I have been considering reasons for CCW licensing...

[Duke Junior]

This is the problem, fiddletown.

And it still doesn't change the fundament proposition that, in my view, it is absolutely appropriate to expect, as a condition of legally carrying a loaded gun in public, one should be required to demonstrate competence, a clean record and an basic understanding of the law.

That is not my understanding of the 2A.And check that spelling counselor.Of course all criminals scrupulously follow these principles of yours.
But you are a totally dedicated California Dreamer so what are we gonna do?I tried to be understanding, but it doesn't work with you.Starting to understand your handle now.
Are we to give in to your convoluted rhetoric.Sorry.
Next?Cue the Momma's and the Poppa's ,1966."All the the leaves are brown and the sky is gray".
I love that song and miss John Phillips and Momma.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well Duke Junior, thank you for pointing out my typo, and I've corrected it.

As for the rest of your blather, what are you trying to say?

I'm not sure what your understanding of the Second Amendment is nor where you got it, but I do know a little something about the law. Based on my understanding of the sorts of regulation the courts have permitted of Constitutionally protected rights, there is a very high probability that a court would find Constitutional a shall issue license to carry law that requires one to demonstrate competence, a clean record and an basic understanding of the law.

Now are you suggesting that I'm a "California Dreamer" for holding that opinion? I think that you're a North Carolina Dreamer if you think that the courts will ultimately sustain your views.

And, no, you don't have to give into my rhetoric. The question will be settled in the fullness of time by the courts. I don't think that they'll be consulting you or me.

 

[Duke Junior]

As for the rest of your blather, what are yo trying to say?

Another typo ,fiddle!

But again,I think in the interest of forum harmony, this ex-Californian(San Francisco,4 wonderful years!)should just agree to disagree before our conversation begins to degenerate completely.
I,and I'm sure you, have many more pressing concerns in our current environment than to carry on a negative internet debate.
So, I offer my cyberspace hand in good fellowship and wish you and the Dow Jones a good week.
And none with standing ,I still love California and wish many times I was back on Market Street or in Monterey in 1967.
Peace.

 

[rfurtkamp]

The problem with this is we live in a society founded on the idea that punishment and sanction occurs after the crime has been committed, not before.

Punishing people because they 'might' hit an innocent person isn't what this is about - if we apply that standard, every one of us *might* hit a bystander no matter how much training or magic bullets we use.

What happens when training classes are limited to once or twice a month, as I know happens in some jursidictions, and you have to be physically there at a time you may have to work or have legitimate social obigations?

I *recommend* everyone get firearms training from a competent professional. I've seen those who do not benefit (either already have taught themselves exceedingly well or are utterly hopeless) as a trainer. I don't want to require it.

Our freedoms should not require authorization, paper, or games to exercise.

As a former subject of the People's Republic of Illinois, where the State Police love to lose the purchase permit/ammo permit/FOID card applications or say fingerprints are smudged over and over, letting the morons in office decide who and when can do what via a permit or magical plastic card is folly of the highest order.

Once you give a gov't body authority to issue permits and licenses, you give it the authority to deny them - and some people will be denied by bureaucracy, paperwork error, or other silliness. A no-permit system denies *no one* their right to protect themselves through human failure, capricious issuance, or flat out mistkes

And yes, I oppose permits for political gatherings too, I'm consistent like that.

 

[rfurtkamp]

I suppose I should also add that I am also for no-permit, no-hassle open carry and appropriate education of LEOs.

I have *never* been harassed here for OC. Not once. They know it's the law.

The right to keep and bear arms openly is alluded to very, very strongly in Heller - that's our first 50 state progression IMO.

 

[CliffH]

Just a couple of quotes from a quick Google search.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/guns_and_violence.txt

Gun ban advocates routinely portray good citizens with guns as inept and
dangerous, but good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as
frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals[11] and
they do it with a better safety record than the police. About 11% of
police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing
an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.[49] Citizens intervening in
crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.[49] We can explain
why the citizen record is better than the police (the police usually come
upon a scene in progress where it may not be clear who is attacker and who
is defender; also, the police, unlike defenders, must close to handcuff the
arrestee), but the simple truth remains: citizens have an excellent record
of protecting themselves, their families, and their communities.

http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police
Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

This is not meant to be an indictment of the police. In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound or totally miss their target.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace

I highly doubt that the average citizen is a safer bet than LEO in a shooting because they've shot a few rounds at a piece of paper while taking a state required test.

It's been said that our opinions don't count, what counts is what the courts say. I believe that most elected officials will listen to their constituents, but only if enough constituents contact them. They're not going listen to just one or two people.

