What good do carry permits accomplish?

[NavyLCDR]

I think my question was misunderstood, so I will try to clarify and re-ask it in a different way:

What advantage or good does the permit required to carry a gun in a state such as Oklahoma or Texas provide over being able to carry a gun in accordance with Constitution in a state such as Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and for Wyoming residents in Wyoming?

One advantage listed was you don't have to pass the NICS check in some states if you have a permit. Well...let's see. To get my CPL in Washington, I have to pay $55 and get my fingerprints taken. To pass a NICS check costs me nothing, and is done via one form that I fill out at the gun store counter. (Washington does have one additional form, but is also no cost and no fingerprints). So, I must ask, really, which is of more benefit? Paying for the "card" and going through the hassle to get me out of the NICS check that would be free and one form and phone call anyway done at the gun store vice a separate trip to the cop shop.

 

[Midwest]

Slight correction: it is around $80-$90 for the 8 hour course and another $60 goes for the fees for the actual permit in Kentucky and you CAN bypass NICS with the carry permit.

 

[HexHead]

The only good I've seen to having one is it's like having a "get out of jail free" card for traffic offenses.

 

[jerkface11]

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..

You seem to be confusing the permit with the handgun.

 

[tubeshooter]

The only good I've seen to having one is it's like having a "get out of jail free" card for traffic offenses.

It can be, theoretically, under some circumstances.

There is no guarantee of this.

It is my understanding that some law enforcement does not look favorably upon CCW holders. To present CCW holders as having any degree of preferential treatment with respect to minor traffic offenses amounts to misinformation and should not be passed along IMO. At least if you talk in terms of absolutes.

If someone wants to count on that precept, they do so at their own risk. I think (and hope) the vast majority of carriers understand that anyway.


So far I have detected no difference - but I can't know about any plate checks where the LEO said "he's CCW; he's probably okay/I'll let him slide". No way for me to know that.

 

[PabloJ]

I think my question was misunderstood, so I will try to clarify and re-ask it in a different way:

What advantage or good does the permit required to carry a gun in a state such as Oklahoma or Texas provide over being able to carry a gun in accordance with Constitution in a state such as Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and for Wyoming residents in Wyoming?

One advantage listed was you don't have to pass the NICS check in some states if you have a permit. Well...let's see. To get my CPL in Washington, I have to pay $55 and get my fingerprints taken. To pass a NICS check costs me nothing, and is done via one form that I fill out at the gun store counter. (Washington does have one additional form, but is also no cost and no fingerprints). So, I must ask, really, which is of more benefit? Paying for the "card" and going through the hassle to get me out of the NICS check that would be free and one form and phone call anyway done at the gun store vice a separate trip to the cop shop.

They generate revenue and police know the car occupant is armed when they pull someone over for traffic violation. Unless computers are down the NICS is instantaneous and it's the filling out of forms that takes time in the first place, therefore having permit does not really help.
When it boils down to it they get money for permit and in most places firearm training certificate is needed to obtain one.

 

[smalls]

What advantage or good does the permit required to carry a gun in a state such as Oklahoma or Texas provide over being able to carry a gun in accordance with Constitution in a state such as Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and for Wyoming residents in Wyoming

The only advantage I can see is that you need one to get around the federal gun free school zone deal.

Other than that, they only serve to restrict law abiding gun owners, and in a lot of states, to bring in revenue.

 

[zdc1775]

One advantage listed was you don't have to pass the NICS check in some states if you have a permit. Well...let's see. To get my CPL in Washington, I have to pay $55 and get my fingerprints taken. To pass a NICS check costs me nothing, and is done via one form that I fill out at the gun store counter. (Washington does have one additional form, but is also no cost and no fingerprints). So, I must ask, really, which is of more benefit? Paying for the "card" and going through the hassle to get me out of the NICS check that would be free and one form and phone call anyway done at the gun store vice a separate trip to the cop shop.

