Larry's "Super Permit?"

[Fred Fuller]

See http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/11/16/thoughts-on-paris/

IMHO the whole thing is worth reading. But what I'd like to hear is some discussion of the idea of a "super carry permit" - if not at the federal level, perhaps at the state level.

Comments? Questions?

For those who don't know, Larry Correia used to be on the staff here, though he hasn't visited in a while... http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=6

 

[Barry the Bear]

I'd like to see something like this happen as well.
It's time people need to know what the 2nd amendment is all about. It is not just about firearms it's about all weaponry a typical soldier would carry, that means knives,swords,spears,clubs,tomahawks and others.

 

[hso]

I was puzzled by it at first because we know there's not a chance in Hades of any sort of "Super Permit" being issued by the Fed. So what was the point? I think his thrust was at the nitwits that say "you'll only make it worse".

What I took away was how in the world can you make a terrorist attack worse by doing anything short of opening a secure door to a "candy gram" ruse or lock people out of a secure space after the attack starts? So you run, that's better than waiting to get shot or blown up. What if you only distract them shooting at them...good. It interrupts their plan a bit, slows them down, gives more people time to run for safety. If you wound one, better. Less effective BG with a gun. If you knock one out of the fight, best. Kill one before they can kill anyone else, bonus! Any nitwit saying, "You'll only make it worse", is ... a nitwit.

DO something. Don't just lock up and be a static target, but to be able to make good on the idea you have to practice. You have to train. You have to try to make realistic decisions about what you're capable of and then you have to practice that to make the response quickly instead of being caught waiting for your brain to catch up.

 

[danez71]

I'm for the 2A being a federal issue but not really wanting a Federal permit. Id rather see 50 state reciprocity.

Even better would be complete Constitutional carry or even something like AZ has would great.



I totally disagree with those that say its a 'States Rights' issue.

The Feds don't allow the States to restrict the 1A because of 'States Rights' and nor should they allow the States to restrict the 2A.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The Feds don't allow the States to restrict the 1A because of 'States Rights' and nor should they allow the States to restrict the 2A....

Actually, they do. See --

• Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:

  ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...

  
  
• Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:

  ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

These are just two examples of sustaining the power of a State (as portected by the Tenth Amendment) to regulate a right protected by the First Amendment.

 

[X-Rap]

Kudos to Fred for posting the link to the full article.
Super permit is a good idea in the context of his article but I'm still a believer in Constitutional carry.
I find it interesting that his sentiments are very much in line with many of us who have had posts deleted or closed as well as receiving punitive assessments of points against our membership here.
To bad he has moved on from his moderating duties here, his objectivity and understanding of our current situation is refreshing, I hope the link is not deleted.

 

[Jeff White]

I am 100% against the idea of a Super Permit holder. It's an idiotic thing to propose. What guarantee is there that a Super Permit holder would be on the scene in any terrorist attack? There is none!

THERE IS NO PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENT TO CONCEALED CARRY AND WE ARE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT WE DON'T WISH TO TRAVEL IF WE START SUGGESTING THERE IS!!

The minute we accept the premise that a person holding a concealed carry permit, even a "super" permit is responsible for public safety and has some kind of duty to act we are inviting tons of regulation, scrutiny and review over and above what we already see for LE.

Along with that there are many CCW holders who already think that they received some kind of peace officer's commission when they got there permit. All you have to do is read through some of the discussions here and on other forums to see how prevalent that idea is in our community.

There are plenty of people who can shoot to the FBI standards, it's not that freaking hard. The better idea would be to just eliminate gun free zones. It's stupid idea that one has a permit to carry a firearm to protect him or herself, but that permit is only valid in certain places. If an average citizen can walk the street armed, why can't he go in a stadium or school armed without breaking the law, or a courthouse? Why do we only trust a permit holder to carry in some places. If there is a danger that possession of a firearm might cause a normal,every day permit holder to go berserk in a school or sporting event or his/her place of worship, then perhaps we shouldn't let that person carry anywhere! Since we all know there is little danger of that happening then we should be able to eliminate gun free zones without worrying that the schools, churches, sporting events and other places will run red with blood.

