BSA1
member
The privilege to carry concealed weapons has been a hard and long fought battle that has resulted in practical concealed carry laws in most of the States. I rejoice in the victories we have scored in this very fundamental need for self-defense.
However I have a number of concerns about ( delete citizens and edited to civilians to clarify I am not discussing LEO's who are allowed to carry when off duty) being required to purchase permits to exercise their privilege of concealed carry and right of self-defense. They are the following;
It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.
Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female.
First as part of the process many States require the applicant to attend a class. This requires the applicant to incur travel expense.
Depending on when the class is held in may require them to take time off work. This may result in loss of income if their job does not provide benefits for PTO which many low paying and part time jobs do not have.
For single parent households the applicant must make arrangements for child care which may incur expenses in taking the child(ern) to the babysitter and paying the sitter to watch them.
The second part is a shooting range qualification. If it is held on a different day then all of issues with attending the first day occur again and double the cost of obtaining the permit. It also requires the applicant to purchase their own ammunition which for non-reloaders living on a fixed income may be expensive.
For all intents and purposes the fee is not different than POLL taxes that were used to prevent certain groups from being able to vote.
Reason; Can’t afford it? Step aside. Are there any States that allows the applicants to pay on a installment basis? Is the need for self-defense less because someone can’t afford the costs of getting a permit or during the period of time it may require for someone to save up enough money to obtain a permit?
It discriminates against the physically disabled.
Reason; It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents. For example consider the following types of disabilities;
The applicant is to physically too weak to shoot the arbitrary number of rounds (most often 50) to qualify. This is common due to age and/or disease. The general FBI statistic I see cited the most often is the typical shooting occurs at distance closer than 7 yards, less than 3 rounds and in low light.
Or the applicant lacks the physical mobility.
Or(delete comment "the applicant can not leave their home due to medical condition") to the applicant may not be able to leave their home long enough due to their medical condition to complete the requirements. For example a exception would be leaving their home for visits to the Doctor
Or the applicant is visually handicapped or legally blind.
Since the average gunfight occurs at less than 7 yards how is shooting at 10, 15 or longer distances relevant?
Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window.
Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?
I have not heard of any State requiring shooting in low light to be part of the qualification process. For those of you that have never shot on a range in low/dark light the results are, how shall I say it, very interesting. In this situation a blind or visually disabled person actually has an advantage!
It expands the power and size of Government.
Reason; Responsibility for issuing c.c. permits has to be assigned to a government agency. The agency in turn to develop policies and procedures, hire and train personnel to process permits and purchase office equipment and space.
By requiring permission of the State it makes concealed carry a privilege. Even in shall issue States the applicant must meet certain licensing criteria.
Reason; This is contrary to the concept cited in the Constitution that all men (Citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
Ron Paul summarizes it much better than I can. He writes;
“The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.”
It is de facto registration of gun owners.
Reason; It creates a government database that lists all concealed carry owners and in some states even the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) they are permitted to carry.
It is very easily misused and lack of confidentially.
Reason; The are several instances in different states where the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders have be released to other Government agencies in direct violation of State law (Missouri for example) and where their names and addresses have been publicity published by the media.
It only places restrictions on the law-abiding.
Reason; Simply put criminals and those intent on not complying with the law will ignore it and carrying whatever and whenever they want.
C.C. permit holders, on the other hand, have to comply with a number of requirements and restrictions such as telling a LEO you are armed and not carrying it businesses and places where c.c. is not allowed.
In summary I believe in unrestricted no permit concealed carry.
However I have a number of concerns about ( delete citizens and edited to civilians to clarify I am not discussing LEO's who are allowed to carry when off duty) being required to purchase permits to exercise their privilege of concealed carry and right of self-defense. They are the following;
It discriminates against three groups that are the most vulnerable; the poor, those living on fixed incomes and single female parent households.
Reason; Obtaining a concealed carry permit is expensive, even more so for the two groups living on low and fixed incomes; the poor and elderly, and on single parent households which as usually headed by a female.
First as part of the process many States require the applicant to attend a class. This requires the applicant to incur travel expense.
Depending on when the class is held in may require them to take time off work. This may result in loss of income if their job does not provide benefits for PTO which many low paying and part time jobs do not have.
For single parent households the applicant must make arrangements for child care which may incur expenses in taking the child(ern) to the babysitter and paying the sitter to watch them.
The second part is a shooting range qualification. If it is held on a different day then all of issues with attending the first day occur again and double the cost of obtaining the permit. It also requires the applicant to purchase their own ammunition which for non-reloaders living on a fixed income may be expensive.
For all intents and purposes the fee is not different than POLL taxes that were used to prevent certain groups from being able to vote.
Reason; Can’t afford it? Step aside. Are there any States that allows the applicants to pay on a installment basis? Is the need for self-defense less because someone can’t afford the costs of getting a permit or during the period of time it may require for someone to save up enough money to obtain a permit?
It discriminates against the physically disabled.
Reason; It establishes arbitrary standards that are not relevant to many actual self-defense incidents. For example consider the following types of disabilities;
The applicant is to physically too weak to shoot the arbitrary number of rounds (most often 50) to qualify. This is common due to age and/or disease. The general FBI statistic I see cited the most often is the typical shooting occurs at distance closer than 7 yards, less than 3 rounds and in low light.
Or the applicant lacks the physical mobility.
Or(delete comment "the applicant can not leave their home due to medical condition") to the applicant may not be able to leave their home long enough due to their medical condition to complete the requirements. For example a exception would be leaving their home for visits to the Doctor
Or the applicant is visually handicapped or legally blind.
Since the average gunfight occurs at less than 7 yards how is shooting at 10, 15 or longer distances relevant?
Range marksmanship and skill does not make for a good gunfighter. It is well established that it self-defense situation basic skills and fundamentals are forgotten and go right out the window.
Except in rare situations reloading and shooting additional rounds is not required. So if the applicant can put all of the rounds in the gun in the boiler room what more is needed?
I have not heard of any State requiring shooting in low light to be part of the qualification process. For those of you that have never shot on a range in low/dark light the results are, how shall I say it, very interesting. In this situation a blind or visually disabled person actually has an advantage!
It expands the power and size of Government.
Reason; Responsibility for issuing c.c. permits has to be assigned to a government agency. The agency in turn to develop policies and procedures, hire and train personnel to process permits and purchase office equipment and space.
By requiring permission of the State it makes concealed carry a privilege. Even in shall issue States the applicant must meet certain licensing criteria.
Reason; This is contrary to the concept cited in the Constitution that all men (Citizens) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
Ron Paul summarizes it much better than I can. He writes;
“The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.”
It is de facto registration of gun owners.
Reason; It creates a government database that lists all concealed carry owners and in some states even the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) they are permitted to carry.
It is very easily misused and lack of confidentially.
Reason; The are several instances in different states where the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders have be released to other Government agencies in direct violation of State law (Missouri for example) and where their names and addresses have been publicity published by the media.
It only places restrictions on the law-abiding.
Reason; Simply put criminals and those intent on not complying with the law will ignore it and carrying whatever and whenever they want.
C.C. permit holders, on the other hand, have to comply with a number of requirements and restrictions such as telling a LEO you are armed and not carrying it businesses and places where c.c. is not allowed.
In summary I believe in unrestricted no permit concealed carry.
Last edited:
