I have been considering reasons for CCW licensing...

[ShooterMcGavin]

Yes, just the idea of CCW licensing irritates me. I started a thread a while back, asking everyone if licensing has ever done anything for public safety HERE. For those who don't want to read through that thread, the short (but obvious) answer is that licensing does nothing for public safety. I do not think a single person made a comment opposing that point.

I did some more thinking recently, and I think I have come up with a reason (though weak, IMO) for CCW licensing. I have read numerous reports of people being stopped and "harassed" by officers when they are Open-Carrying. Sometimes, the officers are truly out of line, even seizing a person's gun and citing laws that do not exist. Most of the time, they are doing their job. The point is that, in some of those situations, even the ones that are not a violation of one's rights, people have gotten very irritated and defensive.

My point is this...
Yes, I do think CCW licensing is unconstitutional as I interpret the 2nd A and a matter of safety is not in question here. However, if the license in a person's possession makes their experience with an officer a little faster and a little less like an interogation, that person might have a better interaction with the officer, be a little less irritated/defensive (a little less like an A-hole carrying a gun), and could likely save the good name of the average gun owner. That may have the effect of preserving our rights for another day.

I'm only hoping that this thought gives some people SOME reason (ANY reason) to justify their CCW license. Maybe you will avoid further sleepless nights while cursing "the man" for requiring you to have that little piece of plastic

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

 

[Claude Clay]

laws are like boats:
if your gonna have a boat than you are going to take on water. you can bail. you can have a bilge pump. you can curse the water and sink.
if your gonna have people living all next to and on top of each other, your gonna need rules/laws.you can have a rational set of laws like the 10 commandants. you can complicate the laws till the books fill the library of congress. you can rage against them and self-destruct.

don't mistake my lack of disputing something with agreement. if it don't really matter to me and if it means something to you, why not agree. often, i am going along to get along.
good e'vning

 

[p2000sk]

Licensing is a great way for the monarchy to assert some additional control over its subjects and make a little cash while doing so.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I expect flames; so be it.

I have no problem with shall-issue CCW (which I don't have in my home state, but have experienced in others for non-resident CCW).

If you say no license for a gun in your own home: fine. I'm with you.

But for a CCW, one is going to carry into public areas (where, oh, I don't know, maybe I or my kids will be), so I don't mind having a little extra testing along the lines of:

1. Not a felon (okay: the federal laws and NICS should take care of that at time of purchase).
2. Not a nut job (I mean emotionally disturbed person.)
3. Have some vague idea of use-of-lethal-force laws.
4. Have some ability to hit a target (note: this test should NEVER be more rigorous than what is given to the local LEOs. I had to do such a test for my first CCW, got a 30-shot 297/300--used a gun I'd never seen before, but that's no excuse: I jerked three shots. Later I found out that passing was 210/300. I could have hit the OTHER guy's target 8 times, and still passed!)

If I am good on those four, you HAVE to give me my CCW.

Kinda like driver's license: you want to drive on your own roads? No license needed. You want to drive on public roads? Well, do you know the laws? Do you obey laws in general? Do you brake for hallucinations? And can you safely operate a vehicle? If so, drive in all 50 states, pick your kids up from school, everything.

Yeah, I know: there's no 2A for driving, etc. But that's how I see it.

BTW--I think that if you want to carry on airplanes and in schools, and in gosh-darn NYC, that should come with the CCW, too. It's not like when I enter a new area, I suddenly become a different person. If I'm good to go in a public kiddie park, I'm good to go in a kindergarten.

With all due apologies to my esteemed collegues in VT and AK who make CCW work without licensing, that's where I stand. Asbestos suit on!

 

[Schmidlin]

horse i agree with you. I personally dont just want anyone having this permit. Those who take the course are serious about it and are people i can trust. not saying that only people that have the permit carry but its another safe guard.

 

[Sistema1927]

I personally dont just want anyone having this permit. Those who take the course are serious about it and are people i can trust.

I hate to sound snarky, but that seems pretty elitist to me.

The statement: We wouldn't want the wrong kinds of people having guns now, would we? has been used by tyrants and racists to keep those "untrustworthy" rabble rousers and "inferior" races disarmed.

In conclusion, who cares what you "personally want" if it conflicts with human rights?

