Why I Object to Concealed Carry Licensing

[Jaxondog]

I think everyone should have what they want, say what they want, go where they want, and do what they want whenever they want. I'm sick of people telling other's that you can't have that, you shouldn't say that, hey you can't go there, and stop doing that. OK, let me have it with all the "what ifs".

 

[powder]

LOL! Wow, you've gone off the far end of the pool.


While you are out there, let me run another scenario by you: You are driving an unregistered vehicle w/o the proper auto insurance per your state's guidelines, and I have you on a traffic stop as the LEO on duty. I pulled you over for speeding, and found the other two possible citations. What's your reasoning?

What CCW permits really do is separate people into "haves" and "have nots." If you can pony up the money for the permit and invest the time and money to meet onerous training requirements (in many states), then you get to join the elite club that can carry for self-defense. You get the little ID card with your name on it and you can feel all special.

Sure, you can extend that into all the other credentials we can possibly receive in our society: diplomas, driver's licenses, a membership at the Y, membership for a certain church, as being divided into the "haves" and "have nots". What's your point? There is no reasonable path of reasoning with your logic, that links to a sensible argument.

"Probably"s and "I feel" are not the foundation of the laws in your state-if you want to change them to make CCP free for everyone, do it! Change it, it's America, these policies/laws are NOT set in stone-how many more times are you going to continue to ignore your *felt* responsibility to do something about it, but only continue to complain?

 

[Sam1911]

Powder, being armed is NOT a privilege, it is a right. Yes you can lose that right if you violate the social arrangements that define you (in this particular time and place) as "law abiding." Driving on the public roads is NOT a right, that's a privilege and you can lose privileges more easily (without the dire extremes of due process) than you can be deprived of a RIGHT.

An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not.

That's complete hogwash, fortunately as recognized by our founding fathers.

If the only things that are RIGHTS are things that simply CANNOT physically be removed from you, then there's no need to call them rights. What do you think are "rights" then, the right to THINK? The right to breathe if not being strangled? The right to void your bowels? The right for your hair to grow? (Hey that one works for a while even after your DEAD! Now there's a god-given right for you!)

That's all silly. There's no need to enumerate RIGHTS that literally can't be taken away. The founding fathers wrote down things they recognized as RIGHTS because they knew that governments and rulers could and did take these things away from the citizens/subjects when it suited them and they wanted to ensure that that would not happen to the lawful citizens of their new country.

 

[Sam1911]

I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws.

What? This doesn't even make sense. In fact, it is hardly comprehensible.

Concealed carry does what? How can which method you choose to carry a gun separate the lawful citizen from the felon? They both could carry a gun openly or concealed. If anything, felons would be MORE likely to carry concealed so as not to draw attention to themselves. Poor, poor argument.

Finding a convicted felon with a concealed firearm is a beautiful thing. That's what you want cops to do right? Prosecute the lawbreakers per firearms? Right?

Not personally, no. I want the police stopping violent crime, not malum prohibitum rules. Laws that pretend to disarm and pacify the ex-con are a fairy tale lie we tell ourselves. But let's not go off down that road here. It's been debated heavily many times before at THR and there's no need to derail this thread with that argument.

Encouraging legal activity on The High Road, correct?

Yes, we encourage lawful conduct. That doesn't mean we agree with the law or support it or enforce it.

 

[Sam1911]

Don't like the policies/statutes/fees in your state? Run for office, win, and change the game therein. It's still America-we can do that here. However, it's easier to complain about it, rather than do something about it.

Stop with this. It is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

OF COURSE we're working to change the law. That goes without saying. The debate here is WHAT the law should be: should laws require licensing and/or fees?

Telling people to change the law if they don't like it is inane. It doesn't inform the question of what they should change the law TO.

 

[BSA1]

An inalienable right to defend oneself, from an attacker for instance, is a God given right. Doing it with a firearm is not.

Wow! You didn’t attend the same school as Obama by chance? You have very little grasp of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights nor do you understand why common citizens owning firearms is essential for maintaining a free society.

