Permit required vs. No permit required (long)

[oakchas]

I have donned my nomex underwear, my BPvest, and all the turnout gear I can find... Let the flames begin!

Seriously, I'd like to have a sane discussion on the advantages and pitfalls of both systems.. unless it's been done here before (and I couldn't find it).

The recent post about the CCW permit holder ignoring the law and being charged with murder is what triggered this line of thought.

_________________________________________
Let me start with these statements, so that there are no doubts about my status:

I have an Iowa nonprofessional permit to carry weapons. I went thru ~8 hours of class, qualified on the range, went thru an NCIS check, and a "background check" by my county sheriff to get it. I have in the past, also had a professional permit and a nonprofessional permit in the same state. After the first of the year 2011, the sheriff's background check and qualification will no longer be necessary in any county in the state (hoooray)!

I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Constitution.

I do not belong to the NRA, or any other national gun rights organization (GOA, etc.). I use this fact when I write letters to my representatives, so that I can honestly say to them that I do not belong to any gun groups.

I believe we (gun owners and 2A supporters) have been very fortunate in the recent SCOTUS decisions as regards guns (Heller and McDonald). The decisions could have just as easily gone against us.
________________________________________

We have 3 states that will allow carrying weapons (concealed or not) with no permit other than the ability to purchase a gun.

We have most of the states that have a "permitting system" some of which require a background check other than NICS.

We ignore those idiot states that will not issue permits to anyone, they (the entire states) are merely suburbs of Chicago.

My questions are:

Should anyone, who can acquire a handgun after filling out the form and passing the NICS check, be able to strap it on, concealed or otherwise?

Should some sort of class/qualification be required?

Do you think that "relaxing" the requirements for obtaining a permit will end up putting a negative image on CCW holders in general, because the press will use instances like the CCW holder murdering a fleeing thief, and there will be more instances like that?

Basically it boils down to this: Is the CCW community going to be harmed over the long term by allowing "the riff-raff" to join?

As to what I think:

I think anyone who has no record of assault crime or felony, and has not been adjudicated mentally impaired, should be allowed to carry.

I worry about it, though. I think it will put us in a bad light, and turn the tide of public opinion against those who carry legally.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[EB31]

Great topic for discussion.

First, which are the 3 states that allow carry with no permit?

As to my opinion on the matter, there will be those that make carrying look bad in the public eye regardless of permit/no permit. Sadly, there are permit holders that don't need to be carrying a firearm. I do agree that anyone who has no felony record, no domestic violence, no mental health issues and can pass the background check should be able to carry a handgun.

Shame that there is no way to incorporate a IQ test.

[oakchas]

Vermont Alaska Arizona.

[JohnLeVick]

Here's my take, after having taught CHL classes in Texas since 1995: Before I became a licensed instructor, I assumed that anyone who took sufficient responsibility for his or her own safety to carry a handgun would also take it upon himself to train adequately. I was wrong. I was an avid IPSC and 3-Gun competitor back then, and I took it seriously. One of the last things I tell ALL my CHL students at the end of class is, "Practice, practice, practice. Just because you passed this easy qualification course does not mean that you are ready to protect your hide." I give them handouts with suggested practice regimens and recommend that they shoot at least one IDPA or IPSC match, just to see how they perform under real time pressure, while recognizing that those are just games. I lost count years ago of the number of renewal students who came to renewal class and said that they had not fired a shot in four+ years, since qualifying originally. Their shooting and administrative gun handling skills usually show it. I think that, to some degree, the "training" and qualification classes we teach discourage subsequent training, rather than encouraging it. After all, the Great State of Texas says I'm good enough, so I must be good enough, right? I think Vermont has had it right all along.

[fireman836]

The states that allow carry of a concealed handgun without a permit are constitutional carry states. Any state that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms freely for the purpose of self defense. That being said I agree that there needs to be some system to prevent firearms in the wrong hands (ie. criminals, mentally unstable, etc.), as long as there are checks and balances.

