What good do carry permits accomplish?

[NavyLCDR]

Not sure the most appropriate sub forum to post this in, so I'll just put it in General. I asked this question on another forum, and thought I would try it here too.

I know that some members of this forum actually support carry permits, CCW permits, CPLs, whatever you want to call the government permission slip that some states require to either carry a gun in public at all, or to conceal the gun being carried. Personally, I see absolutely NOTHING positive associated with a permit/license requirement. Can somebody show us any benefit IN REALITY (not just in theory) to having a legal requirement to obtain a license/permit in order to legally carry a gun?

I did not mean to ask for benefits of complying with the law. I meant to ask for benefits of the legal requirement. Here are too very enlightening replies (IMHO) from the other forum:

Do you really think a permit system makes it illegal for felons to carry guns? Think about this, in states that do not have a permit system, felons can't have guns either. So who exactly are permits controlling...felons or citizens? Denial of a permit stops who exactly, felons or citizens?

Felons can have their Rights stripped away by due process of law. Permit systems are not due process of law. Hence why states with no permit system still make it illegal for felons to obtain guns.

 

[Twiki357]

For carrying a firearm, it doesn't really accomplish much. But it does make the purchase process from an FFL a lot easier and quicker. It can also make a traffic stop while armed a little less traumatic, even in a Constitutional carry state.

 

[tarosean]

Can somebody show us any benefit IN REALITY (not just in theory) to having a legal requirement to obtain a license/permit in order to legally carry a gun?

I dont have to have a NICS background check performed when purchasing/transferring a gun.

 

[Stress_Test]

The futility of carry permits and other documentation didn't hit home for me until I applied for a permit. I realized that the long wait, the process at the courthouse I went through, didn't mean jack squat from a crime-reduction standpoint because while I was spending time and effort to be a good, law-abiding citizen, all the bad guys out there were already walking around with their guns concealed. :banghead:

 

[mnrivrat]

Like it or not the carry permit is a requirement in most states in order to legaly do what you should not need a permit to do.

What good are they comes in the deterent effect on criminals that now have to be concerned whether their intended victim is armed, and can defend themself.
Also in at least some (perhaps many) cases, they have already saved lives during the commision of a crime by allowing the victim to defend themselves..

 

[vkeith]

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says we don't need no stinkin' permits. All permits do is further restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I keep trying to understand how our various governmental bodies could misinterpret such a simple statement of our firearm rights into the convoluted, and restrictive, laws we currently have, and I still can't rationalize how we ended up with so many silly laws that blatantly contradict the Bill of Rights and violate our constitutional rights.

 

[Midwest]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

Brings money into the state......



Kentucky has open carry without a permit. But the minute that pistol is covered by a piece of cloth, you need a permit which means you have to pay $90 for a day long safety and shooting course...then wait 30+ days for your certificate to arrive.

Then go to the Sheriff give him the certificate, fill out the applications, get photographs, get background checks (KSP also does monthly NICS on ALL Conceal Carry Holders) and now wait for 30 + days more for a notice to come down and pick up the 'permit'.

No safety course needed for open carry, no permit needed for open carry...but when covered by a piece of cloth then you need a carry permit.......why?


.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

What are these permits you speak of?

 

[CZ223]

It makes distinguishing the good guys from the bad a lot easier. If you are detained by a police officer, for any reason, while carrying a gun, a permit lets them know you are a good guy and anyone else is a bad guy. In a state where you don't need a permit this is not quite so clear. The other thing that a permitting process does is it keeps a lot of people who probably shouldn't carry from carrying. Not everyone "should" carry a gun. Everyone who keeps his nose clean should be allowed to carry one. The permitting process, at least the way it works in my state, is a reasonable one.

 

[steelerdude99]

In my state, a permit is part of my electronic driving record. How fast or easily other states can get to the information is unknown. So, it can also make an out of state traffic stop less likely to lead to arrest out of not knowing if the person was allowed to have the firearm in their possession. If the visited state finds that their person in question has permit that recognized by their state, then the officer at least knows (up until recently at least) this guy/gal is not a felon.

Another benefit, if someone has a permit they have been vetted as being a non-felon. In the unlikely situation where someone has become prohibited as a result of domestic violence incident and did not know that the misdemeanor prohibition existed and then further deepened their issue with now having a “prohibited person with a gun" issue. By the way, I am against the concept of ban for a non-felony prohibiting event that may have happened prior to the Lautenberg Amendment being enacted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban).

It also gives a seller peace of mind if they sold a firearm in a “face to face” sale in states that allows them. No guarantees of anything, just a little knowledge that they sold to a person who was not prohibited. If was the original owner, it would be LESS LIKELY that police were going to knock on my door … “We found your firearm dropped at a shooting” … and then asking “Where were you this evening?”

chuck

 

[Salmoneye]

It makes distinguishing the good guys from the bad a lot easier. If you are detained by a police officer, for any reason, while carrying a gun, a permit lets them know you are a good guy and anyone else is a bad guy. In a state where you don't need a permit this is not quite so clear.

You're supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...

It is not up to me to prove that I am innocent...It is up to the government to prove that I am guilty...

Me carrying a piece of paper that says I am a 'good guy' is ludicrous...

But then, I am with the guy from Alaska...

What are these strange and mystical 'permits' of which you speak...

The other thing that a permitting process does is it keeps a lot of people who probably shouldn't carry from carrying. Not everyone "should" carry a gun.

Not everyone "should" be allowed to vote, procreate, etc., either...

Who are you (or I) to decide?

 

[hso]

The entire permitting system is predicated on the idea that government can keep people with severe psychological illnesses, anger issues and poor impulse control, and criminals from carrying firearms as a means of reducing the violent crime and murder rates.

Everyone acknowledges that criminals by their very nature don't follow the law and that breaking another intent on keeping them from carrying a firearm such as a permit system has no deterrence value. The only current deterrent to criminals carrying firearms are more severe criminal penalties that prohibit them from possessing a firearm and those only deter some. The other would be to completely get rid of guns.

The idea that you could keep anyone with severe psychological or even milder anger+impulse issues from carrying firearms would also require you to keep them from possessing them.

"Constitutional Carry" states have no higher violent crime and murder rates than states with carry laws requiring a permit. The simple math tells the honest person that carry permits serve no purpose.

 

[Warp]

Hopefully the next wave of change is going from 'shall issue' to 'Constitutional/unrestricted carry'.

No, I don't think there is a real world benefit to carry permits. I even think we have enough real world experience to KNOW, matter of factly, that there is no benefit. Sometimes people cite training, even gun owners and gun carriers and gun forum members say people should be forced to take government mandated training before exercising their Right-turned-privilege, but they too are wrong. The large number of people that have been licensed to carry for years, decades in fact, in states that did not require training to get that license are proof enough

 

[leadaddict]

I voted yes, because even if the only benefit is that they make some people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, then it really is a benefit to them. If law enforcement thinks it gives them some control and helps them more quickly identify "good guys", then it is really a benefit to them. Is there any benefit for me? NO.

I think you've asked the wrong question. The question is, are the benefits that some receive by this law worth the added costs, in finances or in freedom? Of course t that I would say NO. I would also agree that there is no benefit to public safety by these laws,

 

[Creature]

hso wrote:

"Constitutional Carry" states have no higher violent crime and murder rates than states with carry laws requiring a permit. The simple math tells the honest person that carry permits serve no purpose.

Except that permits serve to generate revenue for the state. That math is pretty simple.

 

[Warp]

I voted yes, because even if the only benefit is that they make some people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, then it really is a benefit to them. If law enforcement thinks it gives them some control and helps them more quickly identify "good guys", then it is really a benefit to them. Is there any benefit for me? NO.

I think you've asked the wrong question. The question is, are the benefits that some receive by this law worth the added costs, in finances or in freedom? Of course t that I would say NO. I would also agree that there is no benefit to public safety by these laws,

I don't think your vote accurately represents your actual stance

 

[v8stang289]

The only benefit to them in NC is they bypass an NICS check when purchasing a firearm, and bypass our archaic "pistol purchase permit". They do no good in keeping felons or criminals from carrying firearms. Our town puts out arrest reports every week and there are usually 5-6 charges of "possession of a firearm by a felon" in a city of less than 30k

 

[itsa pain]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

Brings money into the state......



Kentucky has open carry without a permit. But the minute that pistol is covered by a piece of cloth, you need a permit which means you have to pay $90 for a day long safety and shooting course...then wait 30+ days for your certificate to arrive.

Then go to the Sheriff give him the certificate, fill out the applications, get photographs, get background checks (KSP also does monthly NICS on ALL Conceal Carry Holders) and now wait for 30 + days more for a notice to come down and pick up the 'permit'.

No safety course needed for open carry, no permit needed for open carry...but when covered by a piece of cloth then you need a carry permit.......why?


