This is a discussion on Would you support multi-level CCW permits within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by 4my son While watching a video on crime in Detroit and the arguments of both pro and anti an interesting comment was ...
Since I don't believe we should be required to have a permit to carry concealed in the first place, I certainly wouldn't support a multi-level permit. That's saying the 2nd Amendment applies more freely to some than to others. It applies equally to all.
Simple answer .... NOPE ! ! ! I would not be in support of multi-level permits.
I'm not totally convinced there should be any permits, per se, I think the 2nd Amendment covered it.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Oh, wait, that would defy common sense...
As if permits and carry laws aren't complicated enough...
Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone in a neighborhood long gone. Oh, to be young again...
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
The problem, as I see it, is one of practicality. We can claim that the constitution is the only permit needed, or argue for no permits, complain about the existing laws, all we want, but the fact remains that the "system" has declared that certain places are off limits to Joe Citizen with his carry permit and these types of arguments will never change it. In fact this thread reminds me of one from a few months back discussing why you should be prohibited from carry in places like NYC. In that thread, I accused a member of being a closet anti because they supported this prohibition, if I recall correctly on the basis that it was (or certain areas were) too crowded and hence posed extra dangers. Now, I do not accept this logic as justification for gun prohibitions, largely because I don't agree with the Nanny State concept that says I need to be restricted because the average idiot can't be trusted.
However, the argument and this thread have caused me to look at things from a different perspective and that is to question whether or not there are practical reason for declaring these places 'off limits' and whether there is a practical means to address the problem. The current system and it's prohibitions are all based on the Nanny State concept of protecting proverbial category X from the lowest common denominator (LCD) in terms of armed citizen and perhaps "they" are right in that LCD-Joe is not capable or responsible enough to be armed in these situations. If this is the case, then I would argue that one potential answer is to not be that lowest common denominator, but instead to demonstrate and prove that you are capable and responsible enough to permitted in these areas.
I think you might be surprised at "LCD Joe" who knows more about guns and gun safety than the most educated biased anti who is sitting on capitol hill making unfounded claims and ridiculous anti-gun laws. Liberals don't want you to have guns at all (for the most part, yes there are exceptions). Every inch of freedom that is given - they will take a mile.
If you can provide me with some statistics that show how "LCD Joe" is a danger to society by having a carry permit, I would like to see it. I believe what you will find, though, is a lot of statistics that show concealed (and open) carriers to be some of the safest, most law abiding citizens in the country. I can't help but wonder how many of those included would be classified as "LCD Joe" in your book.
...or to speak in public (you never know when they might erupt into violent hate speech)
...or to cook cupcakes for the class (oh, that's already happening)
...or teach their kids at home (that's happening too)
I have been telling many untis that CCW holders are the most responsible and most sensible people I have ever met... That are also the ones that obey the law more strictly than the average Joe or "LCD Joe" as it is depicted here... As a CCW holder you avoid been in any type of trouble, hardly ever drinks, spends more time at the range than anybody else, talks about scenarios with other CCW holders to learn more then goes out and practice what has been learned...
I don't know but to me I seems like we, as CCW holders, are always learning, training, analyzing situations, and keeping out of trouble... We are nothing close to being average
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
-James Earl Jones
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
I am not going to try to quote all the responses about statistic regarding crime rates, degree of being law abiding, etc. I will, however, reiterate my earlier point that all the statistics and what not, with rare and slow exception, are failing to bring about the desired change. This leads to the question of whether or not these methods adequately address the problem, in terms of being a viable solution.
One of the problems with statistics like this is the same on as in the old joke: "what do you call the guy who graduates last in his med school class? Answer: doctor". It would appear that the existing statistics aren't enough or aren't the answer.
This thread has challenged us to come up with ideas and alternatives. A multi-tiered license being one consideration. Any other, realistic, ideas?
P.S. - I would fully support needing a license to reproduce and have said so for many years.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
I'm not a fan of statistics, either. Did you know that 60% of statistical information is falsified or misrepresented 100% of the time?
Although, I'm not sure how many people can take you seriously after the reproduction license comment, but... You really don't think that adding more complex laws to a system of laws that are already overreaching is going to do anything but take away liberty and rights?
If the laws are already wrong, why should citizens accept more restrictions on a system that is already universally flawed and proven to be completely ineffective for it's intended purpose? ...Unless the intended purpose is already intentionally unjust and potentially/possibly unconstitutional - IE to remove or over complicate the ability of citizens to bear arms.
The question becomes, what is sensitive about these places, why is a prohibition justifiable for them, and hence what criteria would be sufficient to establish an exemption?
Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk
I wouldn't support a multi-level permit. I think it could easily be used against us. Who would the psychological evaluation examiners work for? The government? This could be easily abused by anti-2A Agrenda-bias. We have actitist judges on the brenches. LEO Chiefs that won't sign off on paperwork for ATF permits, etc. I agreed with the Others. Less Tape and reduce the option to restrict a permit. IMHO