If the antis would blame the wrongdoers instead of the tool there would be no problem. Cars aren't blamed when a drunk driver kills someone, or a driver goes on a rampage. Ball bats, hammers, and even fists can kill, why blame the gun when someone uses it improperly?

[JD]

I've always been on the fence on this matter.

In PA you might as well not have a permit as there are zero requirements to get one other than having a clean record. In VA you had to have some sort of training, a hunters safety class would meet that requirement. In Iowa (currently) I had to go through what equated a bullseye match and sit through a course that may or may not be teaching correct info (mine was flawed in several areas). Many classes had the same silly requirements.

In MI I had take a course that was light on law, and even lighter on shooting.

Does everyone need to pass a class in order to carry? I don't think so as I've met plenty of people in all the states I've lived in that do not benefit from such a class and it was largely a waste of time and money. Are there some people that could use a class? Sure, and a lot of times those people are responsible enough to go out and take one anyway.

Is it right to force persons to pay for a class? I don't think so. Maybe if a class is to be required by law it should be put on by the local issuing authority and be on the laws/gun safety only, maybe a light shooting portion but really, what's a "fair" shooting course for all walks of life that isn't a cake walk?

Now that being said, as an instructor in IA, we're going to be charging our students as we have to cover our materials etc and we are going to have a shooting requirement but it's not going to be like what I had to do.

I had to shoot a 65 or better on an NRA B3 target at 50', I brought a .22 conversion to shoot on a 1911 frame and passed easily, but for the poor folks that only own a J-frame, they waste 4 hours and who knows how much ammo trying to hit that thing until the instructor gives them a .22 Target pistol. It's absolutely ridiculous. I will be glad when Iowas new laws take effect.


Additional more advanced training should be sought after, but not really a requirement.

You look at places with light requirements and they have about the same amount of issues with permitted persons doing dumb stuff, as anywhere else. Most accidents I hear about are instructors doing something stupid or student accidents at the classes.

[oakchas]

John, that is interesting... something I never thought of...

So, those who have qualified, and gone thru a course, let whatever skills they have fall off and don't train in using their weapon.

I assume, in your class, you teach the laws and responsibilities regarding using the weapon. I also assume there is some testing on that. I would think that knowledge is retained, to some degree, more than the physical use of the weapon.

In Vermont, Arizona, Alaska... education and training are not required at all. (and honestly, near as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be more errors in the use of the weapon by legal carriers in those states than any other).

Many here have admonished (mostly schooled, range qualified) permit holders... "Having a CHL does not make you a superhero... you don't go out looking for trouble...etc. etc..." I'm not saying there will be "blood in the streets" with more of the public carrying...

I'm just wondering if the "responsibility aspects" of weapons carry will be "diluted" to the eventual detriment of our right.

[oakchas]

JD
You had to use a .22 to qualify at 50 inches?!? And you're an instructor!?! (just poking the bear... I know what you meant)

Alot of the Iowa sheriffs do different things for the qual shooting. I had the same target... 60% at 50' (but the instructor moved us up to 25'). 30 years ago, when I had the professional permit... it was an NRA 50 yard target at 50 feet... that was a piece of cake.

[oakchas]

fireman,

I know they blame the guns but really, they blame the people more... why do you feel you need to carry a gun?.. etc.

And I understand the Constitutionality of weapons carry... But IF you use that argument... why exclude the mentally deranged, felony offenders who have done their time, and domestic abusers... there is nothing in the Constitution that excludes them... and many "criminals" were welcomed into the milita or the military especially in war.

I agree with your checks and balances idea... will fewer checks and balances hurt the carrying community?

[HotGuns]

I used to be on the fence but am no longer.

Over the years, I have helped thousands of people get their Arkansas CHCL. At one time, I thought there needed to be something,anything for a standard that people must meet.

