What good do carry permits accomplish?

[qwert65]

I don't see the need for a cc permit- it does nothing, I do have one though.
Personally, is carry openly if it was more acceptable I own my own bussiness and don't have the time to be detained all the time by police responding to "man with a gun" calls.

I understand what bullfrogken is saying as well but in my opinion, if we use the founders words we need to look at how they saw things, it's true the disliked concealed weapons but if you had pistols in your belt and your cloak covered them that was not considered concealed(outdoors)

I would have saved a lot of money if open carry is more acceptable, I wouldn't if had to buy my j-frame, XDs, or Lcp and would stick to my full size guns which are superior in every respect but comcealability

 

[RedBowTies88]

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.

If only that was true.

Of course everyone forgets about the TENS of MILLIONS of us that don't have that luxury living in the states that freedom forgot. :banghead:

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

I have heard of this many times about pistol permits, and here is the problem I have with the theory.

Let's say I am stopped by Officer Friendly for speeding. I show Officer Friendly my driver's license, my registration, and my proof of insurance. Does Officer Friendly just hold my documents right there at my window and write out the ticket for speeding, assuming that everything I presented to him is valid and real? He would be pretty stupid to do so. How many people every day show a suspended or revoked driver's license and get tickets for it? Why? Because every single time, that I know of, Officer Friendly takes the driver's license and registration information and runs it through their verification system to make sure it is still valid and real.

So, why should we expect, and a lot of people do, that Officer Friendly is just going to assume that I am a confirmed "good guy" because I hand them my "membership card" that may or may not be real and valid? Would Officer Friendly be very wise to just accept it on face value? And, since Officer Friendly would be extremely stupid to not call my information in and have the state give him the rundown on me...I don't see any savings in time or effort there. Officer Friendly would be pretty darned stupid to treat me any differently just because I had him another piece of paper and claim that it makes me a confirmed good guy without checking with the state to determine if that piece of paper is real and valid.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.

You bring up a darn good point. I emphasized what I did of your posting for the following:


I get the impression that the average U.S. citizen somehow thinks that one day, on or about July 4, 1776, the U.S. Constitution miraculously appeared in its entirety amidst much drinking and fanfare and all was good afterwards.

The reality of it is that the Founding Fathers didn't even START working on this until the Constitutional Convention was convened on May 25, 1787...almost ELEVEN YEARS after we declared our independence.

Until that time the country operated under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777. Well, before that there was the Continental Congress, which actually predates our declaration of independence.

It wasn't until May of 1790 when the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified by all 13 states. THREE YEARS after the start of the Constitutional Convention.

So it took 14 years from our declaration of independence to get to the point of the Constitution as we know it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, was already in the works. The final ratification of which occured December 15, 1791. A year and a half after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by all 13 states.

So, from our declaration of independence on July 4, 1776, it took us almost SIXTEEN YEARS to get to the point of ratifying the Bill of Rights in its entirety. This includes the Second Amendment.

So there were YEARS of debate, work, re-work and more debate, plus the job of running the fledgling country in the meantime, that went into this whole process.

And it's quite evident by anybody who takes the time to do even the most basic research into this era of our history that much of the debates were very heated, indeed.

The Founding Fathers were not, by any stretch of the imagination, of one mind and one body during this process and the spectrum of political and philosophical beliefs covered the full scale of ideology at that time.

I, too, wish more of us would actually take the time to read up and actually learn more about the events that took place in those first 16 years.

As an example of common ignorance, how many people know there were 7 presidents of Congress followed by 8 presidents of the United States under the Articles of Confederation before George Washington was elected in 1789? Well, only 5 presidents of Congress served from the time of our declaration of independence, so you could technically say that 2 were never presidents of the United States because of that.

And we even had one president for a day in 1849, as well (David Rice Atchison). It was unofficial and he never took the oath, but he WAS the president for one day on March 4, 1849. Look it up.

So, we had 13 presidents of our country BEFORE George Washington (not counting the two who served before July 4, 1776)...which brings our total from 44 (starting with George) to 57. 59, if you include Atchison.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html


For a country with such a relatively short and uncomplicated history when compared to many of the countries in Europe, we're sadly undereducated in comparison.

And as a whole, we're woefully naive on the workings of our Founding Fathers in their struggle to get us where they did by 1791.

With respect to the Second Amendment, the Federalist Papers are a start. But don't stop there in your historical research.

 

[PabloJ]

If only that was true.

