Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?

[moooose102]

i voted maybe.... because,
1) in all actuality, if our second amendment rights were truely in effect, we would not need a ccw PERMIT.
2) in some ways, all the permit does is bribe our "system" to allow me to carry what i should be able to do anyway.
3) on the other hand, it does send a message to the politicians that there are MANY of us, that feel we will do whatever it takes to keep and bear our arms.
4) it also sends the message that we know that our government can not protect all of us all of the time, and since they can not, we will.
5) most importantly, it sends the criminals a message that we will not just be victims anymore. there are many of us, that refuse to sit on the sidelines and do nothing while they rob, rape, and murder us.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Rockwell1 posted:

Unfortunately my State's constitution specifically does not allow concealed carry so the federal constitution is a moot point.

Which is in perfect agreement with my initial post in the thread:

If you are a Constitutionalist, the states have the authority to make their own laws. The 2A has NOT yet been incorporated in the eyes of the court.

 

[mcdonl]

I felt honored to cary over the Memorial Day weekend. What better time.

 

[BBQLS1]

Does it help the cause....... Yes in the sense that the greater the numbers, the more influence in the political arena.

Still not everybody will have the dedication to CC and just like gun ownership, it's just not for everybody.

 

[GForceLizard]

Getting a CCW shows your support for 2a rights. It's a solid choice that gets the number of gun supports in the news and in front of the politicians.

A side issue, even if you don't carry. Are you sure that you will never have the need? It takes time to schedule and take the mandated class and then wait for the background check approval. If there became a reason for you to carry are you sure you could wait 6 weeks? Must issue in 45 days in my county.

 

[rogertc1]

I have had a one for over 35 years and it just gets worse.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Rockwell and Christcorp,

Correct, the Founders of this country did not manufacture these basic rights (natural rights) out of thin air. They already existed, though they had not been explicitly "recognized" or "codified" by any government or civil society before that time. Only in that sense did I say that our Founders "gave" them to us.

Certainly, as some may NOT KNOW, these Natural Rights do NOT originate with the government or any government. At that moment in time, before the start of the USA, the Founders and Framers sat outside of government, as an extra-governmental body, and laid down limits on their proposed government. Many would have preferred to have no government, but that was deemed impractical. Not trusting any government to be limited by words, they chose to also limit government by force-of-arms wielded by the citizenry. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

Also, to shoot down one other straw man, wrong argument: Some may take a strict interpretation of the natural right to self-defence to exclude taking up arms against one's government. After all, the government is there to protect and serve, right? However, as has been pointed out in other threads earlier, about 180 million people were unjustly killed (not in war nor in individual crimes) in the 20th century by governments killing their own populaces. I believe that this is the third largest cause of death, after old age and disease. Note that the 180 million does include deaths by starvation and exposure to weather that would not have happened if governments had not caused it. If these numbers are anywhere close to correct, it is true, then, that the primary thing we need self-defence against IS our government. (Not to say we should overthrow it - it'd be dang hard to replace it with anything even remotely as good.)

NOTE: Some of us are a little OT here, including me, the OP. That is OK because the poll question is being addressed and well-decided. We are now into back-up reasoning about our poll decisions.

 

[Mohawk]

Some points being overlooked in this thread are that there are some states that have in their laws that define CCW as "May issue". These "may issue" states by definition consider CCW a priveledge(sp) granted by the state. Then there are other states who have the wording "shall issue". These states consider the permit to be a right of the people and not a priveledge(sp) granted by the state. Some states have changed their wording to "Shall issue" from "may issue" to recognize the right of the people. The process of applying for a permit in a "shall issue" state is to weed out mentally defectives and criminals from obtaining a permit. It is not to restrict the state mandated rights of the people. Comes under the heading of "reasonable restrictions" already affirmed by the supreme court.
My answer is yes I feel that applying for a permit does further the cause of 2nd. Ammendment rights. Just the fact that so many states have switched over from "may issue" to "shall issue" is proof of the value. Hope this makes sense to some.