Of course, just as I predicted here 10 years ago, incidents like this are becoming more common and they aren't helping our cause at all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun

Woman opens fire at purse snatcher caught outside Walmart, but leaves the scene with her gun when police arrive to arrest him

A woman who saw a purse-snatching outside a Texas Walmart parked her truck and fired a handgun at an alleged thief as he was running away.

Cellphone video of the incident on the outskirts of Waco showed the unidentified woman shooting a single shot at Andre Dawson, 27, before he fell to the ground and was captured.

Authorities say that Dawson, who was later arrested, was not hit but stumbled when he heard the shot, though they still want to talk to the woman who opened fire at him as he tried to flee.

Police say they are just looking to identify her and hear her account of the incident.

Dawson allegedly tried to snatch a purse from the shopping basket before a group of men chased him down and tackled him.

In bystander video he is seen pinned to the ground as the unidentified armed woman points a handgun at him.

The woman had seen 'commotion' around the purse snatching and parked her truck before getting out with her firearm, witnesses told KWTX.

At one point he gets up and begins to run away, though falls after the shot is fired and briefly avoids a group of men who chased him down and held him until police arrived.

The unidentified woman who fired the shot left the scene before officers could talk to her.

'OMG!!!! What is happening to Waco?' Marisa Pina said with a Facebook post of her video.

As of Saturday morning Dawson was in custody at McLennan County Jail on suspicion of theft, but had not yet been charged or arraigned.

The Bellmead Police Department was not immediately able to respond to a request for comment on Saturday morning.

The Texas city was the focus of national media attention earlier this year when a shootout between motorcycle clubs and local police killed nine bikers and injured 18.

In addition to 'castle' laws that allow gun owners to use their weapons when intruders enter their home, Texas state law also they can use deadly force against those 'fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property'.

In 2010 a Houston taco truck worker was acquitted after shooting a man who stole a tip jar with $20.12.

In 2013 San Antonio's Ezekiel Gilbert was acquitted of murder for shooting a 23-year-old Craigslist prostitute who did not have sex with him but took $150 he paid her. The woman, Lenora Frago, was paralyzed after being hit in the neck and died months later.

It did not appear that Dawson had any stolen property on him at the time of the shot.

Last month a Detroit-area woman pleaded no contest to reckless discharge of a firearm after shooting and hitting the tire of a shoplifter's SUV driving away from a Home Deport parking lot.

Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, 46, faces up to 90 days in jail but hopes to receive only fines.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I agree about eliminating "gun-free zones".

But at least equally importantly, how do we eliminate the phenomenon of "may issue" jurisdictions? Under current conditions, non-bigshot Los Angeles residents are not issued concealed carry permits regardless of how proficient they might be at marksmanship or how many training courses they complete, but our mayor (who of course is surrounded by armed bodyguards) just proclaimed that he welcomes the "refugees" Obama (surrounded by even more armed bodyguards) is going to shove down our throats. All over Europe women are being advised by their local governments not to go out in public without a male escort because rapes by the "refugees" are endemic -- if I wanted to live in Saudi Arabia I would move there.

 

[boom boom]

I think that Larry Correia was talking about using that as a talking point to smoke out those who are actually anti-gun period versus their stated talking point of "reasonable gun control" But whether it is a good idea or not should not be based on the erroneous idea that those carrying permits are by nature irresponsible individuals as a general rule.

Coincidentally, I read an interesting article today dealing with British police and their reluctance to be armed. Apparently in some jurisdictions, you might have to wait up to 50 minutes in many locales for specially trained and armed police to show up. Officers there apparently are reluctant to become armed even after Paris, my guess is that firearms have become so stigmatized in their society that few officers want the responsibility. This is the real reason that Correia's idea would probably fail--too few people would even want such a permit for it to be effective.

From all statistical studies that have been conducted, permit holders are as much or even more likely to follow all laws than even police officers regarding criminal offenses. Just in my home state, officers have been recently charged for excessive force, providing off duty security for a mob related business, hanging out at a bar intoxicated and then several firing their weapons at someone, an officer that just cracked and started shooting at a random individual, failure to maintain any firearms and thus LEO qualification after it was revealed in an investigation post hoc of a fatal shooting, etc. Not limited to here, two NYPD police officers were notoriously hitmen for the Mafia while working for the NYPD, and so on. You will find a similar pattern in the Armed Forces, boy scouts, church leaders, and so on. Some of any group can and will commit crimes if given the opportunity. However, I seriously doubt that someone who went through the proposed gauntlet of qualifications to get such a permit would suddenly get the idea that they were a super hero enlisted to stop all purse snatching.

