Unlicensed Concealed Carry

[belus]

edit: As Pat McCoy points out in post #7, this question can be misinterpreted. I don't mean licensing of the weapon itself, but rather the necessity of the permit



I read an old editorial about how the inverse correlation between concealed carry and violent crime is evidence that gun control is a poor way to control public safety.

But this got me thinking. There are certain regulations that gun owners seem divided on. Two examples of this are concealed carry on college campuses and in bars (with the consumption of alcohol).

So what about a CHL? Would you prefer it if anyone, without training or a background check, could legally stick a gun in their pocket and go about their business? Vermont does this, and I've never heard of horror stories coming from them.

Then again, there's a solid level of comfort in knowing that those who choose to carry have been preselected as responsible citizens. In fact, we bring up this point in arguments very often. We've embraced and adopted a form of registration that grants us additional rights (which some argue we've always had), but fight fiercely against other types of registration.

So ultimately my question is if concealed carry laws are a form of gun control which you embrace, or whether you would rather people have the right to conceal without a license?

(Anonymous poll)

 

[Soybomb]

Vermont and alaska both allow that and there is absolutely no evidence to support that system bringing increased danger. People can be irrational on both sides of the fence and pro-gun people do at times fall victim to using the same logic as the brady bunch.

 

[fletcher]

So what about a CHL? Would you prefer it if anyone, without training or a background check, could legally stick a gun in their pocket and go about their business?

Yes.

CCW laws are next to unenforceable, and have little or no impact on crime from the standpoint of preventing criminals from carrying guns. How many times in the news do you see someone charged with carrying a concealed weapon unless they're already up to no good, such as on the run after robbing a store or killing someone? As evidenced day after day, this particular law is no deterrent to those who intend on committing more serious crimes.

I'd rather just let everyone carry and lock up those who commit crimes.

 

[ArmedBear]

CCW laws are next to unenforceable, and have little or no impact on crime from the standpoint of preventing criminals from carrying guns.

Bingo. The licenses are primarily a way to tie up resources and employ a few more people in a state office.

 

[bensdad]

I woud prefer it if there was no such thing as a carry permit. I believe Vermont and Alaska have it right. Getting the .gov permission to protect myself and my family seems... dictatorial.

 

[3KillerBs]

I go back and forth a bit.

IMO, in a perfect world, open carry would be the accepted norm and available to all sane, adult, non-felons. With open carry, the people who deal with the gun carrier KNOW he's armed and can take his actions and demeanor into consideration in their dealing with him.

But concealed carry, because it denies others the information about whether or not a person is armed that they could use to adjust their dealings with him, should demand a higher standard of training and preparation because it comes with a higher set of responsibilities.

 

[Pat McCoy]

No licensing of weapons is required for a CCW permit in Wyoming. Your question is poorly stated.

 

[belus]

No licensing of weapons is required for a CCW permit in Wyoming. Your question is poorly stated.

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not mean registration of licensing of the gun itself, but rather the need to get a permit. Hopefully people noticed the edited post.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm not willing to say that the CCW laws are a violation of the RKBA. Though I prefer our approach.

 

[abrink]

The permit system is just a waste of time. Does anyone think that criminals are going to try to get their concealed carry permits? No. Those people that should not carry guns aren't the ones that apply for the permit. People that apply for the permits are good law abiding citizens.

I know several people that carry concealed without a permit in states where that is against the law. Now don't get me wrong these people are good law abiding citizens (besides the fact they CCW) but the permit system would not have done anything to stop them from carrying if they weren't law abiding citizens.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The permit system is basically a tax, a way to get a little more $$$ into the coffers.

Taxing a right?!? grumble grumble grumble.

 

[Tom Servo]

The permit system is basically a tax, a way to get a little more $$$ into the coffers.

Moreso, it represents an inconvenience, which is enough in some states to discourage people from applying.

For example, in some states, you need an 8-hour class that's only available from a few instructors, and during certain times. Someone seeking a permit needs money for the class, time off from work, and a vehicle to get to the class, which could be quite a ways from where they live.

Many people can't do that, and are therefore unable to legally defend themselves.

Politicians will say, "well, if you want it that bad, you'll jump through the hoops for it." Of course, that doesn't have any effect on the guy holding a gun to the back of someone's head at the ATM, except to decrease the number of victims potentially capable of resisting.

I have an innate dislike for the idea that carry should be licensed. The process represents a deliberate impediment to the law-abiding, and it does nothing to stop those who disregard the law in the first place.

 

[jpsimms]

I agree with 3KillerBs, in that open carry should be widely accepted enough that it is the norn, but if someone chose to conceal their gun they should not have to pay for that "right".
If you are legally allowed to purchase a pistol you should be able to carry it in any way you choose.
By the gov making it more difficult and expensive to ccw, criminals know that very few people actually do, and they are more free to do wrong. Without the need for ccw permits many more women would have a pistol in their purse, and I know that all but maybe 1 or 2 of my friends would carry all the time.