 

[mallc]

Respectfully ChristCorp,

MOST weapons that are bought by citizens are bought from dealers. Therefor, paper work has been done on you and the weapon. In other words, they know you have the gun.

That's not the way federal firearm transfers work. Unless you buy more than one firearm at a time, the FFL simply retains the paperwork in his records until he goes out of business. LE has the right to review the records but they have never been to my shop for a look.

I'm not afraid of my local law enforcement of the government.

Scott

 

[KBT1911]

It is a violation of the 2nd Amd. to require us to have to purchase a license to bear arms, especially with all the gov't red tape. It does, however, show the gov't that a hell of alot of citizens care about their rights and those same armed good guys have their eyes on the gov't and may not put up with too much crap before we get out our ballots or bullets and take out the trash. everyone should get a gun or two and then get their CHL if possible.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I voted no. All that getting a CCW permit/license does is keep you out of jail for violating unconstitutional law.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as the right to keep and bear arms is so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[Harve Curry]

The short answer is a unwaivering NO.
Twenty years ago the fight should have been for nationwide Vermont style carry. The NRA took the wrong road and compromised US and their integrity with their fight for CCW PERMITS. As the poll reflects most Americans think they know better then the US CONSTITUTION and that we need more law, fees, and regulations controlling us, when for the first 125 years or so we did fine without it.
CCW is an INFRINGEMENT , it surrenders a RIGHT for a government controlled PERMIT that has fees, use limits, expiration dates all attached.

 

[Straight Shooter]

As the poll reflects most Americans think they know better then the US CONSTITUTION and that we need more law, fees, and regulations controlling us, when for the first 125 years or so we did fine without it.

That's pretty twisted logic. That is not what the poll reflects. The poll reflects what people think would help the current situation based on the current conditions. No one has said they would have asked for a CC license had they been alive 125 years ago.

 

[Harve Curry]

What is twisted is the notion that trading a Right for a government controlled permit which has fees, expiration dates attached is acceptable. To say a Permit is equal to a Right, or for that matter even promotes a Right, in the long run is ridiculous.

 

[Straight Shooter]

No one has said that a permit is equal to a right or that the permit itself promotes a right. What is being said is that there are 2 statistics that politicians pay attention to. The number of background check applications and at the local level the number of permit holders.

I am not arguing in favor of the existence of either. The reality is that these laws are in place. That's just a fact.

The question is how can we better the current situation? Identifying legal gun owners as a prominent voting block is one way and it does influence votes.

 

[Harve Curry]

The original poster's question:

Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?

Again, no it doesn't.
You just made a consious decision to give up a Right in favor of a permit, instead of fighting the legal battle for the Right.

 

[christcorp]

Mallc; my point was that "IF" the government wanted to find out who had the guns, they could find out. Not that they would. But there seems to be a lot of paranoia.

I personally am not afraid either of local/state government. If there's going to be some law that says we have to turn in our guns; and the government is some how going to enforce this; how will they do it. There's 80 MILLION gun owners in the country. Speculating quite a few more in the last few months. Are they going to get the national guard to do the dirty work? Without a state of martial law; and even then it would be difficult, how do you enforce it? What if people said "NO"??? Can you arrest 80 million people? If the government was after 1 person because of illegal activities or some other reason that prevents them from having a gun, that's a different story. But I don't see any practical way for the government to effectively disarm 80 million people. I don't believe the government should try and stop legally authorized people from owning guns. But I also have no problem if they happen to know I have the guns. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they would be coming after an "INDIVIDUAL" person. Not unless you did something wrong. Matter of fact, the MORE people the government knows has weapons and concealed weapons permits, the MORE DIFFICULT it becomes for them to disarm us. Could you imagine the response from the attorney general, ATF, etc... if they were told to collect all the guns from people. I don't care the rank of that person; all the way down to the local police/sheriff/etc...; the very things out of their mouth would be: "Are you freakin Nuts?"

