What good do carry permits accomplish?

[lloveless]

I could not legally carry a gun til ccw came along, it has been an opening wedge to OC, and constitutional carry. With more people carrying this has led to a drop in violent crimes.
ll

 

[X-JaVeN-X]

I look at it this way...just because one can, doesn't mean one should. While I believe everyone has the right to a gun, there are a lot of people that I do NOT want walking around me and my family with one...not because they are bad or a criminal, but because they just don't handle firearms responsibly.

If you want a gun in your home, great...it's your property and your right. If you want to carry a gun around me, then I want you to have a good grasp on firearm safety and a good working knowledge of how to use that firearm.

I personally think a permit should be more of a "know what I'm doing" sorta thing. I don't think it should cost anything (or cost as little as possible to cover training...much like the $10 it cost to get a driver's license) and should be strictly to deem a person safe in a public environment with a firearm.

I look at it more along the lines of a driver's license. You have to take training and go through a year or more of training before you can be let loose on public roads because a car can easily become a deadly weapon (even if by accident). That same reality exists with a gun. So, while the permit does have a "permission slip" aspect to rights we should have by default...it does at least (at least most states that I know of?) require some sort of training to acquire.

 

[Twmaster]

So I'm trying to figure out how "...shall not be infringed." fits into your requirement for training?

I wish you folks would READ the OP's original question. So far most of you are not even on topic.

 

[BullfrogKen]

As a good many are talking past one another at this point to express what they feel

. . . is God's way . . .


I suspect many won't read this.


Oh well. I'll put it to words anyway.



Carrying a concealed weapon was considered a criminal act for hundreds of years.

Read that again.


If you wanted to carry your sixgun down main street in most of America at the turn of the 20th century, no one gave it any pause. In most of America is was considered commonplace and not a cause for concern.

Many social changes took place since 1900.

Among them were carrying a pistol openly.


And . . . . so did carrying a concealed handgun.

Back in the "wild west" people carried "hidden guns" because they - for whatever reason - couldn't or wouldn't carry one openly. There was a stigma associated with carrying a hidden gun.

In today's America we've completely flipped that image.

There isn't the stigma of carrying a hidden weapon - which would make even an honest citizen into a criminal just by that very act.


Today we can carry "hidden guns", and it's OK.


I'll bet if you tried to convey that line of thinking to someone who lived 100 years ago, he'd think you were a scalawag, a ruffian, or a plain old assassian.


You all must appreciate the concept of the right to carry arms in the 1700's didn't apply to the right to concealed arms. Only bandits, robbers, and nare-do-wells hid their weapons from public view.


We've come a long way since then, haven't we?

 

[larryh1108]

It's a form of registration. Everyone screams no registration yet these permits to carry are a big tool in registration. If I was in charge of finding every gun in America to take them away, the first list I'd work off of is each state's permits to carry or own (FOID). I know not every permit holder owns a gun but I'd bet most do. After all, we are the responsible citizens!

p.s. I'll never vote on any poll that shows who voted for what.

 

[mljdeckard]

I will certainly agree that Constitutional Carry is the goal.

However, we have used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them. We started with a few states going shall-issue. As that spread, and there were no negative consequences, more states looked more and more foolish for not doing it. This has led to several states being able to show that Constitutional Carry makes even more sense.

HOWEVER, if we had started by DEMANDING that we should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere we want, where would we be now?

 

[tubeshooter]

@BullfrogKen:

A very salient point, since the crux of the argument is Constitutional carry versus modern-day permits (concealed or otherwise).

Thanks for that contribution.

 

[X-Rap]

I'll bet if you tried to convey that line of thinking to someone who lived 100 years ago, he'd think you were a scalawag, a ruffian, or a plain old assassian.


You all must appreciate the concept of the right to carry arms in the 1700's didn't apply to the right to concealed arms. Only bandits, robbers, and nare-do-wells hid their weapons from public view.

I think there may be some localized historical proof to this claim but in general I believe guns have been carried in concealment since there have been guns.
There are far to many small weapons of that era to believe that only scoundrels and scalawags carried them. There are even ample examples of full sized shoulder rigs. I think in the past just as today the method of carry was determined more by the dress, job, and surroundings until laws came that regulated such.