For someone like me who gets delayed eveytime I undergo NICS it would be worth it. It saves me from having to drive back to the LGS in the next two to three days. I live about 60 miles from my dealer so saving on the extra trip would be worth it. Unfortunately AL doesn't have that exemption yet.

Other wise I agree with you permit do absolutely no good, but my views on gun control are usually considered fringe on most boards.

 

[DeepSouth]

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?

Well they generate revenue for the state and local Gov that I'm sure they spend properly.

They also give a few people at a plastic factory a job, as well as a few Gov employees.


But as to anything illegal, criminal, or the like they do nothing. I'll bet the stats compared between permit states and non permit states would prove their insignificance.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I'm all for, "shall not be infringed' but the fact is many people that would carry if there were no restrictions at all would be flat out dangerous.


A good example,
I renewed my Texas CHL for the fourth time last week.
There were 6 other men and a woman.
This is our Texas CHL qualification target. In the 8 ring is 5 points. 50 rounds, standing.



Now understand, these people think they are ready to get a license to carry a gun in public.

During the shooting qualification, first thing, one guy loaded the rounds backwards in his magazine. This jammed the round in the chamber, causing everyone to have to wait while the instructor cleared the gun.


When walking up to the line, a man about as old as me ,75, said the targets are too close. He should already know this but I told him, we shoot 50 rounds at 3, 7 and 15 yards.

Then he couldn't load his Bersa .380 magazine and was also trying to load the rounds backwards.

After the first 5 round string there were no bullet holes in his target. Asked about this he said he just shot the dirt pile because the target wasn't lined up with him.

Then when removing the magazine he pointed his gun at the people on his left.
I explained to him to keep the gun pointed down range.


The lady had the typical new shooter problems and we were delayed after every 5 round string.



The fact is, people are LAZY. Left on their own, many would carry a gun with little or No knowledge. (look at some of the dumb questions in the gun forums).
Even when they know they are going to have to show some knowledge and skill some are still to lazy to do the right thing.

I have lost count of the many people I have offered to teach to shoot at my place.
Even though I let them shoot many different guns and I even give them the ammo free they are still to lazy to drive the twenty minutes to my place.



So, while I think everyone has the right to carry a gun, they also have the responsibility to learn how to use it properly.
If it takes some kind of mandatory gun training/license, then it's our own fault.

 

[JDBoardman]

I voted "YES" for the simple reason that possession of a valid CHL in Texas eliminates the requirement for the NICS check for firearm purchase. I am opposed, in theory, to having to be licensed to express a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, but so much of our day-to-day life is restricted by what, in my opinion, are unconstitutional laws and limits. Accordingly, I take the less aggravating way out.

 

[kendak]

got mine years ago when there was a "waiting period" when you purchased a gun...made it easier to pay & walk out ..now I don't know because I've been CC for 50+ yrs. anyhow...take care

 

[smalls]

So, while I think everyone has the right to carry a gun, they also have the responsibility to learn how to use it properly.
If it takes some kind of mandatory gun training/license, then it's our own fault.

Except that even in states where "training" is mandatory, the training is a joke, and barely teaches people which end goes "boom". So I don't buy that a carry permit is a good thing because it forces people to get training.

 

[Torian]

A CHL allows me reciprocity for carry in other states. It also tells LEOs that I've gone through a background check. In this regard, it gives both of us some peace of mind. Some states require training, some do not. I'm not a fan of mandatory training / qualification, since we aren't training LEOs or Soldiers here, but that's my personal feeling on the matter.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your question...this is a pretty interesting one.

While I do believe the Constitution guarantees the right to own / bear arms, the Supremes have already ruled that the 2nd amendment is subject to a broad range of federal restrictions. We barely squeezed by winning that ruling with a 5-4 vote.

I'm willing to tolerate the cost / hassle of getting a CHL unless the issuing state in question makes me jump through too many hoops (New York). I do not want felons (violent) carrying firearms, and if I get pulled over by a LEO, I'd prefer to hand him / her a CHL as opposed to them conducting a felony stop until they confirm my status.

