What good do carry permits accomplish?

[itsa pain]

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.

real good post

 

[HoosierQ]

Well I answered before I read the question. I answered "Yes" because I prefer to have the option to carry a handgun when I feel I need to.

Seeing the larger, essentially philosophical question, intended one has to consider it some. An the answer is probably no. Why? Law abiding people will obtain permits and criminals will not. The existence of the permit changes nothing here.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I don't vote in polls.

I'll say this -

In PA we have no fingerprints (except for Philly perhaps), we have no training requirement, no qual test, and last I checked our LTC was not tied to PennDOTs driver's licenses.

I can openly carry w/o a LTC (again, except in Philly)

What our LTC allows PA residents is the ability to conceal the gun, and carry ANY gun during a declared state of emergency. During Hurricane Sandy the state was under a 60 day state of emergency, declared by Governor Corbett. So if you didn't have a LTC, it would be a felony to stand a neighborhood watch in your culdesac with a shotgun at your side.


So, besides the fact PA law says I has to have one to conceal my gun lawfully (and not risk a felony conviction), the ability to be armed during a state of emergency (and again not risk a felony conviction) justifies the $20-some dollars I have to give my Sheriff every 5 years.

 

[skoro]

This:

Where as a couple of decades ago, carrying a loaded, concealed weapon in your vehicle or on your person was illegal and a felony nearly everywhere and the average citizen had no recourse. Today, most folks can get a concealed carry permit to legally arm themselves outside of their home/property.

They expanded our legal ability to defend ourselves and our families.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Skip the theoretical hair-splitting and look at actual history. In my lifetime, most people could not carry -- some states, including Arkansas, absolutely forbade it (unless you were "on a journey.")

Now any honest man can get a CHL and carry -- and the effect on violent crime has been dramatic.

Would I like to have Constitutional Carry? Sure. But that's a long way off. In the meantime, I carry on my CHL and I'm glad to have it.

 

[grubbylabs]

I don't think it does any thing except give the government an excuse to control us.

I don't think you can under state that gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens.

 

[jaguarmarc]

hold on....it's that "keeps his nose clean" part that bothers me. IF you haven't noticed....our great Uncle Sam and Aunt Nanny want nothing more...than to PROVE that we are all simply.....>>>>>>> FELONS-IN-WAITING <<<<<< whom they can choose to detain for ANY REASON ....AT ANY TIME. Note that the NSA is and has been GATHERING UP PERSONAL DATA ON EVERY ONE OF US....so as to ARRANGE OUR FUTURE INCARCERATION. Point of FACT >>>>>>FELON = NO GUNS ALLOWED !!! <<<<<<<

 

[Brin]

In Oregon, we have a patchwork of local hand gun ordinances. Where I live it is ok to open carry without a license but in Portland you would be arrested. In Oregon, a person with a valid concealed carry license is exempt from these ordinances and can carry open or concealed in most places including school zones, state and county buildings and parks. It is well worth $50 for a five year license.

 

[JohnKSa]

A few benefits...

• Eliminates background checks when buying from FFL.
• Simplifies carry in other states with reciprocity.
• The legal infrastructure built around permits generally tends to insure more uniform regulations and treatment of permit holders in the permit holder's own state.
• Is a very convenient method for proving eligibility to purchase a handgun/firearm from a private party should that need arise.
• Tends to set the permit holder apart from the general public (in a good way) in routine interactions with law enforcement.
• Provides a system whereby the permit holder is periodically (at permit renewal intervals) informed of changes in laws related to carry and deadly force.
• Allows concealment in states where open unpermitted but not unpermitted concealed carry is legal. There are a number of reasons why some people prefer concealment over open carry.
• Is a second form of government issued photo ID which can come in handy occasionally.

 

[statelineblues]

Since I joined the Army at the tender age of 18 years, my fingerprints and personal info has been sitting in file folders in various state and federal offices around the country.

I've had FOID and Carry Permits in seven states.
I've been vetted for a Secret and T.S Clearance when working for a defense contractor.
I had a full personal review by two state agencies when I was a Firearms Instructor.
I went through a three month review (including medical and mental health) to obtain a license to work as an armed security officer.
I went through a two month backround investigation to obtain a license to work in a casino.
I really don't have a problem with getting a Carry Permit.

BullfrogKen posted:

So, besides the fact PA law says I has to have one to conceal my gun lawfully (and not risk a felony conviction), the ability to be armed during a state of emergency (and again not risk a felony conviction) justifies the $20-some dollars I have to give my Sheriff every 5 years.