Of course everyone forgets about the TENS of MILLIONS of us that don't have that luxury living in the states that freedom forgot. :banghead:

If you move to Red China there will be no 'Second Amendment', but you will be safer and worth about 8x more then you're now. I do not think it's a "Welfare State" so even poor or poorly educated have to: work in factory doing repetitive tasks, sweep streets, pollinate flowers,...... to get something.

 

[geekWithA.45]

As a matter of principle, obtaining prior affirmative permission to exercise an intrinsic right is at least mildly offensive.

As a matter of implementation, most states are reasonably enlightened in the matter.

The one thing that is rarely mentioned or understood by our own people is that permits have a LOT to do with the overall high public acceptance of citizens being armed.

It provides peace of mind for many categories of people who would otherwise be frighted, or find reason to object, and stills their impulse to take democratic actions against our interests.

Never underestimate the value of the permit in this regard.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As a matter of principle, obtaining prior affirmative permission to exercise an intrinsic right is at least mildly offensive.

As a matter of implementation, most states are reasonably enlightened in the matter.

The one thing that is rarely mentioned or understood by our own people is that permits have a LOT to do with the overall high public acceptance of citizens being armed.

It provides peace of mind for many categories of people who would otherwise be frighted, or find reason to object, and stills their impulse to take democratic actions against our interests.

Never underestimate the value of the permit in this regard.

If we were as vocal a group as they are, who would win, considering we are the clear majority, when we decide to band together and do something. The problem is the anti-gun crowd is 10x more vocal about their fears than we are about our rights. We very seldom fight for our rights first. We more often make quiet attempts to resist their efforts.

 

[JustinJ]

I don't intend to read the whole thread but if a state has a required course that teaches and encourages safe and responsible use of a firearm then that is an obvious benefit. OP, your seriously don't realize this benefit on your own? And remember, your question was if anybody can identify a single benefit. Not if there should be required permits.

 

[RedBowTies88]

If you move to Red China there will be no 'Second Amendment', but you will be safer and worth about 8x more then you're now. I do not think it's a "Welfare State" so even poor or poorly educated have to: work in factory doing repetitive tasks, sweep streets, pollinate flowers,...... to get something.

And that is relevant to my lack of "constitutionally protected rights" how?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

Oh,not much just keep you out of jail and keep you from having your handgun confiscated(in my state)
. Nothing important really.(if it is in your vehicle or concealed on your person that is)

 

[Hanzo581]

I have heard of this many times about pistol permits, and here is the problem I have with the theory.

*snip*

I agree with this 100%. It's the same reason I don't understand people requiring a carry permit for private sales. Are you going to just assume it is still valid? I mean these things are good in some cases years, I could be a felon and still have that card...it proves nothing.

 

[Warp]

I don't intend to read the whole thread but if a state has a required course that teaches and encourages safe and responsible use of a firearm then that is an obvious benefit. OP, your seriously don't realize this benefit on your own? And remember, your question was if anybody can identify a single benefit. Not if there should be required permits.

No, that is not a benefit.

Adding more hoops to jump through and further infringing upon the "Right" is not a benefit. Just like charging people hundreds of dollars for the whole CHL process is not a benefit.

Training is great. Government mandated training for private citizens is not.

 

[Hanzo581]

No, that is not a benefit.

Adding more hoops to jump through and further infringing upon the "Right" is not a benefit. Just like charging people hundreds of dollars for the whole CHL process is not a benefit.

Training is great. Government mandated training for private citizens is not.

I'm going to go ahead a sort of disagree with you on this one.

If poor gun handling and safety only affected the person holding the gun making the mistakes I'd agree with you a billion percent, but it doesn't and stuff like this happens, very close to home, and it makes me think that everyone should be required to pass a safety test before owning a firearm.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/two-injured-reported-gun-accident-norfolk

 

[Warp]

I'm going to go ahead a sort of disagree with you on this one.

If poor gun handling and safety only affected the person holding the gun making the mistakes I'd agree with you a billion percent, but it doesn't and stuff like this happens, very close to home, and it makes me think that everyone should be required to pass a safety test before owning a firearm.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/two-injured-reported-gun-accident-norfolk

Liberty says otherwise, IMO.

I would argue that the Constitution says otherwise, as well.

I would also argue that it leads to more innocent people being injured. Every hoop you add for people to jump through reduces the number of law abiding folks who carry, which leaves more unarmed people that are more easily victimized.