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment saying anything about how or where a citizen can bear arms, just that we can.

In those states that don't allow open carry, a person is stuck with the choice of concealed carry or not carrying. Requiring government permission to carry when we're already guaranteed the right to bear (carry) arms is just wrong!

Regarding those "few dollars" required for obtaining a government permission slip; we're on a fixed income that's getting tighter every day. A lot of scrimping had to be done to even apply for (beg for?) the governments' permission for my wife and I to carry - and we don't even know we're going to be "approved"! Could be we just sent our money in to the state for nothing. I've worked for the federal government & wife's worked for state and local - we've seen what can happen with paperwork.

There are a lot of folks who's financial situation is worse - what are they supposed to do??? Oh, that's right - they can't legally carry! Too bad for them, right? They should just get a third or fourth job so they can pay for the privilege of carrying.

 

[yeti]

1) OK. Now, what about those (free) states (Alaska & Vermont) who don't even issue a permit? What are those folks to do?

Since we let anyone, from anywhere, even Mass. & Calif., carry here without a permit, a Vermont Drivers License should serve as a CCW permit, for reciprocity purposes.

No testing, no permits, and still blood doesn't run in our streets. It works for us. I like our system, I tend to think it is close to the way it was meant to be.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Thanks for those links, CliffH.

It's been said that our opinions don't count, what counts is what the courts say. I believe that most elected officials will listen to their constituents, but only if enough constituents contact them. They're not going listen to just one or two people.

Some people will go on and on about how only the courts matter and we need to stop bitching/complaining/arguing when our opinions don't matter (see the other thread I started, linked in the first post). CliffH, I am NOT accusing you of doing this, at all. I thought what you wrote was a good segway to this...

I think it is wrong for people to say that our opinions on laws don't count. We are "the people" and, hopefully, the ones who vote. I think this forum, in large part, is meant for the discussion of which laws are right, wrong, unjust, etc. Arguing about certain laws gives us a way to sort out our thoughts, the first step before grouping our efforts and motivating to petition our representatives for change.

I, for one, do not think that a certain law is constitutional and must not be questioned, only because the courts have ruled that way. If that were the case, then the DC gun ban would have been constitutional for 30-or-whatever years until the split second when the court made their ruling. Then, in that split second, it instantly became unconstitutional.

Since we let anyone, from anywhere, even Mass. & Calif., carry here without a permit, a Vermont Drivers License should serve as a CCW permit, for reciprocity purposes.

No testing, no permits, and still blood doesn't run in our streets. It works for us. I like our system, I tend to think it is close to the way it was meant to be.

Help me out... I thought it was AK (or maybe VT) that would issue a license to carry as an option, for a person to receive reciprocity in another state?

Can I call BS on that second part? Somehow, I just can't believe that blood doesn't run in the streets with a law like that one

 

[Frank Ettin]

I, for one, do not think that a certain law is constitutional and must not be questioned, only because the courts have ruled that way....

The way to challenge the law is in court. That's indeed what Heller did. But simply posting opinions on the Internet isn't going to "get it done."

 

[Duke Junior]

Help me out... I thought it was AK (or maybe VT) that would issue a license to carry as an option, for a person to receive reciprocity in another state?

It's Alaska that gives their residents the option.

 

[Kleanbore]

Originally posted by Fiddletown: There is a very high probability that a court would find Constitutional a shall issue license to carry law that requires one to demonstrate competence, a clean record and a basic understanding of the law.

That's precisely the case in Missouri. About half of the eight hour required course is devoted to the law.

It's amazing how many people are flabbergasted when they are told what the law allows and what it does not. There are a lot of dangerous misconceptions out there.

Many of those lead people to oppose the right to carry concealed. They think people will be shooting at people in cars, pulling guns on people, or shooting someone trying to gather firewood.

Some of those misconceptions might, but for the training, put innocent persons at risk.

But more likely, in my view, those misconceptions would, but for the training, end up with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens getting themselves put behind bars--not to mention losing their gun rights forever--for brandishing, assault, illegal restraint, kidnapping, using deadly force to protect property (TX is a little different) or using deadly force when it is avoidable in non-castle-doctrine situations.

I say that not based on speculation but on what many of my friends, including liberals, say what think they have the right to do. Absent that, many of the posts on this and other fora substantiate the same conclusion. I always wonder whether some of the people who post such things actually have guns.

The ultimate, long term result would be additional unnecessary restrictions on the right to carry. And we would have provided the justification.