 

[Warp]

Since I joined the Army at the tender age of 18 years, my fingerprints and personal info has been sitting in file folders in various state and federal offices around the country.

I've had FOID and Carry Permits in seven states.
I've been vetted for a Secret and T.S Clearance when working for a defense contractor.
I had a full personal review by two state agencies when I was a Firearms Instructor.
I went through a three month review (including medical and mental health) to obtain a license to work as an armed security officer.
I went through a two month backround investigation to obtain a license to work in a casino.
I really don't have a problem with getting a Carry Permit.

BullfrogKen posted:

Do you believe that requiring written permission from the government, complete with fees, is an infringement on your "Right" to keep and bare arms?

How can something that requires a "Mommy, may I?" paid permission slip from the .gov legitimately be considered a Right that has not been infringed?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Do you believe that requiring written permission from the government, complete with fees, is an infringement on your "Right" to keep and bare arms?

What difference does it make what I believe? With a CHL I can carry in a great many states. Without it, I can't.

Are we supposed to throw away the hard-won CHLs and go back to where no one can legally carry?

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

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:

I guess in Indiana the main "benefit" of a License To Carry a Handgun is compliance with the law.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

... half of the folk convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony legally obtained their gun ...

We are discussing permit to carry, so I don't see where "obtained their gun" applies to carry permit/license holders. Texas has tracked crime among carry license holders due to the skeptics when the law was proposed in Texas: Texas Concealed Handgun License TCHL have one-fifth the crime rate of adult non-TCHL Texans.

As far as half the people committing gun crimes obtaining the guns legally, a large inmate survey (14,000 inmates, 18% of whom owned guns) cited by the Bureau of Justice Statistics gave this breakdown of sources of guns for inmates:

13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show

39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other

39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

The earlier DOJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" felon survey noted that friend and family of felons were often criminals themselves.

I wonder if a survey of gun-using felon inmates would show that those who did obtain guns legally were non-criminals when they obtained their gun. Most street level criminals I have known in my lifetime who were armed got their guns illegally. Maybe some shady characters operating openly as "legitimate businessmen" acquire guns for protection legally but they scarcely would qualify as "good guys" until/unless they were caught.



In most states the alternative to carry with a permit is NOT Vermont style carry without a permit: the alternative in most states is no carry.

 

[ball3006]

My permit, TX, allows me to carry a pistol, concealed. Because I live in the DFW area, this is a wise choice to do so. My permit allows me to carry a pistol in most states I travel through. I bet most of the whiners here on this issue, aren't even old enough to own a gun, much less, carry one legally. My renewal fee is 30 bucks which I send in by mail to receive a new license when that time comes around. I consider that money well spent. Yes, I grew up in an era where permits were not needed, but, times change.....chris3

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

We are discussing permit to carry, so I don't see where "obtained their gun" applies to carry permit/license holders. Texas has tracked crime among carry license holders due to the skeptics when the law was proposed in Texas: Texas Concealed Handgun License TCHL have one-fifth the crime rate of adult non-TCHL Texans.

As far as half the people committing gun crimes obtaining the guns legally, a large inmate survey (14,000 inmates, 18% of whom owned guns) cited by the Bureau of Justice Statistics gave this breakdown of sources of guns for inmates:

13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show

39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other

39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

The earlier DOJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" felon survey noted that friend and family of felons were often criminals themselves.

I wonder if a survey of gun-using felon inmates would show that those who did obtain guns legally were non-criminals when they obtained their gun. Most street level criminals I have known in my lifetime who were armed got their guns illegally. Maybe some shady characters operating openly as "legitimate businessmen" acquire guns for protection legally but they scarcely would qualify as "good guys" until/unless they were caught.



In most states the alternative to carry with a permit is NOT Vermont style carry without a permit: the alternative in most states is no carry.

Very interesting "figures" (and I'm sure that we can rely on them 100% if they were compiled by the government). I don't see anything, though, about Eric Holder's "Fast and Furious" guns.

 

[Warp]

What difference does it make what I believe? With a CHL I can carry in a great many states. Without it, I can't.

Are we supposed to throw away the hard-won CHLs and go back to where no one can legally carry?

Did you read the original post/question?

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:

 

[Malamute]

It looks like an awful lot of people missed the point of the question.

It ISN'T "is it good to be able to carry a gun, even though a permit is required?" Nor is it about throwing away any progress implied by having the abilty to carry with a permit.