 

[308win]

I voted undecided. I definitely support the training component required in Ohio for the concealed carry license. The knowledge that many of the bozos are carrying without training that I see in gun shops scares the hell out of me. That more people aren't being negligently shot is truely God's intervention.

 

[mr.72]

here's my opinion (for what little it is worth):

There should be no legal requirement to obtain a license or jump through the hoops just in order for it to be legal for you to carry, concealed or not. Other than maybe an age requirement, there is no Constitutional argument that supports any restriction.

However, if states want to offer a license after completing training, submitting to a background check, etc., in order for the citizen to gain some tangible benefit at their option, then there is a legitimate reason for the licensing process.

For example, in TX there is an inexplicable sign that is posted in most bars that says "the unlicensed possession of a firearm..." restricting the unlicensed carrying of a firearm. But carrying a firearm without a CHL or carrying a long gun in the open are illegal anyway in TX. So this is a case where it could be that a CHL allows one to carry in places that are otherwise restricted (like schools, bars, pro sporting events, etc.). Already there is the benefit of having a CHL that you do not have to go through any paperwork to buy a gun, so this is a benefit. I am sure there is some arrangement whereby the gov't can induce people to voluntarily obtain a license, while not making it compulsory in order to carry (which violates the 2A).

 

[gbran]

Our forefathers affirmed our RKBA with the 2A. It was not restricted to our home and no restrictions were placed on this right when we left our homes. We don't (or at least most of us) need a permit to carry in home and shouldn't have one when we leave it.

 

[blkbrd666]

Can anyone pattern this "licensing" to 2A??? Wonder how long before you can't speak freely "without" a license to do so??? If you give up your guns, it may even be sooner.

 

[H088]

You can open carry without a incense, you should be able to conceal carry without one as well.

 

[give]

the only people the ccw effects is the honest people,criminals will carry anyway as we have all seen on the news

 

[mr.72]

well, the difference is that with CCW licensing laws, then you are committing a crime simply by carrying so you do not actually have to commit a crime with the gun in order to be charged. legal laziness.

 

[SageMonkey]

I see nothing dishonest with violating a law deny our rights. A right denied is still a right.

Its easy enough to ccw without a permit, even where one is "needed". Its getting caught doing that which can cause a hassle from the State... more or less depending upon location.

Some people might suggest that to "bear" arms implies that they be openly carried. I'm willing to discuss that matter as soon as I can openly carry an affordable M-60 to the bar and lean it against the wall while I have dinner and a drink.

 

[RP88]

voted second option.

I have mixed feelings from an outside perspective, but personally, guns do not scare me, so it honestly would not bother me.

 

[ctdonath]

Those who do submit to licensing laws are not the ones said laws are (ostensibly) designed to control.
Those who do not submit to licensing laws are not controlled by said laws.

Considering the whole issue is about carrying concealed, the odds of catching an unlicensed carrier is almost nil, usually requiring suspicion of other criminal activity to warrant a search - at which point discovering unlicensed possession is just something else to pile on a core charge.

It's like the old joke...
Late one night a guy is seen carefully searching the ground around the base of a streetlight.
"What are you looking for?"
"My keys."
"Where did you lose them?"
"In that dark alley."
"If you lost them there, why are you searching here?"
"There's more light over here."

What, seriously, is the point?

 

[TAB]

I do beleave there needs to be some type of lic/ permit/ what ever you want to call it. I also think there needs to be training/class/test.

This training should inculded:

a class with a test, pointing out whats legal and whats not. In many states you do something wrong while CCW,(taking it where its illegal, "printing"...etc) it is a felony.

Pratical, range trip, nothing overly taxing, just a simple corse of fire to insure you can safely operate the weapon you deside to carry.

All of these could be put on for little cost by the issuing agency. I also beleave this class needs to be standard across the state( unlike CA)

 

[3KillerBs]

Without the need for ccw permits many more women would have a pistol in their purse,

Which is an excellent reason to require training and permits before permitting concealed carry since purse carry is dangerously irresponsible unless the owner of said purse can absolutely and positively maintain direct control over that purse and its gun 100% of the time -- no exceptions, no excuses.

There's a 4yo in the hospital today as an example of this necessity.

Concealed carry has a higher set of responsibilities and I think people who want to carry concealed should be trained in those responsibilities.

If Grandma were open carrying in a holster with no retention strap that were positioned in such a way that it could be easily lifted Mom could say, "You're not taking the kid unless you take better steps to secure your gun." With concealed carry Mom might not even know Grandma has a gun much less what level of security she practices.

Increased responsibility requires increased training.