Unlicensed Concealed Carry

[Soybomb]

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)

We currently have multiple states that either require no license to carry or no class requirement to get a license. How do you justify your restriction on the right to carry? Is there any evidence to support what you see as a need, or is it just you deciding what makes you feel good?

 

[Geronimo45]

or carrying a long gun in the open are illegal

Long guns are legal. Short ones require a CHL.

 

[Josh Aston]

Eliminate all restrictions. The only people that shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun are those that are locked up. If you're on your own then it should be up to you if you want to carry a gun in any manner you so desire. If you still live with your parents then it should be their decision, not the .govs, on whether or not you should be allowed to carry. If I want to walk around with a 249 slung over my shoulder then I should be able to.

 

[texas bulldog]

i believe alaska and vermont have it right. as others have said, enfocing CCW laws is near impossible. and permitting does nothing to actually prevent criminal behavior.

citizens with guns don't scare me. criminals with guns do. said criminals do not ask the state's permission to carry.



but then...i also favor a process for non-violent felons to regain firearms rights, and i would also be okay with going back to the days when you could buy a gun in any hardware store without a background check. so perhaps my stance of allowing CCW without a state-issued permit is not surprising.

 

[TAB]

I have not restricted anyone from carrying.

The truth is NO ONE has any facts when it comes to firearms...

Let me ask you this, do you know all the laws in your state that pertain to CCW?

 

[Yellowfin]

I have little problem with shall issue and affordable CCW with license. Of course Vermont carry is great as well, but I like that with inexpensive permits I send a vote to the state saying I support lawful carry. CCW as a vote (and to some extent OC as public education) is something very important to me. Background checks on the spot are a good idea, I think, purely because they allow for efficient exclusions of violent criminals and those with a bad psychological history. I think that 5-15 minutes of your time isn't a bad thing when 90-95% of crimes are committed by those ineligible to buy and can be screened by that means.

 

[mr.72]

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

Maybe.

First of all, this phrase "higher set of responsibilities", implies higher than what? Higher set of responsibilities vs. open carry? Or vs. not carrying at all?

So while I will not argue that it is not prudent to acquire training or instruction, if we see the Second Amendment as truly outlining a right and not a privilege, then we cannot infringe this right by mandating training, instruction or licensing at the expense of the person who has such a right.

So the prudent thing to do may be to include such education in standard public school curriculum for high school seniors, for example, where they are taught the laws of the state regarding the use of deadly force, basic safe gun handling, etc. at the expense of the state who is requiring such education.

However anything else is clearly infringing on this right. Infringing is not a matter of degree. It's either infringing, or not. Either we have the right to keep and bear arms without the intervention of government, or not.

 

[TAB]

then we cannot infringe this right by mandating training, instruction or licensing at the expense of the person who has such a right.

why not? we do it on so many other "rights" why not this one?

 

[mr.72]

really? Which other right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights or even otherwise in the Constitution, do we mandate training or instruction and licensing at the expense of the person who holds the right?

 

[Soybomb]

I have not restricted anyone from carrying.

The truth is NO ONE has any facts when it comes to firearms...

Let me ask you this, do you know all the laws in your state that pertain to CCW?

You're attempting to use some wordplay to avoid answering the question. You support creating barriers to legally carrying a concealed weapon through mandated training/testing. We have states that require training and testing, no training and testing, or even no license to carry at all. Can you demonstrate a real benefit to this training and testing in the real world or is it just something that makes you feel good? It should be very simple to show that training and testing is necessary and sound.

We hammer the brady group all the time for supporting assault weapon bans that statistically do nothing. I don't think its too much to ask our own crowd to support their legislative requests with facts. I don't even know what you mean by "no one has any facts"...there's plenty of information out there on conviction rates, revocation rates, accident rates, etc. Put them to good use and support your arguments with real world data.

 

[TAB]

I will only do this to the 1st amendment... you can do it for the rest.

Free speach... guess what there is alot of restrictions against this. While yes you can spread you message thru several means, most of them require some type of lic/ permit. Borad casting for example, large scale printing is another.

Freedom of the press, want to interview the president? guess what, you will gro thru lots of back ground checks, medical screenings as well as "training" stating what you can and can not do.

Peacable asymbly... want to have a million man march? Guess what you need a permit for that.

And finally grevnices, ever tried to file one? Its not the easyest thing in the world to do.

 

[TAB]

You're attempting to use some wordplay to avoid answering the question. You support creating barriers to legally carrying a concealed weapon through mandated training/testing. We have states that require training and testing, no training and testing, or even no license to carry at all. Can you demonstrate a real benefit to this training and testing in the real world or is it just something that makes you feel good? It should be very simple to show that training and testing is necessary and sound.

why yes I can show this training is necessary... do you know all of your state laws in reguards to CCW?

 

[MisterPX]

I beleive one should have to show some form of proficiency before carrying amongst the general public.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Soybomb]

why yes I can show this training is necessary... do you know all of your state laws in reguards to CCW?

Then please do so.

I believe I do. If I said no though, I still don't see how it would be relevant. If people don't know the law in and out and its causing problems we should be seeing it through conviction rates as they're convicted of breaking the laws they didn't know. So for the 3rd time I'd ask, what evidence do you have that supports these barriers that you feel are necessary?

 

[jakemccoy]

Be careful what you wish for...

(I didn't read the thread.)

If you're in a "shall issue" state and you think licensing is just fine, be careful. The legislators merely have to flick a switch to turn the license requirement into "may issue". In most California counties, "may issue" effectively means "no issue". It sucks.