I think CHLs are good, as long as the state doesn't use them as a tool to push anti-gun agenda.

 

[tubeshooter]

Except that even in states where "training" is mandatory, the training is a joke, and barely teaches people which end goes "boom". So I don't buy that a carry permit is a good thing because it forces people to get training.

Anything = Better Than Nothing.


Especially if you don't know Anything At All.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

At a lawyer website an attorney posted that in law school they had maybe one hour on self defense law; once he got in practice, he found everything taught in that one hour was wrong.

What people learn from TV cop shows and TV court dramas about self-defense is BS too.

To get a permit in Tennessee, I took a required four hour class on self defense law and passed a written exam: it included a videotape from the state attorney general explaining the statutes and current case law. Reading the bare statutes teaches you nothing about how self defense gets defined and refined by case law. On the other hand, VT has had constitutional carry for generations and most Vermonters seem to have excercised common sense in defensive use of arms.

 

[Tcruse]

Should you ever need to justify your actions to a jury, your CCW and documentation for other gun classes you have will tend to set the stage that you did everything possible to be a responsible gun owner. It can set the general perception of you as being a "good guy" rather than "some yahoo with a gun". The general public keeps getting told that it is easy to get a gun and just start looking for someone to shoot, this has to be stopped early on in a trial for justice to happen. So, it is part of your case to show the decisions of what gun, how you carried, what ammo ... all is part of the perception.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Except that even in states where "training" is mandatory, the training is a joke, and barely teaches people which end goes "boom". So I don't buy that a carry permit is a good thing because it forces people to get training.

There's good training and there's bad training.

As an ex LEO, ex Army Officer and ex Marine Corps Sergeant I can tell you that every time I retook the TX CHL course I learned something new.


When Texas first got the concealed carry I was VERY OPPOSED to it.
We tend to look at things from our own prospective.
Heck I was a ex LEO and I can shoot better than probably 90% of the police on the streets.
So I should not have to prove anything and pay the state and instructor big bucks so I can carry a gun.


NOW I have done a 180. I can still shoot better than probably 90% of the LEO (I actually passed the shooting qualification with my eyes closed) but I did not know what I thought I knew about the laws, etc.

If it was up to me the qualifications would be harder, especially the shooting and the state cost would be stopped or greatly reduced.


Yes, I want EVERY non criminal adult to be able to carry a gun but I want them to be responsible about it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So... to address a couple of things people seem to think is beneficial, let me ask these questions:

Those that favor the training that is required in some states to obtain the permit, let me ask this:

Where is the evidence that there is any problem at all in the states that do not require training in order to carry a gun? What problem is there, IN REALITY, not in theory, that we are correcting with requiring training for the permit? Are people, IN REALITY, any safer in a state that requires training than they are in a state that does not? I don't see any blood running in the streets in any of the states that do not require training.

For those that say that it is good for Law Enforcement Officers. Would you say that a permit required to exercise your 4th Amendment rights would be equally as beneficial? Let's say a law was passed that during any traffic stop for any infraction that a law enforcement officer could legally require you to submit to a search of the vehicle, under threat of arrest for non-compliance, unless the operator of that vehicle had a permit that they were required to pay for, with fingerprints and a background check that exempted them from the requirement to submit to the search. How well would that fly? Why would that not be just as Constitutional as requiring a permit to carry a gun? Why can't the 4th Amendment be as "reasonably regulated" as the 2nd Amendment.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm willing to tolerate the cost / hassle of getting a CHL unless the issuing state in question makes me jump through too many hoops (New York). I do not want felons (violent) carrying firearms, and if I get pulled over by a LEO, I'd prefer to hand him / her a CHL as opposed to them conducting a felony stop until they confirm my status.

Would you be equally as tolerant of a 4th Amendment permit like I mentioned in my post above this one?

 

[rbernie]

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

For the thread win, in post #4.