There is a reason that anecdotes are the lowest sort of evidence in empirical research. Individual anecdotes are certainly not generalizable in a meaningful way unless you have a lot of instances to apply to whole populations such as the average concealed carry permit holder or to the average LEO. Some people will behave at times irresponsibly with a firearm, a car, their fists, drugs, alcohol, etc. regardless of their title, job, social status, etc. For that reason, we have a court system to hold these people criminally and civilly responsible to the laws of the state. Will mistakes and malicious actions happen, yes--no system yet devised by people is perfect. Bad actions can happen with permit holders and can happen with LEO's. It can and has happened even with the FBI and as we've seen the Secret Service shenanigans. Does that mean disarming all of them is better--probably not.

Furthermore, police officers are given qualified immunity from individual liability while a super permit holder would have no such immunity (or at least Larry did not suggest it). Larry suggested in his post that few would even be interested in going through all of what he proposed to carry such a permit, even less because it would be on your dime and the legal consequences would be all yours. Thus, knuckleheads would be weeded out for the most part by such issues.

Larry noted that a few pilots, flight engineers, etc. have chosen to carry despite all of the obstacles placed in their path by a reluctant bureaucracy and knowing that any failure on their part could cost them a very well paid job and face potential legal entanglements such as the United pilot who flushed his ammo after he realized he was in a jurisdiction where he faced legal issues with his authorized handgun. Not sure what happened to him.

From what we have learned from the armed pilot program, I would not fear such a permit system and individuals receiving one running amuck. The weakness would be that far too few individuals would want to run such a gauntlet of risk for very little potential reward for it to be effective. Knowing what I do of our legal system and politics of the day, I would certainly not do so. Which is pretty much what has happened with the armed pilots program-a fizzle.

 

[X-Rap]

What has changed in the US is the obscene amount of liability that has been forced on the public in the last 50-60 yrs.
In past times citizens volunteers were enlisted to patrol beaches, borders and things such as dams pipeline S etc. as well as serve on Sheriffs posse's at times when the standard forces manpower was overwhelmed.
In today's world this is some sort of "Walter Mitty" syndrome but to many it's as basic as the Minute Man or Fire Brigades of yesteryear. I'd point out that transmission towers were just bombed in Eastern Europe, give our vulnerability to such attacks here, how can we afford to pay LEO to patrol and protect all such installations?

 

[Rancher5]

I am 100% against the idea of a Super Permit holder. It's an idiotic thing to propose. What guarantee is there that a Super Permit holder would be on the scene in any terrorist attack? There is none!

THERE IS NO PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENT TO CONCEALED CARRY AND WE ARE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT WE DON'T WISH TO TRAVEL IF WE START SUGGESTING THERE IS!!

The minute we accept the premise that a person holding a concealed carry permit, even a "super" permit is responsible for public safety and has some kind of duty to act we are inviting tons of regulation, scrutiny and review over and above what we already see for LE.

Along with that there are many CCW holders who already think that they received some kind of peace officer's commission when they got there permit. All you have to do is read through some of the discussions here and on other forums to see how prevalent that idea is in our community.

There are plenty of people who can shoot to the FBI standards, it's not that freaking hard. The better idea would be to just eliminate gun free zones. It's stupid idea that one has a permit to carry a firearm to protect him or herself, but that permit is only valid in certain places. If an average citizen can walk the street armed, why can't he go in a stadium or school armed without breaking the law, or a courthouse? Why do we only trust a permit holder to carry in some places. If there is a danger that possession of a firearm might cause a normal,every day permit holder to go berserk in a school or sporting event or his/her place of worship, then perhaps we shouldn't let that person carry anywhere! Since we all know there is little danger of that happening then we should be able to eliminate gun free zones without worrying that the schools, churches, sporting events and other places will run red with blood.