 

[stressed]

I'll bet if you tried to convey that line of thinking to someone who lived 100 years ago, he'd think you were a scalawag, a ruffian, or a plain old assassian.


You all must appreciate the concept of the right to carry arms in the 1700's didn't apply to the right to concealed arms. Only bandits, robbers, and nare-do-wells hid their weapons from public view.

Wait, why would you be considered a Scalawag if you carried concealed? I'm pretty sure you were only considered a Scalawag if you were a traitor to the Southern Confederacy and supported federal reconstruction, regardless if you carried open or concealed.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

THAT is the point I am trying to make. And THAT is the reason I see as being in the mess we are in now. We have come to accept compromise as being good for us.

I love the way someone wrote it, paraphrasing they said, "Both sides of the gun control issue talk about 'compromising'. But doesn't compromise mean that both sides give up something? So when we talk about gun control, exactly what has the anti-gun crowd given up that they ever had to begin with? The anti-gun crowd has not given up ANYTHING. All they have done is TAKEN. So where has there been any compromise? When they speak of compromise what they really mean is giving us back a little of what they took from us to begin with - or not taking as much from us as they would like of what they never had to begin with. So how is that compromise?"

I view the issue of carry permits kind of like slavery. Slavery initially deprived a class of people of almost all of their human rights. That's what the anti-gun crowd did starting in 1911 with the first pistol permit system in New York which was derived as a plan by "Big" Tim Sullivan of a way of keeping the immigrant victims of his mobsters from resisting the criminals that he was getting kick backs from.

Then as time progressed, we had virtually all of our rights to carry firearms for self protection stripped away from us. We went through the "slavery" period if you will. Now, the great "compromise" has been offered to us and our generation, apparently, has embraced it with open arms. Now, I would say we are in the "Separate but equal" stage of our freedom.

I have to ask this: Slavery came to this country with the founding fathers. We somehow managed to get it abolished in 1865 and for the most part (just like gun control) it got replaced with "separate but equal". "Separate but equal" wasn't good enough for us because there was nothing equal about it. We have managed to do away with widespread racial discrimination.

So why are we so willing to sit by and talk about all these "positives" that carry permits bring to us, when they are nothing less than the "separate but equal" situation that we were given as a "compromise" to having our rights taken away to begin with? The anti-gun crowd is not the majority. Sure, they have their pockets where their numbers are strong, but accross the country they are the minority. The problem is they are willing to stand on their soap boxes and scream their propaganda at the top of their lungs and we are too afraid to do the same thing because we don't want to appear to be "radicals". So why are we so afraid of standing up for ourselves and calling these permit requirements what they are - nothing more than restrictions that affect no one except for people who are going to obey laws anyway.

 

[NavyLCDR]

HOWEVER, if we had started by DEMANDING that we should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere we want, where would we be now?

Maybe where the blacks are now compared to where they were when some of the state governments tried to tell them that "seperate but equal" was good enough? Maybe where the poll tax is now as a requirement to vote?

 

[1SOW]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

In states that require a safety and State gun law course and a background check:

1. Forces people who have never handled firearms to keep their booger hook off the bang stick until ready to fire. Said with humor, but true and commonly observable at public ranges with no supervision present. Some people do not have a clue about safe gun handling/the 4 rules.
2. Various states have laws that prohibit carrying in some businesses and locales. The penalties for doing so can be harsh. Knowing where you can't legally carry is a benefit to the license holder.
3. Expedites buying new firearms that require a background check.
4. Reduces fees charged by some FFL holders for a transfer.
5. The picture ID license with background check serves as legal ID and can sometimes be useful.

This is in answer to ONLY the OP's question.

 

[mljdeckard]

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[BullfrogKen]

tubeshooter-

Well the Founders' idea's revolved around the open display of arms.

Even they felt the hidden dirk or dagger was the tool of the robber.


I happen to feel that Pennsylvania's weapons laws quite closely mimic the founder's intent.

Good people carried arms openly, in their eyes, only those with nefarious intent secreted dirks and daggers - which were the offensive weapons of the 1700s.

Dirks and daggers have almost no offensive use. One really couldn't fight with them. They were extremely close range weapons. And in their eyes, they were the tools use to finish an enemy on the battlefield once he was defeated. Because after all, that's exactly what they were designed to do.

