Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here in Florida it cost me a total $175, and the license is good for 7 years. Thats $25 a year. Seems reasonably priced to me.


<-->
This is part of the problem, IMHO. This whole idea of "reasonable regulation" that we have been led to believe is "reasonable". The Federal government will not allow any state to charge even $25 to vote because that infringes upon people's right to vote that might not be able to afford such a fee - even if charged under the excuse of paying for everything required for polling places and to run the election. So why is any tax on the right to bear arms "reasonable"?
 
NavyLCDR said:
...So why is any tax on the right to bear arms "reasonable"?
On the other hand courts have upheld fees for a permit required to hold a public assembly.

The bottom line is that it is established law that some limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right is permissible. The exact scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment is still to be worked out in the courts.
 
The state level CCW revolution has been a huge leap forward for gun rights. It's not perfect, but it beats the heck out of the anti-CCW laws that existed before! Folks seem to forget, back in the "good old days" it was almost universally illegal to carry a concealed firearm.
 
Exactly right Cosmo. We now need to take a page from the anti's playbook and "compromise" to get them better and better. I wish the CCW wasn't necessary, and would prefer Vermont style in all 50 states, but if we have to have the license I don't think $10-15 for 5 years, no training, only a typical 4473 background check, temporary license issued on the spot is so onerous.

If your state charges too much, lobby to bring it down. If they have a burdensome training requirement, lobby to do away with it.
 
vamo said:
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.

Realistically, the argument against blind carry is like an argument against being probed by aliens.
Being shot by a blind person is just about statistically impossible and even if it does happen to you, no one will believe you.


Seriously though, what percentage of the population carries to begin with? Maybe 10%? So on top of that, what percentage of blind people carry? What percentage of blind people ever need to fire a shot in self-defense?
Now after all of that, what is your chance of being hit by a stray round fired by a blind person?

The blind person thing is a great issue for Piers Morgan to sling out when he wants to rail against something, but in the real world, it's practically a non-issue.

I mostly agree with BSA1 on the premise of CCW licensing though. It restricts a right and discriminates not only against certain groups, but also against anyone who just has a job and a shortage of time. Even in my home state of PA, which isn't too bad for gun laws, it still sucks.
First, as I recall, you need a couple character references. What if you just moved to PA and don't know anyone yet? Does that make it OK for criminals to rape you because you can't carry for defense? Especially when you can pass a background check?
Second, although the fee is only $26 for five years and there is no training requirement, you still have to find time to go jump through the hoops to get your permit.
 
Last edited:
I personally think licensing is good thing.

Living in a free society still requires certain things of the people in it. Licensing to drive a car, build a house, be a doctor, fly a plane, treating your drinking water; seems like a good thing right?

Why should carrying a firearm in public be any different? Imho showing proficiency and basic understanding of the laws is a must. I'm fairly certain I'll be in the minority on this one though.:D
 
I personally think licensing is good thing.

Living in a free society still requires certain things of the people in it. Licensing to drive a car, build a house, be a doctor, fly a plane, treating your drinking water; seems like a good thing right?

Why should carrying a firearm in public be any different? Imho showing proficiency and basic understanding of the laws is a must. I'm fairly certain I'll be in the minority on this one though.:D

Would you be in favor of a government license required to attend church? After all there are dangerous, extremists church groups in this world. Would you be in favor of a government license required to post on the internet? People use the internet to commit crimes with. Just curious.

How about a 4th or 5th amendment license? You pay for the government to do a background check on you, and you get a good guy card. When a police officer stops a person for a traffic stop, they are allowed to search the car for contraband and evidence of a crime committed, unless you have paid the government for your 4th amendment card which you can show the officer to prevent them from searching your vehicle without consent. Think of the advantage that would have on getting all those illegal drugs and guns off the street, if Law Enforcement was just able to search anyone's vehicle that didn't have a 4th amendment license!