Of course, just as I predicted here 10 years ago, incidents like this are becoming more common and they aren't helping our cause at all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun

Unfortunatelykeyword News focuses on Negative use of Firearms,what happened to the>500,000 ppl a year defending life,property using a firearm or the > 200,000 woman that prevent a rape or abuse using a firearm ,Why no News, Armed America radio ,podcast everyday gives atleast some positive uses,

 

[Jeff White]

boom boom said;

" But whether it is a good idea or not should not be based on the erroneous idea that those carrying permits are by nature irresponsible individuals as a general rule.

Show me where I said that please? My point that I made 10 years ago, and the point that is being proven now, is that as concealed carry gains in popularity the number of people who maybe shouldn't be carrying a gun is going to grow. There will be incidents like the one I referenced and it will have a backlash against the movement.

LE can't screen out everyone who shouldn't have a badge, I don't know why we continue to struggle with the idea that all people with a concealed carry permit are God's chosen ones and better more upstanding citizens then the general public. It wasn't true 10 years ago and it's not true now. CCW permit holders come from the general population, just like LEOs, fireman, doctors, lawyers, day care workers, teachers etc. And because of that, they are subject to the same human failings that the population at large is subject to. There are no general rules. There are just human beings. And just like I accept the fact that there are bad cops, the concealed carry community is going to have to accept the fact that there are people who are immature, and subject to using very poor judgement with permits.

There is a reason that anecdotes are the lowest sort of evidence in empirical research. Individual anecdotes are certainly not generalizable in a meaningful way unless you have a lot of instances to apply to whole populations such as the average concealed carry permit holder or to the average LEO. Some people will behave at times irresponsibly with a firearm, a car, their fists, drugs, alcohol, etc. regardless of their title, job, social status, etc. For that reason, we have a court system to hold these people criminally and civilly responsible to the laws of the state. Will mistakes and malicious actions happen, yes--no system yet devised by people is perfect. Bad actions can happen with permit holders and can happen with LEO's. It can and has happened even with the FBI and as we've seen the Secret Service shenanigans. Does that mean disarming all of them is better--probably not.

Again, where did I suggest that anyone disarmed? I am simply pointing out that creating another class that we give privileges to above and beyond what we give everyone else is a stupid idea.

Furthermore, police officers are given qualified immunity from individual liability while a super permit holder would have no such immunity (or at least Larry did not suggest it). Larry suggested in his post that few would even be interested in going through all of what he proposed to carry such a permit, even less because it would be on your dime and the legal consequences would be all yours. Thus, knuckleheads would be weeded out for the most part by such issues.

It doesn't weed out knuckleheads in LE. I don't know why you think it would weed out knuckleheads in the general public.

Larry noted that a few pilots, flight engineers, etc. have chosen to carry despite all of the obstacles placed in their path by a reluctant bureaucracy and knowing that any failure on their part could cost them a very well paid job and face potential legal entanglements such as the United pilot who flushed his ammo after he realized he was in a jurisdiction where he faced legal issues with his authorized handgun. Not sure what happened to him.

Which is exactly why such a program would be a failure. The thoughtful kind of people who you would want in such a program would not bother with it. I stated as much in my post when I suggested that such a program would invite endless regulation.

From what we have learned from the armed pilot program, I would not fear such a permit system and individuals receiving one running amuck.

I'm not saying that super permit holders would run amuck. I'm saying that every time there was an incident it would be cause for a push for greater regulation. The best system would be constitutional carry. The criminals who you don't want to carry are going to carry anyway, what do they care?

As long as we have a system that requires government permission to carry an effective means of self defense, we are going to be in danger of it being tightened down because of anecdotal incidents.

X-Rap said;

What has changed in the US is the obscene amount of liability that has been forced on the public in the last 50-60 yrs.
In past times citizens volunteers were enlisted to patrol beaches, borders and things such as dams pipeline S etc. as well as serve on Sheriffs posse's at times when the standard forces manpower was overwhelmed.

The laws are still on the books to permit this. Here is the law in Illinois:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...ChapterID=54&SeqStart=8500000&SeqEnd=10200000

(725 ILCS 5/107-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-8)
Sec. 107-8. Assisting peace officer). (a) A peace officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of persons over the age of 18.
(b) A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall have the same authority to arrest as that peace officer.
(c) A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall not be civilly liable for any reasonable conduct in aid of the officer.
(Source: P.A. 80-360.)