If firearms are not an inalienable right to defend oneself why did the King of England’s soldiers move against it’s subjects at Concord and Lexington in 1775 to seize the firearms and powder stored in those towns?

Our Founding Fathers were clear on their position of citizens having the right to own firearms;

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."- Thomas Paine
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

In The Federalist Papers that were published in 1787 - 1788 promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution that were published in 1787 – 1788 Alexander Hamilton made a repeated warning against tyranny, and the ability of the militia to protect against it:

“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”


I like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws.

So you are trying to make the case that in “may issue” states when the Government refuses to issue a permit they are saying that person is unwilling to live within the law thus cannot be trusted with a firearm?

And since you have never replied to my previous comment "The core difference between you and me is I am opposed to the Government giving permission for when and where I can carry a firearm outside the home for the most basic need of self-protection whereas you support the concept that carrying a firearm is not a right and the Government should determine if a person has a need for self-defense (i.e. the Government is deciding if your contribute enough good to society to preserve your life) and then regulate that need" the reader is left within the inescapable conclusion that you believe the Government should decide which citizens contribute enough good to society to be allowed to live. This is a fundamental Socialist Principle and a key one in Obamacare as Government will decide what treatment will be paid for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[goon]

LOL! Wow, you've gone off the far end of the pool.


While you are out there, let me run another scenario by you: You are driving an unregistered vehicle w/o the proper auto insurance per your state's guidelines, and I have you on a traffic stop as the LEO on duty. I pulled you over for speeding, and found the other two possible citations. What's your reasoning?

There is no reasoning.
Write up your citation and fine me.
There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving.

But... requiring a license doesn't stop unlicensed drivers. There are still lots of them in this country. And requiring a license doesn't stop people from using their cars as weapons. The guy who ran over eleven people on the Venice Boardwalk had a driver's license. He'd been vetted by the state and deemed to be safe to operate his vehicle by them... then he killed someone with his car.

Permits don't make you safer. They only make you feel safer... at least until you realize that the truly bad people on this earth couldn't care less about complying with the law.

Sure, you can extend that into all the other credentials we can possibly receive in our society: diplomas, driver's licenses, a membership at the Y, membership for a certain church, as being divided into the "haves" and "have nots". What's your point? There is no reasonable path of reasoning with your logic, that links to a sensible argument.

There is no constitutional right enumerated for a high school diploma or a membership at the Y. The Founders understood the ability to bear arms in defense of yourself and your nation as essential components of a free society. That right had existed and been enumerated prior to the creation of the U.S. Constitution and they felt it necessary to enshrine it right there next to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and due process of law to name a few.

And I really don't get how you can relate something as serious as your ability to defend yourself to a membership at the Y.
A woman in a parking lot with two rapists ripping her clothes off... her ability to protect herself from serious harm is no more important than a gym membership? If that's really what you think, then I can see why you're such a fan of permits.

"Probably"s and "I feel" are not the foundation of the laws in your state-if you want to change them to make CCP free for everyone, do it! Change it, it's America, these policies/laws are NOT set in stone-how many more times are you going to continue to ignore your *felt* responsibility to do something about it, but only continue to complain?

Right here, right now, we are having this conversation with you. Participating in this discussion in no way impairs our ability to participate in activities to alter or repeal bad laws. You throw that out like someone is incapable of doing both. In fact, this very conversation helps us sharpen our points for use in letters to our representatives and points to argue in future discussions.

Also, your arguments come down to "I think" and " I feel" more than Sam1911's, BSA1's, or my own. At least we can and do cite the U.S. Constitution as the basis for our reasoning and our dislike (not noncompliance with, but dislike) of CCW permit requirements. You're the one citing gym memberships and high school diplomas and how you "like concealed carry as it better separates those who are willing to live legally within the laws" as what your opinion stands on.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's entirely your fault though.
Lots of Americans have lost touch with what the concept of rights really are and believe that they are granted by the state and that the state has legitimate authority to revoke them. In fact, rights existed before governments and the reason governments exist (or should exist) is to better protect those rights, not to decide who gets to enjoy them and who doesn't.

 

[powder]

There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving.