Or the preferred weapons of criminals and assassins, once their prey was close and lulled into false security.

Honorable men wore their swords and rapiers openly. Swords and rapiers could be both offensive, and yet defensive weapons. But daggers and dirks were considered offensive weapons only, and in the eyes of the early Colonial only used to subdue an unarmed opponent, or deliver a finishing blow to an armored one, but not as a defensive tool. And when the BoR was penned, the sword and rapier was still the most affordable arm a man could own.


Even they frowned upon honorable men walking amongst other honorable men with hidden dirks and daggers. Interestingly, PA law still considers those weapons of offense, serving no defensive purpose.

 

[JohnKSa]

THAT is the point I am trying to make. And THAT is the reason I see as being in the mess we are in now. We have come to accept compromise as being good for us.

What we have is better than we've had before (at least in any of our lifetimes) and the improvement that began with FL's shall issue law is still continuing to spread. Not only is shall issue now the rule, rather than the exception, at least two states have now moved farther and have permitless carry.

So why are we so willing to sit by and talk about all these "positives" that carry permits bring to us, when they are nothing less than the "separate but equal" situation that we were given as a "compromise" to having our rights taken away to begin with?

They're still positives even if they're not the ultimate goal.

The end of slavery was a huge improvement and I'm sure the freed slaves talked about the positives (no quotes--they really were positives), even though there were still issues to be addressed. Things don't change overnight, but they do change. It's one thing to be impatient, it's another thing to denigrate people for correctly stating that things are better than they were.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because someone is happy that things are better than they were that they can't be interested in making things even better.

And don't fall into the bigger trap of assuming that just because YOU can see the need for improvement that there's sufficient support amongst the general populace to make it happen right this second.

We didn't get where we are overnight and we won't get all the way to constitutional carry from this point overnight either.

Shall issue has generated support for further improvements, and it will continue to do so. Just because the improvement isn't as fast as you'd like it to be doesn't mean it's not happening. Pushing harder on the accelerator won't make the car go any faster than it is capable of--no matter how hard you push. But the fact that you can't go as 100mph doesn't mean you won't reach your destination. Even at 30mph you'll make it. Unless you start throwing rocks at your fellow passengers...

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I can't say permits have no benefits, so I voted for "some," but I'm really in favor of "constitutional carry." I only tolerate the current permit system because the alternative in most places is no carry.

 

[Warp]

I will certainly agree that Constitutional Carry is the goal.

However, we have used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them. We started with a few states going shall-issue. As that spread, and there were no negative consequences, more states looked more and more foolish for not doing it. This has led to several states being able to show that Constitutional Carry makes even more sense.

HOWEVER, if we had started by DEMANDING that we should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere we want, where would we be now?

I don't know that I would call it "creeping incrementalism" so much as proving, one state at a time, that allowing people to carry guns is a good thing. The proof is there, it's just that some states took longer than others to come around to the truth.

 

[X-Rap]

So long as we have to debate "resturant carry or park carry, or church carry we have much work to do.
Ask some fence sitter if you should be able to carry at the mall, park, resturant, ball game, church, or amusement park and if they say yes ask them what the hell the difference is in those and a school.
Once the notion of good places and bad places go away then we will be making progress but I could care less about constitutional carry if it is only a phrase and comes with a long list of restrictions because in the end it is just more BS.

 

[BullfrogKen]

X-Rap, your take on American history - and that of the Second Amendment in particular - is as short as your arm . . . about the length of your remote control.


There are a good many people here who speak of constitutional carry. Yet there are very few who know what the Constitutionalists spoke of when they considered the carrying of arms.

I assure you it was not universal, meaning whoever could carry whatever, whenever.

Even the briefest of glances through their intent would startle some today.


However, that means we have progressed beyond even their limited perspectives, and permitted things than in their time would be considered "on-it's-face" a criminal act.


We've made much progress. Progress even beyond their understanding.


You fail to recognize it at your peril.

 

[NavyLCDR]

There are a good many people here who speak of constitutional carry. Yet there are very few who know what the Constitutionalists spoke of when they considered the carrying of arms.

I assure you it was not universal, meaning whoever could carry whatever, whenever.

Even the briefest of glances through their intent would startle some today.

Absolutely correct, IMHO.