 

[Schmidlin]

i ment it more to keep those with mental issues or those with a history of violence from conceal carry. i understand where your coming from. I guess my issue is still anyone will carry if they really want to, just because i have a special card that says i can doesn't mean others who don't have those cards aren't.

i get where your coming from though.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Loosedhorse and Schmidlin - The law in my state requires that I have my CPL (concealed pistol license) on my person any time I am carrying concealed. That means, if I leave the house open carrying (not carrying CPL because it wouldn't be required for OC), with my jacket or shirt tucked behind my gun but the wind/movement causes my shirt to conceal my gun, I just BECAME a criminal!

1. Not a felon (okay: the federal laws and NICS should take care of that at time of purchase).
2. Not a nut job (I mean emotionally disturbed person.)
3. Have some vague idea of use-of-lethal-force laws.
4. Have some ability to hit a target

1. Will this force felons to remain legal when they carry their illegal guns concealed?
2. Same with nut jobs?
3. Because, if a mother with her children faces a mugger with a baseball bat, she should know all the laws before defending herself?
4. What is the statistic about "90% of violent attacks happen within 7 ft"?

 

[smartshooter.45]

+1 Loosedhorse. Even though anyone can potentially carry a gun, those who do it w/out a license know that they are committing an illegal act. by doing so they knowingly run the risk of trouble with johnny law. those with licenses have nothing to worry about. cheers.

 

[Brigrat]

Shall not be infringed upon means just what it says...bearing arms is guaranteed by the constitution, driving a car is not...

 

[Standing Wolf]

However, if the license in a person's possession makes their experience with an officer a little faster and a little less like an interogation, that person might have a better interaction with the officer, be a little less irritated/defensive (a little less like an A-hole carrying a gun), and could likely save the good name of the average gun owner. That may have the effect of preserving our rights for another day.

We should never have to request government permission to reduce government harassment! Government should live in fear of the people.

 

[Loosedhorse]

wind/movement causes my shirt to conceal my gun, I just BECAME a criminal!

You should've been more careful about your shirt, then, huh? Hey, if I drive 56 around here I just became eligible for a speeding ticket. Pretty much any law's going to have some arbitrary threshold, a line that gets crossed. Your argument is valid only if all laws are bad.

Similarly your other points: we can agree that any criminal or EDP can carry illegally, under any system. But, if he's on his way to my kid's playground, and a LEO stops him because he's printing, I'd prefer the LEO can now deflect him from my kid's path, instead of saying, "Playground's right down there. Good shooting!"

Can't prevent everything. But I'd prefer that those on public ways who are carrying with legal blessing be held to some standard (that I would certainly not have higher than what the local LEOs could swing). Sends a signal that such-and-such (very transparent) is necessary, and then you qualify.

Does my system place a prior-restraint or arbitrarily applied burden on the prospective legal gun carrier?

Beats the NYC system of allowing carry only to elites, cops, and criminals. Tell you what: we run with my system for a few years in this country, and if feels too oppressive, we lower the standards or eliminate the license then.

 

[antsi]

This is one of those (many) issues that come down to a difference between ideals and reality.

If we are talking about what is ultimately right and wrong, then I agree with the purists. We shouldn't have to have a permit to carry. Basic human rights should not require permits. The permit system doesn't really prevent the "wrong" people from carrying anyway.

But as a matter of practical politics, I can understand the permit laws. We live in a society where a sizeable portion of the voters, politicians, and policy makers do not understand guns, and who oppose the rights of self-defense and being armed. The real reason for requiring permits is to pacify these people.

For me, the practical issue is a matter of the political landscape. If you live in a political climate where it is possible to pass a no-permit carry law, then by all means - go ahead and pass that law (or really, what it amounts to, is removing laws against carrying without a permit). Go, Alaska. Go, Vermont.

If you live in a political climate that's marginal - say, Wisconsin, where they are always closely divided on whether or not to pass shall-issue CCW - then getting shall-issue CCW may the best you can realistically accomplish. So, as a practical matter, you get the best law passed that you can.

If you have a choice between passing a permit carry law and a no-permit carry law, then by all means, get the no-permit carry law passed.

If you live somewhere that realistically is not going to pass a no-permit carry law, then the reality is that it's not an option. In that case, your choices are between a permit carry law and no legal carry at all. In such a case, I think you're better off with permit carry.

 

[RaspberrySurprise]

You should've been more careful about your shirt, then, huh? Hey, if I drive 56 around here I just became eligible for a speeding ticket. Pretty much any law's going to have some arbitrary threshold, a line that gets crossed. Your argument is valid only if all laws are bad.

Except speeding can kill, while carry concealed cannot.

 

[stevemis]

However, if the license in a person's possession makes their experience with an officer a little faster and a little less like an interogation, that person might have a better interaction with the officer, be a little less irritated/defensive (a little less like an A-hole carrying a gun), and could likely save the good name of the average gun owner. That may have the effect of preserving our rights for another day.

