CWP
- Thread starter i50sx
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Yes. The laws are what they are. Pretty much each state to some extent regulates the carrying of guns in public. For a run down on each state's laws, see http://www.handgunlaw.us .i50sx said:
Of course, there are many efforts underway to change things and at least get rid of the most serious restrictions. But as it is, in some states you can't carry a loaded gun in your car. In some states you can't carry a loaded gun concealed on your person at all, or getting a permit is almost impossible. Some states allow open carry. Some states only allow open carry with a permit, and some don't allow open carry at all.
There have been many discussions about how and why these regulations are improper infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. But until a court tosses the laws out, or until legislatures change them, if someone violates the law, he'll go to jail.
About what?i50sx said:
yup, the original question was just what was the benefit of a cwp...
edited the original question after reading up on answers I have read since getting back online to educate myself further.
(with yours and others patient and articulate examples of the laws of the 2nd amendment which I have(but don't have) to protect my freedom's.)
edited the original question after reading up on answers I have read since getting back online to educate myself further.
(with yours and others patient and articulate examples of the laws of the 2nd amendment which I have(but don't have) to protect my freedom's.)
1911rocks
The more I read, the more I learn. Since visiting and later joining this forum, reading what other states do and don’t permit is a real eye opener. I have a much greater appreciation of the “common sense” of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in regards to our 2nd amendment rights.
The more I read, the more I learn. Since visiting and later joining this forum, reading what other states do and don’t permit is a real eye opener. I have a much greater appreciation of the “common sense” of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in regards to our 2nd amendment rights.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
1. In TX, you couldn't have a concealed handgun in your car unless you were traveling - whatever that meant.
2. You couldn't carry it concealed out of your car.
3. We recently passed a law so you can have a gun in your car.
4. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a gun in her car. She watched her parents die because the gun was in her car outside of the Kileen Luby's.
5. She campaigned with others and thank you - we now have the CHL system.
6. So you can carry OUTSIDE of your car and NOT break the law.
7. Not having a CCW permit or CHL but worrying about having an arsenal in your car is rather foolish.
2. You couldn't carry it concealed out of your car.
3. We recently passed a law so you can have a gun in your car.
4. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a gun in her car. She watched her parents die because the gun was in her car outside of the Kileen Luby's.
5. She campaigned with others and thank you - we now have the CHL system.
6. So you can carry OUTSIDE of your car and NOT break the law.
7. Not having a CCW permit or CHL but worrying about having an arsenal in your car is rather foolish.
Here we go again with the poppy cock foolishness of some at the keyboard without knowing and some believing what they read.
Down here in sunny FLA anyone who can LEGALLY OWN a handgun can carry said hand gun in their vehicle whether they are a resident or NOT. It must be in the glove box, console with the door closed so the gun is not visible, or a tupper ware container with a lid on it. So the above quote is total poppy cock as I stated.
Perhaps I am misreading the OP, but I think the question is. Is there any advantage to having a CWP system over just allowing people to carry without permits like Alaska and Vermont like plain reading of the second amendment would indicate? I myself do not see very many advantages, the only minor ones are to add some tack-on charges to someone caught for some other crime or giving LEO a cause to search suspicious characters if they flash a concealed weapon and I think many would call these disadvantages of the current system. Requiring citizens to obtain permits to keep or bear arms does not keep criminal from getting weapons or carrying them.
The state laws on bearing weapons both on foot and in cars are very diversified, so just read-up on your state and others before carrying.
The state laws on bearing weapons both on foot and in cars are very diversified, so just read-up on your state and others before carrying.
So if we make the question, what are the advantages of having a CWP system which permits persons to carry concealed, my answer would be there is none. Carrying a gun is a right - not something that a person should have to get governmental permission to do - either concealed or open carry.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Practically, the shall issue system has greatly advanced gun rights by getting folks to carry. That increases their safety.
It has also greatly aided the firearms industry from a consumer demand.
It also has made the issue of gun rights come to forefront and support that civilians can safely carry guns.
So, one can ignore the practical for the righteous. That certainly is useful.
It has also greatly aided the firearms industry from a consumer demand.
It also has made the issue of gun rights come to forefront and support that civilians can safely carry guns.