You may think a mild license requirement is ok. Other people want to take your idea of a mild license requirement to a whole different level. They want to get their greasy hands in there and use the mild license requirement as a springboard to eradicate all guns completely. "Reasonable restrictions" to them really means no guns for any non-cops period.

 

[TAB]

you just provide it for me.

Now what evidence do you have that states that have no CCW reqs or very limited reqs are better then states that do?

You can thump the 2a all you want, just don't forget about the rest of the text.

 

[texas bulldog]

I think that 5-15 minutes of your time isn't a bad thing when 90-95% of crimes are committed by those ineligible to buy and can be screened by that means.

and yet they get their hands on guns anyway...so what have we actually prevented?

 

[Janitor]

and yet they get their hands on guns anyway...so what have we actually prevented?

Wait just a minute.

You expect us to believe that criminals will illegally carry a gun?

Pshaw.

 

[Soybomb]

you just provide it for me.

Now what evidence do you have that states that have no CCW reqs or very limited reqs are better then states that do?

You can thump the 2a all you want, just don't forget about the rest of the text.

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Are you saying that you feel some barriers to concealed carry are necessary but you don't feel like it should be up to you to support those restrictions on freedom as prudent from the existing body of statistics?

If you want to make it harder for people to excercise their freedoms, you should generally have a pretty compelling reason for it. I've looked and haven't been able to find anything that shows that concealed carry training/permit processes produce safer armed citizens. It is much easier for you to show me a single statistic that proves why it is necessary or prudent. If I give you conviction rates between 1 trained state and one trained state would you be happy or want more states? If I give you more states you can ask for accident rates. If I give you accident rates you can credit the safety in the non-trained state to a greater firearms tradition in that state.

What could I show you that would change your mind? Are you asserting that the untrained/tested ccw holder is dangerous because they're not proficient, don't know the law, or both? I'll accept just about anything that is based on sound statistics.

 

[mr.72]

I will only do this to the 1st amendment... you can do it for the rest.

what? this makes no sense anyway, but ok, I can take apart your first Amendment points and then you give up on the rest...

Free speach... guess what there is alot of restrictions against this.

There is NO basic, fundamental, the very first time you try and open your mouth, restriction that requires you to pass a proficiency test, government-supplied education material, and pay for a license, as there is with carrying a concealed weapon. NONE. Anyone can say anything they want whenever they want. Same with the "press", that is, printing whatever you want.

While yes you can spread you message thru several means, most of them require some type of lic/ permit. Borad casting for example, large scale printing is another.

You don't have to have a license to print anything in whatever quantity you like. You just have to have the means. Now broadcasting is another matter. I do think the FCC infringes upon free speech. However this is mostly a matter of acquisition of audience, and not on speech. They are not denying you your right to speak, they are just denying you the means to spread your ideas to a large audience using radio waves unless you acquire a license to use the radio waves. However they are requiring the license not to restrict speech, but to restrict usage of a limited resource and that is a fundamental difference.

The CCW laws on the other hand are intended expressly to restrict your free exercise of your rights, period.

Freedom of the press, want to interview the president? guess what, you will gro thru lots of back ground checks, medical screenings as well as "training" stating what you can and can not do.

That's not a restriction on what you can PRINT. That's a restriction on who you can talk to. Again, just because I have a right to say something or to print it, does not mean you are required to listen or read it. Likewise just because I have a right to ask questions to the President and then print my conclusions, that does not compel him to grand me an audience. Again this is not about restricting a right, but about access to limited resource (in this case, the President's time, which is solely at his discretion to use as he pleases just like my time and your time. For example, I don't have to read your reply to this topic if I don't want to, even though you have the freedom to print it).

Peacable asymbly... want to have a million man march? Guess what you need a permit for that.

You are right. This is an infringement of the First Amendment, plain and simple.

And finally grevnices, ever tried to file one? Its not the easyest thing in the world to do.

sure it is. Write your congressman.

 

[moooose102]

i BELIEVE we, as american citizens, should not have to go to our own government and ask, and jump through a bunch of hoops to get a license to be able to carry a firearm. period. i firmly believe that if i want to carry my 300 magnum rifle down mainstreet, i should be able to do that. if i want to carry my 45acp under my jacket, i should be able to do that also. at any time, for any reason. i can not afford to fight this in court, all the way to the supreme court. and because of way to many bleeding harts in this country, it wouldnt matter if i could. if the N.R.A. thought they could win that battle, i am certain they would try it. but at this point in time, i do not think it could be done. by anybody. if John Wayne himself could be brought back, and became President of the USA, he couldn't get it done. it would take some kind of extreem circumstances to get most of the bleeding hearts to change their minds. i don't know where or when we lost this right. i am sure it was because of some small group of people with no brains. so now the rest of us will have to pay for eternity for their mistakes.

 

[mr.72]

moooose I know where and how we lost this right. but it's very un-PC for me to say it so I will keep this information to myself.

however it has been a slippery slope and there were many little things along the way that helped it along.

 

[TAB]

As I said before, no one has any facts about guns. Just becuase we want there to be one, does not mean there is.



Now to MR77

guess what, the US cons expressly stats that the l gov has the power to infringe apon our rights.., ( read the document, not just one amendment) I would also like to point out that of today, it has never been determind that we have a right to CC or the right to even own a firearm...

 

[TAB]

actually if a federal law was passed today allowing every one to CCW, it would be struct down very shortly by the courts as that is a right reserved for the states.( 10a)

 

[blackcash88]

TAB, if that's the case, then why is everyone so worried about Obama wanting to ban concealed carry nationwide if he gets elected? Wouldn't it still be the states' right to allow it?