Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BSA1, Sep 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    The privilege to carry concealed weapons has been a hard and long fought battle that has resulted in practical concealed carry laws in most of the States. I rejoice in the victories we have scored in this very fundamental need for self-defense.

    However I have a number of concerns about ( delete citizens and edited to civilians to clarify I am not discussing LEO's who are allowed to carry when off duty) being required to purchase permits to exercise their privilege of concealed carry and right of self-defense. They are the following;

    It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.

    Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female.

    First as part of the process many States require the applicant to attend a class. This requires the applicant to incur travel expense.
    Depending on when the class is held in may require them to take time off work. This may result in loss of income if their job does not provide benefits for PTO which many low paying and part time jobs do not have.
    For single parent households the applicant must make arrangements for child care which may incur expenses in taking the child(ern) to the babysitter and paying the sitter to watch them.

    The second part is a shooting range qualification. If it is held on a different day then all of issues with attending the first day occur again and double the cost of obtaining the permit. It also requires the applicant to purchase their own ammunition which for non-reloaders living on a fixed income may be expensive.

    For all intents and purposes the fee is not different than POLL taxes that were used to prevent certain groups from being able to vote.

    Reason; Can’t afford it? Step aside. Are there any States that allows the applicants to pay on a installment basis? Is the need for self-defense less because someone can’t afford the costs of getting a permit or during the period of time it may require for someone to save up enough money to obtain a permit?

    It discriminates against the physically disabled.

    Reason; It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents. For example consider the following types of disabilities;

    The applicant is to physically too weak to shoot the arbitrary number of rounds (most often 50) to qualify. This is common due to age and/or disease. The general FBI statistic I see cited the most often is the typical shooting occurs at distance closer than 7 yards, less than 3 rounds and in low light.

    Or the applicant lacks the physical mobility.

    Or(delete comment "the applicant can not leave their home due to medical condition") to the applicant may not be able to leave their home long enough due to their medical condition to complete the requirements. For example a exception would be leaving their home for visits to the Doctor

    Or the applicant is visually handicapped or legally blind.

    Since the average gunfight occurs at less than 7 yards how is shooting at 10, 15 or longer distances relevant?

    Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window.

    Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?

    I have not heard of any State requiring shooting in low light to be part of the qualification process. For those of you that have never shot on a range in low/dark light the results are, how shall I say it, very interesting. In this situation a blind or visually disabled person actually has an advantage!

    It expands the power and size of Government.

    Reason; Responsibility for issuing c.c. permits has to be assigned to a government agency. The agency in turn to develop policies and procedures, hire and train personnel to process permits and purchase office equipment and space.

    By requiring permission of the State it makes concealed carry a privilege. Even in shall issue States the applicant must meet certain licensing criteria.

    Reason; This is contrary to the concept cited in the Constitution that all men (Citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

    Ron Paul summarizes it much better than I can. He writes;

    “The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.”

    It is de facto registration of gun owners.

    Reason; It creates a government database that lists all concealed carry owners and in some states even the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) they are permitted to carry.

    It is very easily misused and lack of confidentially.

    Reason; The are several instances in different states where the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders have be released to other Government agencies in direct violation of State law (Missouri for example) and where their names and addresses have been publicity published by the media.

    It only places restrictions on the law-abiding.

    Reason; Simply put criminals and those intent on not complying with the law will ignore it and carrying whatever and whenever they want.

    C.C. permit holders, on the other hand, have to comply with a number of requirements and restrictions such as telling a LEO you are armed and not carrying it businesses and places where c.c. is not allowed.

    In summary I believe in unrestricted no permit concealed carry.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2013
  2. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    But... but... however.... Oh, heck, no argument from me! :D

    Also, the reason behind the very first pistol permit system, which was sponsored by "Big" Tim Sullivan and enacted in New York in 1911 was because the mobsters that were giving kickbacks to him and other corrupt politicians were starting to experience resistance from their victims who were starting to arm themselves and resist more and more. That's why New York's pistol permit was (and still is?) required to be signed by a judge and was not shall issue. The corrupt judge could then determine who did and did not get the permit which, I would imagine, was greatly affected by who the applicant was connected to or how much they paid. The first pistol permit system was enacted to disarm law abiding citizens, to protect the criminals, and to enable criminal acts - not reduce crime. All of which pistol permits still accomplish today.

    http://nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  3. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    I am with you about 80% here. Yeah it can act as a form of registration, but a pretty poor one since the majority of gun owners don't actually have a carry permit.