(c) even extends qualified immunity to the individual. This even extends to use of force.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9800000

(720 ILCS 5/7-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-6)
Sec. 7-6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(b) protects a private person if they use force assisting an officer and the arrest turns out to be unlawful.

And it's even against the law to refuse to assist a peace officer if requested.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...hapterID=53&SeqStart=79600000&SeqEnd=86000000

(720 ILCS 5/31-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 31-8)
Sec. 31-8. Refusing to aid an officer.
Whoever upon command refuses or knowingly fails reasonably to aid a person known by him to be a peace officer in:
(a) Apprehending a person whom the officer is authorized to apprehend; or
(b) Preventing the commission by another of any offense, commits a petty offense.
(Source: P.A. 77-2638.)

It's not liability towards the private citizens that keep this from happening. It's liability to the agencies who would request a private citizen to aid them. Sheriffs and police chiefs are reluctant to put private citizens in these roles any longer because they don't want to lose their jobs or see their agency pay out a huge settlement should a private citizen make a mistake. There have been plenty of court decisions that came down against an agency because they didn't train at all or their training was inadequate.

In today's world this is some sort of "Walter Mitty" syndrome but to many it's as basic as the Minute Man or Fire Brigades of yesteryear.

Unfortunately it is. Barring legislation giving agencies civil immunity from the actions of volunteer citizens during a declared emergency you will not see armed private citizens working in an official capacity very often. Those days are long gone.

. I'd point out that transmission towers were just bombed in Eastern Europe, give our vulnerability to such attacks here, how can we afford to pay LEO to patrol and protect all such installations?

They will leave them unprotected before they will allow untrained citizens the authority to patrol them. Or they will call up the Guard.

 

[TRX]

We already have a "super permit." Unfortunately, it's called "a badge."

 

[taliv]

The minute we accept the premise that a person holding a concealed carry permit, even a "super" permit is responsible for public safety and has some kind of duty to act we are inviting tons of regulation, scrutiny and review over and above what we already see for LE.

did i miss where someone suggested that ccw holders were responsible for public safety or had a duty to act? that seems like a total strawman


i think Larry's idea of a super permit is a good idea and a step forward. it wouldn't replace or even affect state permits. I agree with him that if the program magically became available, there would be a a lot of people sign up for it. I would.

however, as was stated, the whole concept was just a tool for debate to show how the objections of the anti-gun crowd are not sincere or logical.

 

[Jeff White]

The would be no reason to have a super permit EXCEPT for them to act in case of a terror attack. Why else would you do it?

We didn't arm pilots with the expectation that they wouldn't defend the cockpit.

We don't need different levels of permits. We need to eliminate gun free zones.

Who is Larry trying to expose the insincerity of the anti-gun crowd to? Everyone here knows they lie.

I would bet that most of the people who read his books and blog know that too.

Just what we need, different classes of armed citizens. What would you add to the powers of a super permit holder? Authority to carry destructive devices, frag grenades perhaps?

Or maybe we should only allow super permit holders to carry major calibers. Want to carry a .45 or 10mm? Get a super permit!

The entire idea is poorly thought out and any attempt to create such a program would only open the door to all kinds of bureaucratic meddling!

If you've never served in the military or in LE or another profession where well intentioned people decided they needed to control the people carrying weapons for them in an attempt to prevent bad things from happening, then it will be hard to understand how dangerous something like this can be.

A far better idea would to use the current public fear of terrorism, which at this point is pretty much unfounded in the US, to eliminate as many of the gun free zones as we can.

Selling the public on the idea that some kind of super citizen who is so proficient he/she can carry a gun everywhere, even places where "ordinary" permit holders are prohibited to carry is going to protect them from a terrorist attack on the off chance one might be present when the bad guys come is stupid!! That's not really any better then saying the police will be there to protect you.

 

[taliv]

The would be no reason to have a super permit EXCEPT for them to act in case of a terror attack. Why else would you do it?

uhh, so you could carry in gun free zones. reread his post. it's not related to terror. it's the same reason you have a ccw. this one just allows you into places you can't go today.

We didn't arm pilots with the expectation that they wouldn't defend the cockpit.

general expectation of the public is not even close to the "responsibility for public safety" and "duty to act" you previously claimed

Just what we need, different classes of armed citizens. What would you add to the powers of a super permit holder? Authority to carry destructive devices, frag grenades perhaps?