You have to look at both sides of the scale.

 

[Hanzo581]

Liberty says otherwise, IMO.

I would argue that the Constitution says otherwise, as well.

I would also argue that it leads to more innocent people being injured. Every hoop you add for people to jump through reduces the number of law abiding folks who carry, which leaves more unarmed people that are more easily victimized.

You have to look at both sides of the scale.

I'm just not comfortable handing someone a gun that has never used one before and a box of ammo and saying have at it. Not everyone has a friend or family member to teach them.

Freedom is great, but we are talking about an instrument that can have a pretty massive effect on others.......it's like not being able to yell fire in a movie theater or verbally threatening to kill someone...free speech only goes so far.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

If only that was true.

Of course everyone forgets about the TENS of MILLIONS of us that don't have that luxury living in the states that freedom forgot. :banghead:

Is someone forcing you to stay there? I understand maybe some don't have the ability to move, but if it was something I felt passionately about and my state wasn't willing to change, I'd move. If Florida caves into political pressure and adopts laws that I don't like, you better believe I'll move back home or somewhere else without thinking twice about it. That's the beauty of our country. States' rights are important for this very reason. You can either vote for what you believe in, and hope that the rest of the people in your state agree, or find a new place to live that suits you.

 

[Hondo 60]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

Brings money into the state.....

That was my first thought.
In WI, it cost me $50 for five years.
I understand that price has since gone down to $40.

My 2nd thought was that it tells others that I have been screened & found to be a law-abiding citizen.
That can be good & bad.
Good - in that if I encounter a LEO he/she can be somewhat assured.
Bad - in that if the gov ever decides to confiscate, they know I carry.

Do I like it?
No, the letter (and spirit) of the 2nd Amendment says I have that right without having to ask permission.
But, again, I am a law-abiding citizen

 

[lloveless]

NavyLCDR wrote: "If we were as vocal a group as they are, who would win, considering we are the clear majority, when we decide to band together and do something. The problem is the anti-gun crowd is 10x more vocal about their fears than we are about our rights. We very seldom fight for our rights first. We more often make quiet attempts to resist their efforts." History tends to repeat itself. How did it go for the Californians when they forced the OC issue? "NOT TOO GOOD"
ll
__________________

 

[Warp]

I'm just not comfortable handing someone a gun that has never used one before and a box of ammo and saying have at it. Not everyone has a friend or family member to teach them.

Freedom is great, but we are talking about an instrument that can have a pretty massive effect on others.......it's like not being able to yell fire in a movie theater or verbally threatening to kill someone...free speech only goes so far.

Neither you nor anybody else is 'handing' anybody a gun.

We are talking about sovereign adults choosing to exercise their Right to keep and bear arms.

Nobody is handing anybody a gun.

And I didn't say anything about "freedom". I speak of Rights and Liberties.

I don't know what you are trying to talk about by referencing "yell fire in a movie theater". Do we require training and a test on the law before people enter a movie theater so that they know what they can and cannot do?

 

[JustinJ]

No, that is not a benefit.

Adding more hoops to jump through and further infringing upon the "Right" is not a benefit. Just like charging people hundreds of dollars for the whole CHL process is not a benefit.

Training is great. Government mandated training for private citizens is not.

Can we have enough integrity enough to admit that just because we dislike or disagree with something that doesn't mean we must pretend it's 100% bad with no benefit. Black and white views are generally irrational and not constructive.

At my last CHL renewal I attended a very large class. Basically, renewals joined the second half of a class for first time CHL applicants right before everybody went out to do the shooting qualification. The things I witnessed were terrifying. A number of people actually had brand new guns for the shooting section which they had never fired before and did not know how to operate. One even admitted to having never fired again before. Many seemed incredibly oblivious to the laws surrounding concealed carry in TX. You can't seriously claim educating said people is not a benefit. Of course each person who carries should take the time to be trained and study the law but we're talking about the real world here and many, too many, never do.

 

[Warp]

How has Vermont made it through over 200 permitless years without untold bloodshed? And Alaska,Arizona and Wyoming working out fine,permit free.

The only reasonable conclusion is that residents of states that don't require permits are of a higher class and capability than the rest...and residents of states that are shall issue and do not require training are likewise of a higher class and capability than the states that require training.

Big Daddy Government is just protecting the poor souls in the incapable states from themselves.


Seriously though, I have probably asked many hundreds of people that exact same question in discussions over the years and very few of them ever 'get it'. Most people are not capable of comprehending a situation that they have not personally experienced. People who think training should be required very frequently live in states that require training. People that are strongly against open carry are often from states where open carry is illegal, or from specific areas (often big cities) where it is NEVER practiced. People who are against private firearm ownership in general are very often from New York, Chicago, overseas, etc.

Fact of life.

 

[Warp]

What an ironic post to be submitted as I was typing my last reply :

Can we have enough integrity enough to admit that just because we dislike or disagree with something that doesn't mean we must pretend it's 100% bad with no benefit. Black and white views are generally irrational and not constructive.

At my last CHL renewal I attended a very large class. Basically, renewals joined the second half of a class for first time CHL applicants right before everybody went out to do the shooting qualification. The things I witnessed were terrifying. A number of people actually had brand new guns for the shooting section which they had never fired before and did not know how to operate. One even admitted to having never fired again before. Many seemed incredibly oblivious to the laws surrounding concealed carry in TX. You can't seriously claim educating said people is not a benefit. Of course each person who carries should take the time to be trained and study the law but we're talking about the real world here and many, too many, never do.

How many cases are there of licensed carriers, say, shooting an innocent bystander while defending themselves? Serious question, the ones I even think I can think of are easily counted on one hand. Out of how many defensive gun uses every year?

TX is terrible. Their CHL permitting process is terribly oppressive. There is a reason so few Texans have licenses. Requiring people to spend hundreds of dollars and give up an entire day so they can carry a gun is absolutely uncalled for and not necessary.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people licensed to carry or legally carrying without a license where no government training was required.

Where are the problems you worry about?

 

[Deaf Smith]

What good do carry permits accomplish?

Depends on the permit.

One requiring a real good background check shows they holder is in good standing.

One requiring serious training shows the holder is at least semi-competent with the gun.

One with a minimum age limit, like 21, shows the guy is at least semi-mature.

One that cost an arm and a leg and much paperwork shows the holder is rich and lots of time on their hands.

Deaf

 

[Warp]

Depends on the permit.

One requiring a real good background check shows they holder is in good standing.

No, actually, it doesn't.

At best it shows that the holder was in good standing, to the knowledge of the issuing authority, at the time it was issued.

One requiring serious training shows the holder is at least semi-competent with the gun.

I disagree, and reports from people who have attended government mandated training...including the one just a few posts up...are good examples of why this assumption is false.

One with a minimum age limit, like 21, shows the guy is at least semi-mature.

I disagree again. Being 18, or 21, or 24, or any other age, does not guarantee a person is any degree of mature.

One that cost an arm and a leg and much paperwork shows the holder is rich and lots of time on their hands.

Deaf

Possibly. Or it was very important to them and they scrimped and saved to make it happen.

But seriously, a CHL process like Texas has sure seems to do a great job of keeping the poor from legally carrying handguns. Maybe that is the true intent of TX law?

 

[JustinJ]

How many cases are there of licensed carriers, say, shooting an innocent bystander while defending themselves? Serious question, the ones I even think I can think of are easily counted on one hand. Out of how many defensive gun uses every year?

That's a straw man argument and actually indicative of nothing. In how many justifiable self defensive shootings was that even a probable event based on the scenario?

TX is terrible. Their CHL permitting process is terribly oppressive. There is a reason so few Texans have licenses. Requiring people to spend hundreds of dollars and give up an entire day so they can carry a gun is absolutely uncalled for and not necessary.

So are you saying that less than 12 hours of training is sufficient for somebody to have the knowledge to responsibly carry a gun? I beg to differ. Yes, there are people, such as myself, who have taken the time to self educate but there are countless who don't.

The full day course is required for only initial applicants. Refresher courses are just six and are required only every few years. Given the incredible responsibility that goes with carrying a gun I don't see this as at all unreasonable. All of that his changing though.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people licensed to carry or legally carrying without a license where no government training was required.

And far too regularly people make foolish decisions with their weapons. Yeah, they do in TX too but educating people on firearm safety and the proper use of force can only help to reduce irresponsible use of firearms. I don't believe anybody will argue that is not the case.

Is the TX CHL course perfect? Of course not. Some instructors are not very good and there are areas I think the course should focus more on but it leaves people far better equipped than nothing.

Where are the problems you worry about?

Unjustified shootings, unsafe gun handling causing injury or death, escalation of confrontations, etc. These things all happen and as I said, education is the only weapon we have in combatting such events.