It makes distinguishing the good guys from the bad a lot easier.

No, it doesn't. According the last DoJ stats that I saw on the topic, something like half of the folk convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony legally obtained their gun. In other words, these convicted violent felons WERE 'good guys' in the eyes of the law, right up until the point where they weren't.

Folk are folk. Trying to separate out the good from the bad in advance of good or bad acts is futile, and trying to predict future behavior based upon past behavior is demonstrably less than completely accurate.

 

[tubeshooter]

Where is the evidence that there is any problem at all in the states that do not require training in order to carry a gun? What problem is there, IN REALITY, not in theory, that we are correcting with requiring training for the permit? Are people, IN REALITY, any safer in a state that requires training than they are in a state that does not? I don't see any blood running in the streets in any of the states that do not require training.

This feels like a loaded question (pardon the pun). The verbage is slanted, and the desired response is obvious.

I can't point to any "blood running in the streets", but if the required training simply gets people who would otherwise know no better to not sweep me with their weapon at the range AND NOTHING MORE, then that is a positive in my book. The general public (myself and others) might see even greater benefit than just the abovementioned post-training (however poor or excellent); hopefully so.

Others are free to feel differently, of course.

For those that say that it is good for Law Enforcement Officers. Would you say that a permit required to exercise your 4th Amendment rights would be equally as beneficial? Let's say a law was passed that during any traffic stop for any infraction that a law enforcement officer could legally require you to submit to a search of the vehicle, under threat of arrest for non-compliance, unless the operator of that vehicle had a permit that they were required to pay for, with fingerprints and a background check that exempted them from the requirement to submit to the search. How well would that fly? Why would that not be just as Constitutional as requiring a permit to carry a gun? Why can't the 4th Amendment be as "reasonably regulated" as the 2nd Amendment.

This is a bit of a hypothetical strawman, as well as apples to oranges. The causes for generic traffic stops aren't considered as dangerous to the general public as loaded, ready-to-use weapons.

That being said, I do see the point you are trying to make here. Not necessarily saying the two situations are equivalent, just want to acknowledge that I understand the gist.

 

[Old Fuff]

In Arizona a CWL is not required (one is free to carry without one) but available. I have one, primarily for cover when traveling out-of-state where it’s recognized, and as a handy form of unquestioned identification where more then a driver’s license is required.

While I strongly support the idea of training I must admit that non-license carry has not resulted in any noticeable increase in negligent shooting incidents.

As a deterrent to criminals it’s useless, and serves no purpose because if one is a prohibited person they can’t legally carry under any circumstances, and like any statute it’s mostly unenforceable against those it is supposed to target.

I suppose it makes gun control advocates feel more warm and fuzzy as long as they don’t wake up and realize that concealed means exactly that, and it’s not unlikely that they encounter armed individuals (legally or otherwise) every day.

So do the do any good? In my view the answer is “no,” at least for they’re intended purpose. Otherwise maybe for some superfluous reasons.

 

[tarosean]

No, it doesn't. According the last DoJ stats that I saw on the topic, something like half of the folk convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony legally obtained their gun. In other words, these convicted violent felons WERE 'good guys' in the eyes of the law, right up until the point where they weren't.

Folk are folk. Trying to separate out the good from the bad in advance of good or bad acts is futile, and trying to predict future behavior based upon past behavior is demonstrably less than completely accurate.

Here look at these stats published yearly. Seems to me people willing to jump through the hoops are a little more law abiding than your average joe...

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Lots of back and forth here on this...however, a CWP does one very important thing for me that cannot be denied:

It keeps me from being arrested for carrying a concealed firearm.

Like it or not, debate the Second Amendment right all you wish, throw out all the statistics aobut good guys and bad guys carrying guns that you want, debate the need or lack of need for it until the cows come home, and any other issue that you wish.

But none of that changes the bottom line for me: it keeps me from being arrested simply for carrying a concealed firearm.