from work. He has a history of violence. All of a sudden, I want a gun to carry in case he tries to kidnap or kill me.


State says: "Oh, that's fine. Please fill out these forms and pay these fees (whether you can afford them or not), and then sign up for the mandatory training. Let's see, next training class is in March, but that one's full... you can sign up for April's group. ... Wait, have you provided your fingerprint card? How about your list of references? ... Now there is a bit of a backlog we're working through. Get everything done and we should have your gun permit issued within 90 days..."

 

[Old Fuff]

To elaborate: Arizona used to require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and to obtain one a person had to attend classes on related subjects and pass a written test. They also had shoot a very basic course of fire and post a passing score. Of course all of this included an FBI background check and the submission of fingerprints to confirm identification.

More recently they changed that to make the permit optional, and allow concealed carry by anyone 18 or older who had clean mental disability and criminal records. They even went so far as to include non-resident visitors under the same conditions. Note that they're were no specific training requirements.

Now I will admit that this worried me. But over time they're were no increases in shooting incidents of any kind that could be laid at the doorstop of these relaxed procedures.

Folks can have all kinds of opinions and theories about no-permit, no training concealed or open carry. But the proof of the pudding is actual experience, and Arizona has been an excellent test bed.

And our experience so far has been that unrestricted carry has no detectable negative affects. If it had our legislature would have quickly repealed or amended the statute that allowed it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Arizona does not require a carry permit but they will issue a permit which will set you up in a reciprocal state.

Best of both worlds plus the permit lets you carry in places that serve alcohol (still can't drink).

The use of force training is really good. Better than I got in Florida (my info is almost 2 decades old so take it with a grain of salt.

Back to the OP's question, the lack of anything going wrong in the 5 states with CC is strong evidence. Any reason to trust Kansans less? I'd be more worried about Floriduh

Mike

 

[CajunBass]

I've said it before and I'll say it here. It seems to me that those who favor some kind of "training" want to draw that line just below where they are at the time. "We're OK, but those "those people" over there aren't good enough."

So who do you want to set the standards?

 

[thirty-ought-six]

Let's look at it in a different perspective.

You need a license to:

1. Drive, and another one to drive a semi.
2. Hunt and Fish (at least in my state).
3. Practice medicine.
4. Be a lawyer.
5. Fly an airplane.
6. Be a dentist.


Why?

For the most part, it either proves you "know what you are doing", or you took the time to prove a greater knowledge of safety in order to receive said license.

There are car crashes every day, some prove to be fatal, but can you imagine how much that would increase of people could just hop in a car and drive, without being taught basic safety?

Or how many malpractice lawsuits would result in anyone being a doctor?

Like I said, it's not right to have a license to OWN a gun, and as I said before, being an idiot on your own property will most likely injure only yourself, but being a idiot in public can endanger not only yourself, but those around you.

When it comes to gun ownership, there are many idiots, in fact if you type in "idiot" into google, the first suggested result is "with guns".

I am for gun ownership, but right after that is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

If you allowed people in public with guns, without any training, all it would be is more fuel for the antis.

This is backed up by the evidence of..

1. Thousands of images of people irresponsibly or recklessly using a gun.
2. The fact that a gun can take someones life by accident if used in a careless manner.
3. The fact that their are idiots in this country.
4. Giving said idiot a life taking weapon without requiring training to have it in public is just asking for trouble.

 

[Sam1911]

this is backed up by the evidence of..

1. Thousands of images of people irresponsibly or recklessly using a gun.
2. The fact that a gun can take someones life by accident if used in a careless manner.
3. The fact that their are idiots in this country.
4. Giving said idiot a life taking weapon without requiring training to have it in public is just asking for trouble.

But not ONE single statistic to say the thing you're scared of is REAL.

Guess your fears aren't strong enough to overrule the Constitution. I'm ok with that.