It's all about public safety, right? Think about how much safer we would be if it wasn't for things like the 4th amendment getting in the way of law enforcement looking for evidence of a crime being committed. Wouldn't society be so much better if the criminals could not exercise their 4th or 5th amendment rights? And think about the benefits of training! How many people have no idea how to exercise their 4th amendment rights! They could teach things like "Officer, are you detaining me?" and "No, officer, I do not consent to this search" as a requirement to get your 4th amendment license!

Oh, here's one. How about a license required to get through airport security to fly on a commercial plane? You know - you pay $85 and submit your fingerprints to the TSA, and they give you an ID card in return good for 5 years so that you don't have to do silly things like take off your shoes, or take your laptop out of your bag at airport screening. That would be a good one, right?
http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck
 
Last edited:
DNS,

The heart of concealed carry licensing is you are surrendering your ability and right for self-defense to the Government.

To carry your belief that gun owners should have to pass a test before being issued a c.c. permit than why not require all gun owners to be licensed and have to pass a test before being allowed to buy a gun as more accidents occur in the home? And since various types of small arms operate differently than shouldn't the buyer be required to take a test each time they purchase a gun?

None of the things you mentioned are guaranteed in either the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The right to self-defense is.
 
There should be no permits. It should not be a crime to carry a gun you passed a background check to buy. Carrying a gun should not be an issue if you are acting in a lawful manner. Using that gun to commit a criminal offense should carry stiff penalties. Adding a charge of carrying a gun should be unnecessary.
 
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.
 
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.

Here's the problem with your logic, DNS. The Concealed Carry permit requirement is only going to affect one group of people - those people that are responsible enough to obey the law. The Concealed Carry permit requirement is not going to affect the group of people that you are concerned about - if they aren't responsible enough to know the basics about owning a firearm, then they more than likely won't be responsible to get the permit - especially if you keep increasing the prerequisites and cost to get the permit.

In all of the states where we have no training required for the permit, or no permit required to carry a gun, there simply is no increased issue with irresponsible people carrying guns - because the permit system isn't going to affect them anyway - it is only going to affect the already responsible people. It's funny, you say, "I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm." and yet you have all the faith in the world in them to obey a permit law.
 
It has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The same could be said of almost any fee or charge.
 
Driving a car and carrying a firearm are subjects for different questions, as one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other is a privilige granted by the separate states.
 
A license or permit is granted to the holder as official permission to do something by some authority, generally government at some level.

So, in an awful lot of areas, if we say we want some activity to be licensed we are actually saying that we want government to be in charge of who can legally do it and who can't. I don't know about you, but I'm less than certain that government at any level is worthy of such trust.
 
I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on. Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle. I have both a VA and a FL permit. The one change I want is total reciprocity. If I am cool to carry here why shouldn't I be there?
 
If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.
Uh, how? I mean, if he knows that pretty much EVERYONE is legal to carry, how would that mean he's got more problems to resolve than having to run a permit.

Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle.
Good heavens! How often do you get pulled over? Everyone seems to get tagged once every 5 or 10 years or so -- I get that. But "not worth the hassle" would seem to require an insanely high frequency of traffic violations. Once or even twice a year wouldn't make it "not worth the hassle" and that's a LOT of tickets!

I have both a VA and a FL permit. The one change I want is total reciprocity. If I am cool to carry here why shouldn't I be there?
Heck, if you're cool to BUY and OWN a gun, why shouldn't you be COOL to have it with you wherever you are?
 
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.

DNS,

Since you don't trust me is their any reason for me to trust you?

Since we mutually do not trust each other then shouldn't I have the right to protect myself from whatever nefarious intentions you have?
 
The premise of DNS' argument only works in an ideal world where everyone follows the law.
You can have little faith in you fellow man... but that doesn't stop the truly bad people from carrying. Permit or not, if they want to rob you, they're gonna carry a Glock and they're gonna stick it in your face. That's that.

Permits only affect people who aren't carrying illegally anyhow. They don't make you safer and only serve to inconvenience those who are no threat to anyone anyway.
 
Imagine having to wait for a call to the station to run you every time you get stopped. It would almost make carrying not worth the hassle.