.

so in other words you actually get arrested then released on own recognance while getting letters of recommendation from the pope etc. that is why I will never get a "permit".

 

[itsa pain]

It makes distinguishing the good guys from the bad a lot easier. If you are detained by a police officer, for any reason, while carrying a gun, a permit lets them know you are a good guy and anyone else is a bad guy. In a state where you don't need a permit this is not quite so clear. The other thing that a permitting process does is it keeps a lot of people who probably shouldn't carry from carrying. Not everyone "should" carry a gun. Everyone who keeps his nose clean should be allowed to carry one. The permitting process, at least the way it works in my state, is a reasonable one.

since when does having a permit make you or anyone else a good guy. look at all the shootings in post office and guys that get fired/ laid off at office job etc. these are normal guys with families never did nothing wrong until one day they snap. so a permit does nothing to serperate bad guys from good

 

[Sam1911]

Except that permits serve to generate revenue for the state. That math is pretty simple.

That would depend greatly on the actual permit fee. Here in PA where the fee is generally about $25, there's no way the commonwealth is MAKING money on it.

Kind of like the NFA Title II weapons registration fee of $200, by the time they go through what they have to go through to issue the paperwork, they've spent way more in labor costs alone than they're taking in.

 

[huntsman]

No; we have to waste good ammo money to feed the bureaucratic process to engage in a right that was guaranteed ?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

What good do carry permits accomplish?
In TN, carry permit means you can go legally armed for self defense outside the home or place of business.

Tennessee has a "going armed" statute making it an offense to carry any sort of weapon for offense or defense in public. Exception is the permit for defensive carry. The old discretionary carry permit to go legally armed for defense was so arbitrary few applied.

I have read newspaper comments by people who think that criminals cannot carry guns if no one is allowed a carry permit. Basically the seldomn-granted carry permit law inhibited the law abiding from going armed in public. The bad guys in my neighborhood were not prevented from carrying for offense or for defense against rival criminals (permits? we donn need no...). And the old TN permit to purchase and fifteen day waiting period on handguns made bootlegging handguns to bad guy and ordinary citizens commonly accepted. My impression is that overly restrictive laws are counterproductive (we were "dry" to 1968 and alcohol bootlegging was rampant).

The current shall-issue handgun carry permit law does remove the "defense of necessity" from folks caught carrying without a permit. Frankly I have used my carry permit more for peace of mind while going to the range or to the mountains with handguns, than I have used it to carry armed for self defense (armed for mostly nighttime trips or day excursions in very remote areas).

I live in TN six miles from the VA line. Tennessee and Virginia have contradictory laws on proper transport of guns in a vehicle (open carry required in VA, open carry illegal w/o permit in TN; concealed carry illegal w/o permit in VA, concealed in trunk required in TN w/o permit). Since VA recognizes TN open or concealed carry permit as a concealed carry permit, I am legal if I go to a shooting club in VA.

 

[Schutzen]

CCDW permit

I believe they are deterent. Just the knowledge that someone may be armed may deter some criminals. Stand tall, walk confidently, and exihibit awarness; in a CCW state I beleive you will be less likely to be be attacked because 1) you are aware and 2) the criminal will be questioning, is he carrying a gun?

Strickly my opinion with no imperical evidince.

 

[leadaddict]

My vote represents the fact that some do benefit from tighter controls on law abiding citizens. My stance is that only a minority benefits and that comes at a high cost to freedom.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What good are they comes in the deterent effect on criminals that now have to be concerned whether their intended victim is armed, and can defend themself.
Also in at least some (perhaps many) cases, they have already saved lives during the commision of a crime by allowing the victim to defend themselves..

I believe they are deterent. Just the knowledge that someone may be armed may deter some criminals. Stand tall, walk confidently, and exihibit awarness; in a CCW state I beleive you will be less likely to be be attacked because 1) you are aware and 2) the criminal will be questioning, is he carrying a gun?

Interesting answers. So, I must ask this. Let's take a state like Oklahoma or Texas, where in general a permit is required for a person to be armed for self defense in public. Are you really intending to say that a criminal is more deterred against committing a crime in Texas or Oklahoma because a permit is required to carry a gun than that criminal would be deterred in Arizona, Vermont, Alaska or Wyoming where no permit is required to conceal a gun in public?

My question was, what good does the permit system do, not what good does carrying a gun do. I would speculate that the EASIER it is for the public to be armed, the more DETERRED a criminal is going to be. A permit system does not make it easier for the public to be armed, it makes it harder.