    I think the blind argument is a losing one. I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun. I know theres a lot of room between legally blind and completely blind, but lets just use the Always know your target and what is beyond rule if a person can't do that they shouldn't use a gun.
     
  4. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    You watch, though, someone is going to come along and post, "Well, permits are good because I don't want just any untrained yahoo to be able to carry a gun in public and be a danger to everyone because they have no training....."

    and then I will have to respond, "and can you show us where this is a problem in states like Washington, Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and many others where training is not required to get the permit or where no permit is even required to carry a gun?"

    Just thought we could get that all out in one post ;)
     
  5. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    If a blind person is being attacked, why can't they draw their firearm, press it into the body of their attacker and pull the trigger safely? If you had a daughter who was blind, would you rather she just be the victim of a violent rape, or would you rather she was able to carry a firearm to do just what I proposed?

    Always know your target and what is beyond.... it is a day after a natural disaster, like the floods in Colorado. Your house is on a hill, so wasn't flooded, but is without power and no phone service. Late at night you are awakened by the sound of glass breaking or a door being kicked open. You investigate the noise with gun in hand in the darkness and discover an intruder rummaging through your stuff with a flashlight.

    Or - how about what happened to my wife - I left for work one morning at 5 am and the criminal(s) had my house staked out. 5 minutes after I left they kicked my door in and entered my house. The front door is a straight shot right into our living room where my wife happened to be sitting in the dark at the time. Should she politely ask the perpetrator to step aside so she can check outside the door for bystanders before she shoots them?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  6. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,504
    By and large I agree, even though I didn't read the whole post word for word I got the basic idea. The only benefit of taking a CCW class is to demonstrate some sort of proficiency with a firearm. Now I am not saying that everyone who carries should be able to qualify for Top Shot in order to carry. But the basic understanding of how to load/unload, clean, trigger squeeze, sight picture, hand technique, holster selection etc are all important things to know about owning and carrying a firearm. I know far too many people who do not even know the makes and models of their firearms off the top of their head if they ask me for help shopping for one. For example
    "Can you recommend a holster for my handgun?"
    "Sure what do you have?"
    "Sig 9mm"
    "Alright which one"
    "Uhhhh"

    Basic knowledge goes a long way towards safely carrying a firearm.
     
  7. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,440
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    I believe in the concept of Constitutional Carry. However, since carry-licensing laws are already in place, I'll point out one benefit they have had.

    Carry-licensing laws do our cause well in maintaining inarguable statistics on the growing number of people who are exercising lawful, firearms-carrying, lifestyles, without the doom and gloom the other side has always predicted.

    Now, had Constitutional Carry been the norm from the get-go, I believe such statistics would never have been necessary.
     
  8. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    I feel bad for anyone with any condition that prevents them from living their life the way they choose. But, there is no safe way for a blind person to shoot a gun.

    So what you proposing is denying a entire class of citizens (in this case blind) from being to defend themselves with a firearm solely based on you perceive to be a disability. How much of a disability is a blind person at compared to a sighted person in the dark? Actually I submit a blind person has a significant advantage as they have spend a long time living in the dark (possibly their entire life) and have trained their other senses, especially hearing, to detect things sighted people can't.

    But the basic understanding of how to load/unload, clean, trigger squeeze, sight picture, hand technique, holster selection etc are all important things to know about owning and carrying a firearm.

    Is that a duty of the State (i.e. Government)?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  9. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    Yes if you don't know what is beyond your target it is irresponsible to shoot a gun period.
     
  10. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,367
    Location:
    Central PA
  11. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Yes if you don't know what is beyond your target it is irresponsible to shoot a gun period.

    Can you explain what that has to do with concealed carry permits?
     