Or maybe we should only allow super permit holders to carry major calibers. Want to carry a .45 or 10mm? Get a super permit!

to steal a phrase from burt gummer, you're taking something simple and making it complicated. the bureaucratic meddling wouldn't be worse than the current situation. it would still be an improvement.

and, it's important to note that when ccw initially passed in many states, it did so with rafts of conditions, restrictions and special requirements. over the years, those have been mostly removed. there's no reason to think that something like this wouldn't be improved over the years, given the precedents.

not that this was a serious proposal...

 

[Jeff White]

So you are ok with a higher requirement in order to carry in a gun free zone? You agree with the premise that gun free zones are necessary to keep the unwashed from causing collateral damage and that only those permit holders who can meet a higher standard then the normal permit holder can be trusted to carry in a school or a stadium?

Isn't that kind of an elitist attitude?

If you think this wouldn't be subject to the kind of bureaucratic meddling I envision, you're completely wrong.

How many years are you willing to wait for congress and the state legislatures to start eliminating gun free zones once the super permit holders "prove" it's safe?

If you think that the antis wouldn't go berserk when the first incident happened where a super permit holder was present and didn't act, you must have missed all of the "I told you more guns make no difference!" articles after it came out that a CCW holder was in campus and didn't "run to the sound of the guns" when the Oregon shooting happened.

Every anti in the country would be screaming; "See we endangered our children to let a special class of gun owner carry guns where NO ONE should have a gun and look at what happened! He didn't stop the attack and we added more danger into our lives for nothing!"

Serious proposal or not, it's a stupid proposal!

 

[taliv]

So you are ok with a higher requirement in order to carry in a gun free zone?

it's better than no carry at all.
are you ok with some states that require proficiency tests when others don't? if you're not ok with proficiency tests, i assume you believe we should just not pass any law at all, instead of accept one with proficiency tests.

You agree with the premise that gun free zones are necessary to keep the unwashed from causing collateral damage and that only those permit holders who can meet a higher standard then the normal permit holder can be trusted to carry in a school or a stadium?

no of course not, and i didn't say anything to make a reasonable person even suspect i might possibly agree with that. but change will happen incrementally or not at all. so moving the right direction is better than no movement.

Isn't that kind of an elitist attitude?

probably, but since that's not what anyone is saying, it doesn't really matter

blah blah blah

what the antis scream or think is hardly justification for anything. they've screamed blood in the streets about every CCW law in every state no matter what. did that stop us from passing them? no. are you suggesting we shouldn't have passed CCW laws because the antis' screaming is an unbearable cost?

and they will scream about getting rid of no carry zones, so how is that different? i could just as easily say they will go berzerk in the first incident in what was previously a no carry zone. big deal. we know it will happen. it doesn't matter. we should still move forward because it's better than the alternative.

 

[X-Rap]

The super permits are already being instituted in many states school districts.
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/educat...agement-Educational-Facilities-Feature--14505
I'm all in favor of eliminating GFZs and I think one way or another it will happen, one way will be by expanding the criteria (super permit) like what's happening in schools across the country.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

An interesting bit of agitprop. He has some good points and some stark staring nutter stuff. He makes a valid point about the "super permit" and the fact that no matter the level of training the anti's would still oppose it. But I think his logic gets a bit twisted when he waxes deliriously about the "defense in depth of 1,000,000" more guns in the street to protect from terrorists. That's like bragging that you have an entire can of Right Guard for each armpit. Great, good for you, but a shower would be better!

Realistically reversing 75 years of inane foreign policy would make us a lot safer than adopting the siege mentality that is the goal of ISIL, AQ, etc.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I have relatives in Mississippi, and they mentioned MS's "enhanced" carry permit to me previously.