The question as I understand it was (paraphrased), "Is requiring a permit to carry somehow better than being able to legally carry anywhere otherwise legal (excepting courthouses and .gov buildings etc)without a permit, including other states. If so, how is it better to require a permit?


Myself, I see no benefit to requiring a permit to excercise a guaranteed right. "Keep and bear" means own and carry. A permit seems like an unreasonable infringement. The point of bringing up the states that dont require it is as an example that it doesnt seem to lead to chaos if no permit were required.

 

[MedWheeler]

I could not select an option, as the first and third are the same. (What exactly does "some benefit" mean, without implying that a selection of "yes" means that I believe permitting offers "all" benefit?)

In Florida, having one releases the holder from any waiting periods required to take possession of a newly-purchased handgun. Not sure if, by the time I got to this thread, that had already been mentioned.

 

[Twmaster]

It looks like an awful lot of people missed the point of the question.

It ISN'T "is it good to be able to carry a gun, even though a permit is required?" Nor is it about throwing away any progress implied by having the abilty to carry with a permit.


The question as I understand it was (paraphrased), "Is requiring a permit to carry somehow better than being able to legally carry anywhere otherwise legal (excepting courthouses and .gov buildings etc)without a permit, including other states. If so, how is it better to require a permit?


Myself, I see no benefit to requiring a permit to excercise a guaranteed right. "Keep and bear" means own and carry. A permit seems like an unreasonable infringement. The point of bringing up the states that dont require it is as an example that it doesnt seem to lead to chaos if no permit were required.

This. It does seem most of you did not read the original question.

I voted no. Me having to get permission from the State to carry a firearm serves no purpose. Other than one more way those in power can attempt to control me. It's just that simple. To me anyhow.

 

[stressed]

This is my opinion. I have a carry permit in my state, however I believe anyone from age 21 or older should be able to legally carry, concealed or not - with only a valid state ID or drivers license. I believe that is the way it is in Arizona, Vermont and Alaska.

 

[X-Rap]

So a permit gives you a right to carry concealed but there are far to many stipulations to list in all the 50 states that now allow it in some way or form. Some posters act as though the permit is some kind of legal force field, I suggest they all become aquainted with the prohibited zones and those in their favorite reciprical state.
I see no greatness in laws that allow us to do what we all should be allowed as free men.
I carry a permit and will so long as it's necessary for me to exercise that right but like others in the past, I have tasted a little freedom and nothing but total freedom will do.
I saw no post in this thread touting the benifit of a permit that wasn't a result of a right taken away or infringed, that is no good reason for a law and we should be outraged.

 

[Warp]

This is my opinion. I have a carry permit in my state, however I believe anyone from age 21 or older should be able to legally carry, concealed or not - with only a valid state ID or drivers license. I believe that is the way it is in Arizona, Vermont and Alaska.

Make it 18.

I'll leave the state ID thing alone for now.

 

[stressed]

Make it 18.

I'll leave the state ID thing alone for now.

May be so, but someone could hop the border and partake in constitutional right of an American citizen without being a citizen. Although sadly I'm pretty sure there are sanctuary cities that give drivers licenses and ID's to anyone.

As for the 18 years of age comment, I would be open to that - if the 18 year old has completed a safety/familiarization course. 21 and older need not. (it's like drivers license. under 18 needs a permit and so many hours. anyone 18 years and older can just take the test and get their license.)

But at the end of the day, this is just a man's opinion.

 

[Warp]

May be so, but someone could hop the border and partake in constitutional right of an American citizen without being a citizen. Although sadly I'm pretty sure there are sanctuary cities that give drivers licenses and ID's to anyone.

As for the 18 years of age comment, I would be open to that - if the 18 year old has completed a safety/familiarization course. 21 and older need not. (it's like drivers license. under 18 needs a permit and so many hours. anyone 18 years and older can just take the test and get their license.)

But at the end of the day, this is just a man's opinion.

Why the hell should 18-20 year olds be treated differently than 21 year olds?

Answer me this...what problems have states like IN, which give shall issue licenses at the age of 18, had?

In Indiana

-Minimum age 18
-Shall issue
-No training requirement
-$35 permit, or $100 lifetime
-Bars are legal for carry
-Drinking while carrying is legal
-College campuses are legal for carry, including classrooms and dorms (by law, maybe not by school policy)
-One of the highest rates (% of population) of licensed carriers in the nation
-Has been that way for years/decades
-Long gun carry is unregulatd
-VERY few places off limits for carry

What rampant problems have they had (or other similar states) had that makes you feel the need to impose restrictions on 18 year olds?