No, it doesn't bother me if they know. I want the number to get up to around 150 million. I want one in two Americans to own a gun. And I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO KNOW that they own guns. I want the government to know for a fact that there is no possible way for them to subdue us if they pss us off. And when the anti-gun crows whines; I want the government officials to tell them: "Look lady, it's not the legal gun owners who are causing the crime. So NO we're not going to ban weapons". Then, I want it to get to the point where the average citizens become NOT VIGILANTES but rather similar to "Citizens on Patrol".

Paranoia is more dangerous the actions themselves. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist. Some people say I can find the good in anything. Well this is one of those times where I believe the MORE the government knows about it's citizens being armed; and the more citizens who join us; the more the government will be kept in check.

Could you imagine if EACH of the 80 million gun owners could get just 1 non gun owner to get interested in guns. Even a simple revolver for self defense. Would take that 1 person shooting once in a while. Maybe was even nice enough (Say a christmas present) to spend $35 a buy that persona year's membership in the NRA. Could you imagine the out pour of support. IMAGINE: Many people are negative towards gays. However; once you know a gay person or someone in your family comes out as gay; attitudes tend to change to "Some Level" of support. Not the greatest example; but if there's a "Family" of people who are pretty much anti-gun. And you get that one co-worker, golf buddy, etc... interested in shooting one day; trap, target, plinking, etc... And get them interested to the point of you getting them to buy a self defense gun or even a 22 caliber pistol to continue plinking. Then you thank them by getting them that NRA membership; that person will now gain a level of support from their family; parents, cousins, friends, etc.... They still might be anti-gun; but they will be much more tolerant now that their son, cousin, nephew, etc... is involved.

Don't be afraid of the government. If you want to be afraid, be afraid of your own complacency. By the way, I've actually signed up 3 people for NRA memberships because I knew it would pss them off. I also got 2 of them the "Limbaugh Letter". LOL!!! After a few months of not talking to me, one actually thanked me for the NRA membership. They liked the magazine. They still aren't a gun owner, but he's interested in going hunting next fall. You just never know.....

 

[Straight Shooter]

The original poster's question:

Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?

The act of getting the permit adds you to a trackable statistic. Those statistics, how many people have permits, how many people are getting background checks can influence politicians. Influencing politicians to vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment promotes the 2nd Amendment.

You just made a consious decision to give up a Right in favor of a permit, instead of fighting the legal battle for the Right.

No, I made a conscious decision to carry concealed, which is exercising my rights. In order to carry concealed I had to get a LTCF. Is this an infringement? Yes, but like it or not it is the current law. To do otherwise would make me a criminal and thus adding to the trackable statistics that could influence against the 2nd Amendment.

The way I fight infringements on my rights is by voting, by standing and being counted and trying to influence politicians. Sorry, I don't have a few mil laying around to fight this myself all the way to the SCOTUS.

And that's the whole point of this thread. By getting a permit you make our voting block trackably larger. You can have an influence without breaking the law and without spending a few million fighting in court.

 

[Straight Shooter]

No, it doesn't bother me if they know. I want the number to get up to around 150 million. I want one in two Americans to own a gun. And I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO KNOW that they own guns.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Bill_Rights]

Good points, All.

Harve Curry,
I sympathize. You say

"What is twisted is the notion that trading a Right for a government controlled permit which has fees, expiration dates attached is acceptable. To say a Permit is equal to a Right, or for that matter even promotes a Right, in the long run is ridiculous." AND "You just made a consious decision to give up a Right in favor of a permit, instead of fighting the legal battle for the Right."

Perhaps I worded the poll question wrongly or loosely.

Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?

There are some rights (I call natural rights) that all people have and that cannot be taken away from them, even if they can't practice those rights. We all, technically, still have those rights even of they are not usable at the moment. Some natural rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which is Founder-speak shorthand for a whole lot more detail. For example, private property and controlling/keeping the fruit of our labor, which are related. Protecting ones bodily security is in there, too. These are basic.