I am pretty sure that their intent came straight from the Declaration of Independence and, in reality, had nothing to do with the right of a person to protect themselves from other "citizens":

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Second Amendment:
"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."

 

[BullfrogKen]

Yeah, I think I read that someplace before, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Salmoneye]

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.

No ID required in Vermont...

You may be asked for one, but that is not a requirement for carry open or concealed...

16 is the 'age' here, but Federal Law trumps for purchase:


§ 4007. Furnishing firearms to children

A person, firm or corporation, other than a parent or guardian, who sells or furnishes to a minor under the age of 16 years a firearm or other dangerous weapon or ammunition for firearms shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $10.00. This section shall not apply to an instructor or teacher who furnishes firearms to pupils for instruction and drill.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=085&Section=04007

§ 4008. Possession of firearms by children

A child under the age of 16 years shall not, without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, have in his or her possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 52 of Title 33.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=085&Section=04008

ADDING:

BTW...If you are not legally barred from owning a gun, you can carry in Vermont...This applies to anyone, from anywhere on the planet...If Federal Law does not allow you to carry as an Alien (as in illegally entered the country), then you can not carry in Vermont, but the State does not bar you from doing so...

 

[MedWheeler]

I admit I missed the point of the question as originally phrased, but understand it as edited for clarity ("Is there a benefit to the practice of requiring licensure/permitting to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, versus simply allowing all non-prohibited persons to do so without such a requirement?")

My answer to that version is "none that I can see."

I do kind of like Vermont's idea of offering one for the benefit of those who want one (such as those who may need it to carry outside the state in a state that requires one) but, if none was ever required, even this would be pointless.

Maybe another means of offering proof that one is an already-confirmed "good guy" could be offered as a strictly-voluntary option for people, armed or not, as a means to hasten any encounters with LEOs.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

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.

It was $112 total for me to get my CWFL. If I did not have that, I'd have an $8 fee and a 72 hour wait every time I purchased a pistol. I've purchased 12 pistols since getting my permit. Cost to me for my permit so far has been $16 and savings has been 36 days that I didn't have to wait to receive a firearm that I paid for. If I buy two more pistols in the next 5 years, it's paid for itself. Of course, I think those 36 days of not waiting has been well worth the $16 already.

That's really the only "value" I see in my CWFL though. Of course, I'm also bothered by other things a lot more. If an hour of my time every 7 years is all it's costing me to be able to walk out with my firearms after I purchase them, I'm just fine with that.

Just my perspective. Agree, or don't.

 

[X-Rap]

Well the Founders' idea's revolved around the open display of arms.

Even they felt the hidden dirk or dagger was the tool of the robber.


I happen to feel that Pennsylvania's weapons laws quite closely mimic the founder's intent.

Good people carried arms openly, in their eyes, only those with nefarious intent secreted dirks and daggers - which were the offensive weapons of the 1700s.

Dirks and daggers have almost no offensive use. One really couldn't fight with them. They were extremely close range weapons. And in their eyes, they were the tools use to finish an enemy on the battlefield once he was defeated. Because after all, that's exactly what they were designed to do.

Or the preferred weapons of criminals and assassins, once their prey was close and lulled into false security.

Honorable men wore their swords and rapiers openly. Swords and rapiers could be both offensive, and yet defensive weapons. But daggers and dirks were considered offensive weapons only, and in the eyes of the early Colonial only used to subdue an unarmed opponent, or deliver a finishing blow to an armored one, but not as a defensive tool. And when the BoR was penned, the sword and rapier was still the most affordable arm a man could own.


Even they frowned upon honorable men walking amongst other honorable men with hidden dirks and daggers. Interestingly, PA law still considers those weapons of offense, serving no defensive purpose.
__________________

So now we are to believe that the knives common to most of us today are to be frowned upon as well as concealed handguns.
We are also to believe that the places we commonly carry or possess firearms today would have been restricted back them? What would the penalty be for concealment or carry/possession in a restricted area? Did the central government write these restrictions or was it the state and local governments? Are we really to believe that the founders would look at gun owners today as less than honerable men and women because we chose to carry a gun under our jacket? Or a knife folded and cliped to our pocket? I can carry the burden of your petty insults but your view of history is quite skewed and you leave pertinent information from your narrative.