I don't think it has anything to do with that. The police don't harass concealed carriers because they have no idea they are carrying. OC-ers generally get the 3rd degree from law enforcement only because their sidearms are visible.

When the police get their hands on inexpensive, long-range "see through clothing" devices (they are coming - search for "backscatter" - one of many technologies) you'll see. Suddenly the OC folks will blend in "because they have nothing to hide!" and everyone witnessed CC-ing will get the third degree.

I've been on this earth almost 40 years, and have carried (legally, CHP) for almost half of that. I've never drawn from concealment or fired a shot in a defensive situation. I've never, ever been searched. I've never, ever had a pat-down. I could have been CC-ing without a CHP MY ENTIRE LIFE and nobody, law-enforcement or other, would have ever noticed and there wouldn't have been any consequences simply because the firearm was concealed.

The only reason I'm not harassed like the OC people is because the police don't see it.

Steve

--who DOES have a CHP, has never carried concealed without a CHP and does not recommend anyone carry concealed without a CHP. Professional driver on closed course. Your results may vary. Do not attempt at home. Supplies limited. No rain checks.

 

[ezypikns]

Let's see......

1. I am law abiding (yes, even those I don't agree with).

2. Criminals are not.

a. Criminals carry firearms without bothering with with ANY laws.

3. If I'm going to remain law abiding AND protect myself and my family,
I'll get a permit to carry concealed. In Texas it's pretty easy to do.

4. Maybe it seems elitist to some, but I've seen folks who I
don't believe should be allowed to drive.....or procreate, much less carry
around loaded weapons.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Yes, I do think CCW licensing is unconstitutional as I interpret the 2nd A and a matter of safety is not in question here.

It is interesting that nobody wanted to quote THAT part of my post I guess there was no argument with it.

I don't claim that my "argument" is strong, and it is not really an argument. I did say that it is weak, in fact. I do not agree with licensing. But, I'm trying to imagine some of my friends who describe their huge attitudes when any cop questions them (not firearms related). I imagine there are probably law-abiding people out there who would throw a fit if a cop discovered their CCW and started asking questions, even politely.

BTW, this was a hypothetical. Yes, I know it is concealed and it is not obvious to a cop that you are carrying. What if he bumps into you, puts his hand on your back to move you (while performing his duties), your shirt blows up... whatever. Humor me guys.

 

[neviander]

I thought about this same subject just the other night. I stopped by the parent's in laws house and they wanted to treat us to dinner. We all piled in their Expedition and headed on our way, I had my newly acquired crossbreed holster with my .45 acp Witness Elite Match in tow with it. I know my father-in-law really did not give a crap about me carrying, but I must say, I was completely paranoid the whole time I was eating at the local restaurant we went to.

Again, this really was a local scene, most of the people there were people that my parent's in law knew; some of them I knew.

Regardless, I felt like everyone was staring at my new rig, underneath my neatly tucked polo shirt; I logically assumed they were just staring at my 6'8 height and not the bulge on my right hip....but paranoia....hence the term.

The whole time I was battling with myself, telling myself, this is totally legal, there's nothing wrong with this, (I think mostly, because, the restaurant we were in had nothing but picnic style tables to sit at, and if I didn't sit up straight my piece would have been sticking out of my shirt)

Anyhoo, I had to keep reminding myself of the essential reason I was carrying to begin with. I know I'll get used to it, but man...

 

[Sunray]

Would you want the unsafe moron, that everybody knows at least one of, carrying a firearm?
"...my 6' 8" height..." Skinny too? Everybody stares at a mutant until they want something from the top shelf. snicker.
ShooterMcGavin, when dealing with cops, just tell 'em you're carrying and licenced. Takes the surprise away.

 

[No Fear]

I expect flames; so be it.

I have no problem with shall-issue CCW (which I don't have in my home state, but have experienced in others for non-resident CCW).

If you say no license for a gun in your own home: fine. I'm with you.

But for a CCW, one is going to carry into public areas (where, oh, I don't know, maybe I or my kids will be), so I don't mind having a little extra testing along the lines of:

1. Not a felon (okay: the federal laws and NICS should take care of that at time of purchase).
2. Not a nut job (I mean emotionally disturbed person.)
3. Have some vague idea of use-of-lethal-force laws.
4. Have some ability to hit a target (note: this test should NEVER be more rigorous than what is given to the local LEOs. I had to do such a test for my first CCW, got a 30-shot 297/300--used a gun I'd never seen before, but that's no excuse: I jerked three shots. Later I found out that passing was 210/300. I could have hit the OTHER guy's target 8 times, and still passed!)