What is the first thing the officer says once he gets your driver's license during a traffic stop? With me it has been, "Let me go run this and I'll be right back." or in about 50% of the cases, "Let me go run this, and if there isn't anything else, we'll let you go with a warning."

Do police officers just assume your driver's license is valid because you give it to them and tell them or imply that it is? NO. So tell me again how a pistol permit is going to change anything?

I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.

Hmmm... the 4th amendment says that I am innocent until proven guilty, and the 4th amendment also makes it illegal for police to detain me in order to attempt to obtain evidence of a crime unless they have a reasonable suspicion to do so. So, what you are saying, in essence, is that the mere act of carrying a gun, by itself, absent all other factors, is suspicion that the person is carrying it illegally.

Like I asked in an earlier post. Would it be a good thing to apply the same standard to the 4th amendment? You pay a fee for a background check and for the government to issue you a 4th amendment permit that entitles you to refuse consent to a warrantless search. You know - less hassle for the officer when he stops you. If you don't have your 4th amendment permit with you, all the officer has to say is get out of the car and open the trunk, I am going to search for evidence of a crime being committed and you must comply, unless you can show me your 4th amendment permit/license.

Would that be OK with you too? And, if not, why are you all good with applying the same standard to carrying a gun?
 
I do not believe the government should be able to insert themselves between citizens and their lawful exercising of Constitutional rights. The fees, paperwork, fingerprints, training, invasion of privacy (depending the state), wait times, and having to explain WHY you deserve a CHL, all constitute a certain amount of "infringement" to me.

A database of CCW holders (to include registration in some states) is simply too ripe for abuse by any gun grabbing politicians that decide to come after gun owners at a later date. The attitude of POTUS in politicizing mass-shootings in order to further anti 2nd amendment agenda is a perfect example of how politicians don't respect the Constitution, and can't be trusted to preserve our rights.

In reference to DNA's post:
I guess I don't have much faith in my fellow man to act responsibly with a loaded firearm.
I look around me at a new generation that's all about them and they typically take no responsibility for there actions. Grace, morals, common sense, respect, all out the window. Sadly its just not the younger ones either; make a trip to Walmart.

No, I do not want just anyone carrying.

Your moral judgments on your fellow Americans are completely irrelevant and hold zero bearing to their right to own and bear arms. Blanket assumptions based on general experiences and limited interactions with certain groups of individuals are pretty much baseless in my book.
 
Last edited:
I look at the concealed fees as a way to have the convenience of way less hassle when you are stopped. If the LEO knows you are legal to carry, he has a lot less problems to resolve with you before moving on.

How the heck did I get so old and dumb???

When I worked the streets I assumed that the occupants of all vehicles I stopped were armed and dangerous and conducted myself accordingly until I was satisfied otherwise.

As all as they didn't pull their gun on me I really didn't (and still don't) consider them having a gun on them or in their vehicle as a "problem".
 
I agree with the premise that prohibitive gun laws are no more than a tool to enable an ignoble government and its minions to operate freely without fear of their victim's ability to fight back effectively.

The government and its obsequious attendants both are terrified of the prospect that uppity citizens would dare to live free and take responsibility for their freedom. They might even dare to think for themselves, rise up, and fight back against oppression. Can't have that, now can we Jim Crow?

Is it possible to believe that laws, including permitting processes, designed to prevent crimes that might happen are less effective in society than laws which surely, certainly, and in a timely manner punish actual criminal behavior?

Do citizens actually need to be issued permits to be certified as safe to exercise their rights in society by their government? Now it's about permits to enjoy the Second Amendment-recognized right. What's next and how much is that going to cost us?

I might be more in favor of a poll tax (or other poll requirement) than a CC permit because certainly irresponsible voters are more dangerous to society than the possibility of irresponsible gun owners. Just kidding.

Mostly. ;)
 
Resist Evil, I'm on the same page except for the poll tax. I'd be for a test, maybe, to see of the voter has a clue about who and what is on the ballot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top