A local range describes it thus -http://www.desotogunrange.com/enhanced-carry/

In Mississippi, any legal resident that passes a background check can typically obtain a concealed carry permit. An “enhanced” endorsement to the normal carry permit has also been made available to otherwise qualified concealed carry permit applicants who have taken a training course from an authorized instructor. You can obtain the enhanced endorsement for an existing, valid, Mississippi concealed carry permit by submitting proof of class completion to the Mississippi Department of Public Safety Firearm Permit Unit at one of the listed firearms permit offices. If you do not currently have a Mississippi concealed carry permit, you can obtain the normal permit and the enhanced endorsement at the same time when you submit your application, including proof of completion of class completion. There is no extra fee or other paperwork required to obtain the enhanced status other than submitting proof of class completion. With the enhanced endorsement added to our permit you are able to legally carry your concealed pistol or revolver into many more locations in the state of Mississippi. The enhanced endorsement does not apply to any states that offer reciprocity for Mississippi concealed carry permit holders.

Check state laws for other states at handgunlaw.us or USA Carry


FWIW ... this came to mind when I saw Larry's "super permit" idea.

 

[X-Rap]

I think Idaho has some sort of enhanced permit as well.

 

[taliv]

looks like a trend starting with chief LEO suggesting citizens have a role in public safety

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/ulster-county-sheriff-carry-guns/

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – All licensed handgun owners in Ulster County should carry their pistols.

That’s the message Thursday from the Ulster County Sheriff.

“In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to please do so,” wrote Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum in a Facebook post. “I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it.”

The rest of his message is pretty well stated.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12...rrorist-attacks-in-detroit-police-chief-says/

While cities around the world are on heightened alert following a devastating ISIS attack in Paris, Detroit’s police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city.

Craig called more officers to duty and moved some to locations deemed higher priorities following the attacks in Paris.

But he also noted “a lot of Detroiters” have concealed pistol licenses and “the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug.”

and of course, controversial Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing this for 22 years and

Tuesday publicly advised the state’s 250,000 permit holders that having a ready firearm could mean a difference between life and death in an active shooter incident involving a terrorist or other mass shooter.

“I’m just talking about the areas where you have large crowds and someone pulls out the gun and starts shooting. Maybe somebody with a concealed weapon takes the guy down,” Arpaio said.

My guess is we will see a lot more Sheriffs saying this. I know the sheriffs in the counties around me feel that way but it just doesn't make the news because it's just not news since they've always felt that way.


I'm glad their statements are carefully worded. They don't come across like crackpots or gun nuts. And they stress legally exercising your rights. They're basically saying what most of us have always believed... that The People ultimately have to take responsibility for their own safety because it's just not possible for the gov to do it effectively.

Would be interesting to see if this leads to changes in laws that are oft discussed here. Following the CCW movement, and then the castle doctrine movement, etc. might we see state legislatures adopt laws that limit liability to citizens? essentially, an extension of the good samaritan type laws

edit: looks like drudge is now linking those 3 articles as well, and now rush is talking about it. could get some publicity

 

[Jeff White]

looks like a trend starting with chief LEO suggesting citizens have a role in public safety

In none of these statements did they say that CCW holders had a public safety function

I'm glad their statements are carefully worded. They don't come across like crackpots or gun nuts. And they stress legally exercising your rights. They're basically saying what most of us have always believed... that The People ultimately have to take responsibility for their own safety because it's just not possible for the gov to do it effectively.

This is exactly what they are are saying. In no way, shape or form are they suggesting that CCW holders are obligated to act. Just that they are responsible for their own safety. They have to be careful how they word it. Many states have laws that indemnify private citizens who assist the police if the police request it. The liability belongs to the agency that "deputized" the private citizen at that point.

Would be interesting to see if this leads to changes in laws that are oft discussed here. Following the CCW movement, and then the castle doctrine movement, etc. might we see state legislatures adopt laws that limit liability to citizens? essentially, an extension of the good samaritan type laws

That would be a terrible idea. Would you indemnify the two idiots that fired at shoplifting suspects in the past couple weeks? Fortunately no one was hurt, but say a child was killed by a stray bullet fired by someone shooting at a fleeing shoplifter. Should that person be protected as a good Samaritan? That's the road you are going down when you start extending Good Samaritan laws to people who shoot at criminals.

 

[danez71]

Actually, they do. See --

• Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
  ​
  
  
• Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
  ​

These are just two examples of sustaining the power of a State (as portected by the Tenth Amendment) to regulate a right protected by the First Amendment.

I lost track of this thread.

Frank, per usual, you're right.

I was in the incorrect mindset of 'restrict' = 'ban', 'completely deny' ; of which the SCOTUS doesn't allow such as with Heller and McDonold.