  12. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Except for one thing...Here in Kentucky we can OPEN CARRY without a permit, we need no training to OPEN CARRY, we don't need government permission for OPEN CARRY, we don't need to pay $160 for the right to OPEN CARRY, we don't need to wait 2 months for a permit to OPEN CARRY, we don't need permission to carry a loaded gun in our glove compartment, center console, or in any factory installed compartment in the car.


    However ...Lord help us the minute we cover that same gun with a piece of cloth...we better have the 8 hr training, the $160 in fees, the background checks, the pictures of us, the 2 month wait and our name tied to the state database (checked monthly) and the piece of paper saying that we are 'ok' to cover a gun with a piece of cloth....

    A piece of cloth...........
     
  13. Onward Allusion

    Onward Allusion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    IN between
    I pretty much agree with all of your arguments. The two above makes my blood boil. Anyone disagreeing need to walk a mile...as the saying goes.

    A number of years ago, I'd asked a colleague in Texas why he doesn't have his CCW. His response was that he just had a kid, moved, his wife is now a stay at home mom, and that there is no way in hell he could afford the $400 for the fees & training for his permit. What? He shouldn't be able to protect his family outside the home just because he can't fork over the $400?

    How about IL? Yeah, they got "Shall Issue", but how much is it going to cost the average person? A buck & a half for the permit and another buck & a half for the training class? $300 just to be able to defend yourself outside the home? Might as well tell the poor folks that they have no right to defend themselves legally with a firearm outside their property. Oh wait, it was just ruled unconstitutional by the IL Supreme Court...

    Some States have such a challenging set of live-round qualifications that not many people with Parkinson's, Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis or any other number of physical disability would be able to pass. Hell, even someone who got into a really bad car accident might not be able to pass. Do those people not deserve to be able to defend themselves outside the home?

    I could be a poster child for the physical disability thing. I had sudden quadruple bypass about 6 weeks ago (yeah, that's why I didn't post for about 3 weeks & thank the Lord that it wasn't preceded by a heart attack). There would be no way in hell that I could pass the qualification portion of the CCW class in MANY States. AND I wouldn't be able to pass for probably 6 months after my surgery. I know this because I've gone to the range last week and it was a physical challenge just to lift and hold my pistol while maintaining a modified Weaver stance. My performance was crap... When they break your sternum and cut you open, it is hell trying to put your arms together while trying to lift something directly straight in front of you. So what? I shouldn't be able to protect myself outside my home until I could qualify???
     
  14. vamo

    vamo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Missouri
    You were the person that brought up the subject. My point is you are going to sound absolutely insane to fence sitters and otherwise logical anti gun people if your argument is permitting is unfair to blind people.
     
  15. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,367
    Location:
    Central PA
    Again, please go read the thread I linked which explains the matter completely. Let's not sidetrack this thread with that explanation.
     
  16. Gordon

    Gordon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    8,480
    Location:
    central Kali.
    I don't know about the rest of the talking points, I'll leave that to the cone heads BUT I sure as well KNOW
    "
    Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window."

    "Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?"
    - is pure BS in the real world I been in and around. So your information FACTS are flawed from the outset.
     
  17. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    You may want to remove this one; if a patient cannot leave his home, he won't be carrying concealed.
     
  18. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Midwest,

    That is a very good point about Open Carrying. It is the same way here in the Land of Oz.
     
  19. 40-82

    40-82 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    162
    BSA1,

    I agree with your sentiments, but if we had gone for our rights as defined in the U.S. Constitution or even as defined in our own Virginia Constitution, we would have lost, as I suspect most people in most states would have lost. Our concealed weapons laws represent a huge victory, and each year we chip away and gain back recognition of a few more of our rights.

    The battle in Virginia is not necessarily that easy. We have two anti-gun U.S. Senators. The state went for Obama in the last election, and in the urban eastern and northern sections of the state, the average person may not understand why anyone but a criminal would want to carry a gun, and even many of the people who feel the need to be armed have been so indoctrinated against individual rights for so long that they fear the social consequences of carrying a gun more than they fear a criminal attack. Yet, with all this against us each year in the legislature, we continue to chip away and gain a little more recognition for our rights.
     