No more.

The Second Amendment has this little clause in it which says...shall not be infringed. Infringed. Shall not.
Because of the recent fad of political correctness and the reshaping of the English language by certain people to mean whatever they want it to mean, it is clear to me that we are no longer following the word or the intent of the Second Amendment.

What exactly are you doing when you apply for a permit to defend yourself?

First, you pay a fee to attend a class.
Then you sit through a class in which someone, somewhere made up a curriculum of what they thought was needed.
You fill out an application, name address, reason for carry(some states) essentially registering yourself to the state.
You must prove that you are an honorable citizen by applying for an FBI background check, to PROVE to the state that you are not guilt of something.
In many states, the CLEO has the option of denying it. While most don't, some do for various reasons, personal or political.

We have become so watered down in what is right and what is wrong that we have allowed our elected officials to dictate to us what should and ought to be every mans right to defend himself against aggression.

For the record, I will admit that some people have no business toting a weapon.That is OUR judgment on them. I propose that they be innocent until found guilty. If they screw up with the gun, THEN take away the their right to protection, not before.

As is stands now, the ability to protect yourself is dependent on your ability to pay, your ability to fill out an application, your ability to prove that you are a citizen of the U.S. and your ability to prove that you are innocent of a crime by passing and FBI background check,while having a set of your fingerprints on file, just in case you screw up.

Some people desire the ability to protect themselves but cannot afford it. What is right about that?
This has always been a thorn in my side. I have and will continue to offer the course free of charge to those that cannot afford it. Just because you happen to have a menial job that pays minimum wage that sees you living from paycheck to paycheck, does not mean that your life should be of any less value.

There are those that insist that people must be trained. I agree. Lets teach them about the law. Lets give them a pamphlet that they must sign and send it to get their permit, one that details the law, and when you can and cannot shoot, laws that are specific to their state. No fee, just a signed document stating that they know and understand. Hold them responsible for their actions...a novel word that few seem to understand these days.

Carrying a gun with no permits seems to be working in three different states so far. Lets observe it all 50.

[BikerRN]

Interesting thread, and one issue I've gone back and forth on myself.

I've supported Constitutional Carry, and then supported requiring training, and vice versa. I guess it depends on when the last time I dealt with a stupid idiot was. If recent, I want to require training, and plenty of it. Sadly there will always be inferior idiots lacking the required brain cells to function in what I determine is a proper manner. Since I am not the Ruler of the World, I will just have to learn to live with that.

Let the idiots, and everyone else, carry without any permit or training. Those that take their responsibility seriously will seek training. Those that don't, well we can read about them in the newspapers. Maybe allowing nationwide Constitutional Carry will weed out the chaff, I don't know. It's certain that permit carry doesn't do anything to weed out the chaff, as Instructors are more interested in "teaching the test" and making a buck for the majority of them.

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is, I want to be left alone and know that I know what to do, and how to do it to a certain degree with my gun. Don't make me pay for the mistakes of others, that probably shouldn't even be breathing, IMO.

Biker

[oakchas]

Hot Guns!

Wow! That's what I'm talking about! Really great... That's the best argument and methodology for issuing permits I've yet seen!

As is stands now, the ability to protect yourself is dependent on your ability to pay, your ability to fill out an application, your ability to prove that you are a citizen of the U.S. and your ability to prove that you are innocent of a crime by passing and FBI background check,while having a set of your fingerprints on file, just in case you screw up.

Some people desire the ability to protect themselves but cannot afford it. What is right about that?
This has always been a thorn in my side. I have and will continue to offer the course free of charge to those that cannot afford it. Just because you happen to have a menial job that pays minimum wage that sees you living from paycheck to paycheck, does not mean that your life should be of any less value.