If I am good on those four, you HAVE to give me my CCW.

Kinda like driver's license: you want to drive on your own roads? No license needed. You want to drive on public roads? Well, do you know the laws? Do you obey laws in general? Do you brake for hallucinations? And can you safely operate a vehicle? If so, drive in all 50 states, pick your kids up from school, everything.

Yeah, I know: there's no 2A for driving, etc. But that's how I see it.

BTW--I think that if you want to carry on airplanes and in schools, and in gosh-darn NYC, that should come with the CCW, too. It's not like when I enter a new area, I suddenly become a different person. If I'm good to go in a public kiddie park, I'm good to go in a kindergarten.

With all due apologies to my esteemed collegues in VT and AK who make CCW work without licensing, that's where I stand. Asbestos suit on!

The truly bad people you describe will carry ANYWAY if they want to. So there goes all the "benefits" of the license. Furthermore, people who are the most dangerous on the roads frequently don't have valid licenses (illegals and repeat DUIers come to mind).

Licenses are a way that government tortures the good people while using the bad people as an excuse, those same bad people who don't bother to get the license anyway.

Shall not be infringed upon means just what it says...bearing arms is guaranteed by the constitution, driving a car is not...

That is a commonly repeated fallacy. Traveling in a car absolutely IS protected by the constitution. Our right to travel has been upheld as obvious by the supreme court and the 10th amendment reserves this right to the people.

 

[neviander]

" Skinny too? Everybody stares at a mutant until they want something from the top shelf. snicker.

lol, I hear that. 6'8, around 260, I'm no lightweight, but at the same time, I know I'm not bullet proof.

 

[Majic]

How is a CCW going to help someone who carries openly? I am not about to change the way I carry so why get a permit that I don't need?

 

[CliffH]

Those who advocate mandantory licensing "because I want to feel safe" or "because I can trust those who've taken the course" really irritate me.

You can't trust me because I haven't taken a test that's designed to be passed (at least in the "shall issue" states)? And you can trust me because I have??? For all you know, I could "nut out" tomorrow.

I just spent the better part of six freaking hundred dollars for my wife & I to get our permits! And that's not counting the cost of the range gun rental (don't own a semi-auto yet), ammo, time, food, money order, postage or travel expenses involved. And that's in a shall-issue state!

Using the driving analogy is bogus & misleading. Driving is a PRIVLEDGE, not a right, (as the RKBA is a right guaranteed in the Constitution).

As for a shooting test, even one no harder than a local LEO is required to pass - and this isn't saying anything about any LEO's abilities - how many times have you heard of or read about an innocent bystander being shot by a LEO? One case that comes to mind happened in AZ, 19 shots fired by LEO, the only one hit was a kid sleeping in his bedroom across the street. Don't bother trying to tell me that passing one of their shooting tests is going to make anyone a better shot, 'cause I'm not going to believe you.

As it stands now, there are so many different laws on the books regarding either open or concealed carry that not even active duty LEO can keep up on them all. A bit of light reading on just this site will turn up quite a few threads showing that folks have been harrassed and/or arrested on bogus charges. Would it be nice to believe that everyone who carries is a great shot and knows all the laws involved in the use of deadly force? Sure. But, we're all human and it ain't gonna happen. I'd give odds that even those who advocate mandantory licensing don't know all the laws involved in carrying in their own local, let alone the laws in other areas.

....the short (but obvious) answer is that licensing does nothing for public safety

Can't argue with that. But, it has been proven that carrying, be it open or concealed, does deter crime and increase the public safety.

 

[Steve Raacke]

4. Maybe it seems elitist to some, but I've seen folks who I
don't believe should be allowed to drive.....or procreate, much less carry
around loaded weapons.

ohnoyodidant.... I said basically the same thing in the "arming the helpless" thread. Some people were offended. Oh well.

 

[TAB]

Can't argue with that. But, it has been proven that carrying, be it open or concealed, does deter crime and increase the public safety.

actually just the opposite. it has been proven that guns play no role in crime stats... even by the NRA...but they tend to forget that part on a regular basis... sounds alot like the other groups... you know like brady...


I can tell you one good thing that comes from lic where a class is needed( assuming its a good class) At the very least laws about carrying have been tuaght, hopeful some basic SD theroy and shooting skills. Rather we like it or not CCW is a privlage, not a right.