I think our US Constitutional RKBA is not a basic right but encompasses several basic, natural rights. In other words, the 2nd Amendment is Founder-speak shorthand for a whole lot more detail. The 2A is a legal combination that ties together rights to (at least) bodily security, private property ownership (the "keep" in RKBA), freedom of movement (the "bear" in RKBA) along with rights to live in an free, secure, ordered society and countryside (the "free state" and "regulated militia" meaning of the full 2A wording). All these basic rights are buried in a single, combined "formula", that all citizens should keep and bear arms. Two important points: 1) These are not just words; the Founders meant for this situation to actually exist in everyday life, space and time. 2) The Founders used few words and left a lot to be worked out; in other words, they trusted that the basic natural rights are so strong and attractive that free people would defend them, if only given the (more abstract) right to keep and bear arms.

In view of this, to your point about permits versus rights, I can only echo what a couple of others have already said: We're screwed already in some ways by our government, but we do what we can do to preserve and restore our full RKBA. What I mean by "screwed" is that, as a society, we've gotten our task partly wrong, the task I identified when I said "the Founders used few words and left a lot to be worked out".

 

[christcorp]

I'm not sure if the CCW actually directly promotes out 2nd amendment rights. Obviously, you're allowed to own a gun with getting permission to conceal it. But getting a CCW makes it's known that a citizen actually has a gun. Some don't think this is a good thing. I've already said that I think the more verifiable people and guns the government can verify and be aware of, the more sure the government will know that we have the means to resist if necessary.

What we need to promote our 2nd amendment rights, are MORE individuals purchasing guns and being involved. Some say that a CCW is a negative because it informs the government that you have a gun. That might be true, but the government (If they wanted to) could also get the numbers of who has a subscription to guns and ammo, field and stream, american rifleman, is a member of the NRA, etc... all these things are areas that are usually only frequented by gun owners. I.e. why would a non-gun owner have a subscription to guns and ammo or be a member of the NRA? So the point is, the government can find out anything if they really want to. Personally, I don't think they are that concerned. I think individually, most of them are somewhat sympathetic to gun owners and their rights. There are a few government fascists who want to ban all guns, but they are definitely a minority.

We need to get people interested in hunting, target shooting, plinking, defending themselves, etc... The only 2 areas that are direct stats on gun owners are Concealed weapons permits and membership in the NRA. At last count, there were approximately 4 million members in the NRA. That is only about 5% of gun owners. We need more registration there. That gives us the voice we need. We also need the NRA to produce and promote POSITIVE COMMERCIALS on mainstream media and not just the Outdoors Channel and similar hunting channels. We need to see positive commercials for the average person to see. Not a scare tactic commercial. But commercials that show young kids learning proper gun safety to prevent accidents. NRA members helping a local Battered Woman's Shelter helping them protect themselves against abuse. NRA members helping others learn more self defense tactics other than just guns. (You do need to learn other methods). Teach members and society that just like "Guns don't kill people.... people kill people". Also teach: "Guns don't save people.... people save people". Guns are just a tool. Promote positive gun advertisements and commercials. That will promote our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[joe817]

I've pondered this question since it was first posed to us.

But never could I have put it more eloquently than the words of christcorp, StraightShooter, and Bill Rights.

You all have done a marvelous job of addressing the issues, and I thank you.

If all the gun owners had the mature, calculated, and thought out method of dealing with the issues that we face, that you 3 do, then I say we can defeat any legislation that would restrict our Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

Major cudos to you 3!

 

[crebralfix]

No, because it's asking for permission to engage in an inalienable right. The permit changes the paradigm of the population from "rights" to "privilege".

 

[Harve Curry]

The goal should have been to copy Vermont . What part of infringed does 88% of the population not understand?
The Second Amendment has been twisted and sheeple tag along. The old word is usurped. We are not supposed to do that, we are supposed to protect it from being usurped.
But the deed is done , precidents are set, and a Right recognized by our countries U.S.Constitution set us apart from the rest of the world, is becoming a moot point.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Harve,
Please give us a refresher on the situation in Vermont. This is the second or third time you've mentioned it.