There are those that insist that people must be trained. I agree. Lets teach them about the law. Lets give them a pamphlet that they must sign and send it to get their permit, one that details the law, and when you can and cannot shoot, laws that are specific to their state. No fee, just a signed document stating that they know and understand. Hold them responsible for their actions...a novel word that few seem to understand these days.

Thank you! I have really learned something here.... and can add that to my arsenal to effectively argue for the right! (sig line)

P.S... infriged in the second, abridged in the 1st... I'd love to understand the nuanced difference between those two words in the times of the founders and know why they chose them... Can you imagine if the same word had been used in both amendments? Wow, what a difference that would make to the whole argument!

I'd love to see the press have to "qualify", pass background checks, sit through classes on when and how they could use their pens or their mouths... get fingerprinted, and have a mandatory 3 -10 day waiting period before they could write a story!

[MaineGlock]

This is a wonderful discussion, here is my 2 cents.

1. I believe that a criminal back ground check should be done. Remember it can only take one person to spoil the bunch. A felon could obtain a hand gun, and go crazy with it. That makes the rest of us who follow the laws look bad.

2. Without a permit system gang members in larger cities would drive around the streets with loaded weapons in their car. If there is no restrictions these idiots couldn't be stopped during a traffic stop. These idiots pose a threat to those, as mentioned above who have clean records and good intentions.

3. Education is the best tool we all have! Just because you can own a gun doesn't mean that you can work, and effectively operate it. In order to hunt you need a hunters safety course certificate. Same should apply with carry permits. With ever changing laws and reciprocity, we all need to be on our toes. Not having knowledge of the law is not an excuse if it is broken (even unintentionally).

4. I firmly believe that a federal law recognizing 1 permit from a state is all that should be needed to carry anywhere in the USA. As we have seen cut backs in everything, law enforcement has suffered! My favorite quote when this subject comes up is "When seconds matter, law enforcement is minutes away". DON'T GET ME WRONG!! For the most part law enforcement does a good job, but they cant be everywhere at once.

Keep safe all and good luck!

[MinistrMalic]

fireman,

I know they blame the guns but really, they blame the people more... why do you feel you need to carry a gun?.. etc.

And I understand the Constitutionality of weapons carry... But IF you use that argument... why exclude the mentally deranged, felony offenders who have done their time, and domestic abusers... there is nothing in the Constitution that excludes them... and many "criminals" were welcomed into the milita or the military especially in war.

I agree with your checks and balances idea... will fewer checks and balances hurt the carrying community?

Well this is not entirely true. This would fall under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Being convicted of a felony is considered "due process" for removal of the right. Same goes for those determined by a court to be mentally incompetent. So the due process clause covers those situations.

Now to the question. Here in AZ we have had Constitutional Carry for, oh, about a month and a half. Yawn. Heck, the stories I have read are that crime has gone down significantly here over the last year and a half. We shall see if the trend continues. What happened is that the Constitutional Carry would have been a huge deal but SB1070 took the spotlight and no one said boo about Constitutional Carry from there. 99% of people don't carry, and most of those who do have a CCW here. I know a good number of people who are glad that they CAN carry, but for whatever reason don't.

I have yet to run into the gang banger who is excited about his "new" constitutional right. (it's not new; it's as old as the Bill of Rights in reality) Then again, I see very few people carrying who appear to be incompetent or reckless. Guns are acceptable here; we let the good guys carry them. Heck, I could sling my AR and walk into Wal-Mart without any hullabaloo really. Again, no big deal.

[wilbmeister]

I live where some have an extremely tough time getting a permit. It needs to change in NY.

I do believe there should be some kind of instruction and range training for anyone who owns a gun. Until a few years ago I had never fired a pistol of any kind. For me to go out and buy a gun with no instruction would have been wrong. The same goes for my wife who has gone through the process to get her permit also.

We make people take a drivers test before getting a license. You need to learn how to drive before you take to the test. To get a car and get in it because you have a license without learning how to drive would be disastrous. Carrying a gun is a right but it comes with responsibility.