  20. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,752
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Permits have never made any statistically important impact on crime.

    Criminals carry regardless of permits so a permit system plays no role in preventing crime to any significant extent.

    Mentally incompetent individuals are a statistically insignificant group in firearms related crimes so a permit system restricting them has no value in a population the size of ours.

    Permits as a means of meaningfully stopping improper use of firearms is a fiction.
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,717
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    But the political reality is that in many States a permit requirement is the political price for concealed carry. The political climate in only a relatively few States will be congenial to Constitutional Carry.
     
  22. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,748
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    OP claimed:
    Huh? Say what? Really? Well established by whom? Statements such as that might seem to immediately rob the original post of any credibility whatsoever.

    I currently reside in a state that doesn't require its citizens to obtain any training as a condition of getting a CPL, and I have zero problems with that, but please, don't go throwing up bogus facts in an effort to support your argument.
     
  23. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    Kentucky
    People should keep trying for constitutional carry in their respective states. I know we tried passing it here in Kentucky, I believe in New Hampshire they tried to pass it and Montana was said to have tried passing it.

    As I understand it Montana is almost constitutional carry. I believe it is in the cities that a permit is needed for concealed carry while the rest of the state is constitutional carry. That is an interesting approach although of course full constitutional carry would be better.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry#Montana

    "In addition to Montana's concealed weapons permit system, state law allows for Constitutional Carry through an exemption to the ban on carrying concealed weapons outside the official boundaries of a city or town.[14] In 2011 Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) which would have expanded it to all areas of the state.[11]"
     
  24. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    Old Dog,

    There are volumes, and I mean literally volumes, of incidents where the fundamentals of shooting and marksmanship go out the window when the shooting starts.

    it is very well documented in shootings involving LEO's and is covered in police academies across the nation. By whom how about the FBI for starters.

    I personally know of one such incident.

    Don't believe me. Read articles and books by Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith, Jeff Cooper or attend a shooting course at Gunsite or any other of the respected shooting schools.

    You don't want to believe those respected trainers just read the newspapers. A quick search of google of NYPD shootings alone gave me these results;

    Officer #1 fires one shot and Officer #2 fires two shots at suspect. All three shots miss the suspect but the cops manage to hit two bystanders. Heck the perp didn't even have a gun. He had 'simulated' a gun with his hands.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/shots-fired-times-square-bystander-struck-article-1.1456418

    Here's even a better one involving NYPD's finest. Officer #1 fired 39 rounds and Officer #2 fired 45 rounds for a total of 84 rounds at one suspect hitting him 14 times. (er, that means they MISSED 70 TIMES). According to the report the suspect even after being shot 14 times still refused to drop his gun. And the suspect lived to stand trial!
    http://newyorkcityguns.com/2012/04/two-nypd-cops-fire-84-rounds-at-murder-suspect/

    These are only two incidents. When I typed in "New York police fire multiple rounds at suspect" I had 9,920,000 results!!!

    Still don't believe me. Research data from the U.S. Army and Marines training programs.

    I stand by my statement "Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window'"and "It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents."

    Please feel free to cite any author, case studies or articles that you feel prove your position.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
  25. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,766
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    There is an actual cost associated with getting the permit. The majority of Utah's fee goes to the federal background check. And it takes someone some time to crank that card through the laminator.

    It can be said that accepting the permit process is an admission that carrying is a privilege rather than a right. However, look at it this way. If, 25 years ago, we had insisted on Constitutional Carry rather than carry permits, where would we be now? We have used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them. They might have been suspicious, asking; "Oh sure. NOW they only want carry permits. But where does it lead? Eventually they will be asserting the right to carry WITHOUT a permit!" to which we would have replied; "Don't be silly. We are thrilled to death to submit to a background check and pay a small fee to get to be able to carry a gun in public!" It was the concealed carry revolution that gained us enough real estate to even BEGIN to talk about Constitutional Carry. WE weren't even thinking that way when this all started.

    So, yes, we can agree that Constitutional Carry is the goal here, but it must also be acknowledged that the reason we are where we are now is because of carry permits.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page