...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?

 

[goon]

...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?

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.

But there is the more current version...

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 unless said people be living in New York, Washington D.C., California, Maryland, or Connecticut. Additionally, a fee may be required to exercise said right.

 

[Sam1911]

...and CCP is in the Bill of Rights where?

By Jove, I think he's GOT IT!
A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

It is an infringement added by meddling legislators who lost their way, or never understood what they were supposed to be upholding to begin with.

 

[goon]

A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

It is an infringement added by meddling legislators who lost their way, or never understood what they were supposed to be upholding to begin with.

Exactly.
I might add that the other part of the problem is that people have lost touch with what rights really are and where the authority to govern really flows from.
I'm ashamed to say that I didn't really get it myself until I got schooled by a history professor a few years ago.

 

[DT Guy]

Too many people today, when contemplating a new idea, wonder, "Is that allowed?"

Our forefathers would more likely have thought, "Who can stop me?" It's sad.



Larry

 

[powder]

By Jove, I think he's GOT IT!
A "CCP" is NOT required anywhere in the 2nd Amendment!

Where in the BOR is a CCP a stated "right"?

Hate to tell you guys: these are NOT my opinions-privileges can/will be taken as result of your illegal activities. These privileges which can be denied include things like driving, voting, and owning firearms, much less CC.

Those are indisputable fact. Sure, you CAN do MANY things denied to convicted felons, after being caught. I do not agree with them, but face the consequences if caught.
That's not a "right", it IS a privilege.

On the matter of changing your local/state laws about CCP matters: you can legally do that, with the footwork that goes along with it. Being that this is the "Legal" section of the site, this content needs to be included in the discussion-it is part of our democracy and republic today. Exercise it, or lose it.

 

[goon]

Where in the BOR is a CCP a stated "right"?

I'm sure you're a decent human being in person, but I think we're all kind of exasperated at this point.
To the rest of us, it's written plainly in the King's English for anyone with the reading comprehension of a six-year-old right there in the content of the Second Amendment. To "bear" arms means carrying them.

From People of the State of Illinois vs. Alberto Aguilar:

Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it
states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding
understood to be an individual right protecting against both public
and private violence.”

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, the ruling still does allow latitude for regulation in practically the very next sentence.
Does regulation mean you can price the cost of being able to carry out of the reach of much of the population?
I'd say no, but we'll probably need a couple more court cases to decide that one too, or even just to solidify the findings in this case. Really, it's a miracle that they found the way they did... basically with a criminal (a real one, not just a poor sap who ran afoul of the law) as a defendant.
But they did, in Illinois of all places, and that's that.

Powder, I apologize for any heated words that made their way into this conversation from me. Truth is that we're all just a bunch of people who have strong opinions, but I don't think your opinions make you a bad person.
Thank you for the lively debate.

 

[silvermane_1]

hey im with goon and BSA1 on this subject, i am the "poor", "physically disabled", "living on a fixed income" individual that is lucky enough to live in WA state where my CPL is affordable and doesn't require me have "training/classes" to get and to renew my CPL, and i agree with the fact that i shouldn't need my CPL to CC, since i consider it to be a "infringement" to my RKBA aka the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mike1234567]

A CCL will cost me $230+ counting training, ammo and fuel cost (I live many miles from the nearest training). I recently had to decide between buying a rifle and a CCL. This time I chose the rifle because the only other rifles I had were a .30-06 and a .22WMR so, IMO, I needed a .223REM more than a CCL. I have exactly $30 in my account right now and I need to buy some food with that.

I can't work anymore and haven't had a paycheck in nearly two years... no money from the state or Uncle Sam either. No help from anyone... and I don't ask for any.

Many of us have choices and sacrifices we must make. Few of us can have everything we want.

IMO, that $230 total cost does infringe on my right to carry protection especially since I can no longer physically defend myself.

There are a lot of people in similar situations as I... and many are far worse off. Many of them have no voice here to speak up so we cannot hear them... they either cannot afford computers and internet connectivity or the latter isn't available to them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'll cut this off now. It looks like the ground has been pretty well covered.