So, one can ignore the practical for the righteous. That certainly is useful.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
In real life, it can keep me from going to jail for carrying a gun illeagally. I consider that a good thing.NavyLT said:
Fiddletown,
In Alaska or Vermont just exactly how would one go to jail for carrying a gun illegally, if you were lawful to possess that gun, as in being in compliance with 18 USC 922(g)? If all states were such as Alaska or Vermont which do not require CWP's to carry openly or concealed, it would be virtually impossible for a person not prohibited from possessing a gun to carry that gun in an illegal manner.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That leaves 48 states and the District of Columbia, in several of which a private citizen can't lawfully carry at all, or in which his chances of getting a permit are vanishingly small.NavyLT said:
But all states aren't like Alaska or Vermont, and that's the point.NavyLT said:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
There are a couple way to look at that.
[1] That's really not the correct reading of the OP's question. His original question was
I have trouble reading that as a question about a having a system, especially with the reference to being able to carry in one's car.i50sx said:
[2] Even if wally626 is correct about the question, there are probably more than a few states that now have a "shall issue" system in which an Alaska/Vermont type system would not have been politically feasible. In those states, private citizens would not be able to carry, or at least carry concealed, without some sort of licensing arrangement.
Well, to avoid all confusion, I will answer the question, "What are the advantages of obtaining a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) in the state in which I live, Washington?" 
1. It allows me to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle and allows me to conceal that loaded handgun on my person in the vehicle.
2. It allows me to conceal my firearm in public when I deem it more beneficial to carry concealed vice open carry which is my preferred method.
3. It allows me to be waived from the 5 day waiting period for the purchase of handguns from dealers in Washington.
4. If a city or other municipality operates a stadium or convention center, and they ban handguns in that stadium or convention center, the ban cannot apply to CPL holders by state law.
1. It allows me to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle and allows me to conceal that loaded handgun on my person in the vehicle.
2. It allows me to conceal my firearm in public when I deem it more beneficial to carry concealed vice open carry which is my preferred method.
3. It allows me to be waived from the 5 day waiting period for the purchase of handguns from dealers in Washington.
4. If a city or other municipality operates a stadium or convention center, and they ban handguns in that stadium or convention center, the ban cannot apply to CPL holders by state law.
Doc Intrepid
New member
I also live in Washington state.
And IMHO, the four reasons set out by NavyLT above are excellent reasons why anyone who wishes to possess a handgun with which to defend themselves ought to go through the legal process necessary to obtain a concealed carry weapons permit (in Washington state).
Those are some pretty significant advantages... again IMHO.
FWIW
And IMHO, the four reasons set out by NavyLT above are excellent reasons why anyone who wishes to possess a handgun with which to defend themselves ought to go through the legal process necessary to obtain a concealed carry weapons permit (in Washington state).
Those are some pretty significant advantages... again IMHO.
FWIW
As always, the devil is in the details
First, to the OP's contention that we are having to pay for our rights. Got news for ya, we always do, and always have. With our taxes, at the very least. With special fees and charges sometimes, and in extreme situations, with the blood of patriots. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say we have the right to carry concealed. It does not say handguns. The recent Supreme Court decision (Heller vs DC) upheld the fundamental right to own firearms for personal defense, and government's authority to regulate them, but not to outright prohibit arms "in common use".
So, each state has the authority to regulate the carry of arms as they see fit. As long as you are provided some means to legally own and carry some arms, your rights are not denied, only regulated.
If the law allows you to carry a slung rifle down the street (while not commonly done, its not legally prohibited), but requires you to get a permit and pay to carry a handgun concealed, they are not (in the eyes of the courts) denying you your rights.
Its a fine line, but it is a line, in law.
As to a loaded gun in a car, check carefully the laws where you are. Some places consider a gun "loaded" even when the chamber is empty, Some places consider a gun loaded if there is a loaded magazine "accessible", and it need not be in the gun to meet their definition of loaded.
First, to the OP's contention that we are having to pay for our rights. Got news for ya, we always do, and always have. With our taxes, at the very least. With special fees and charges sometimes, and in extreme situations, with the blood of patriots. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say we have the right to carry concealed. It does not say handguns. The recent Supreme Court decision (Heller vs DC) upheld the fundamental right to own firearms for personal defense, and government's authority to regulate them, but not to outright prohibit arms "in common use".
So, each state has the authority to regulate the carry of arms as they see fit. As long as you are provided some means to legally own and carry some arms, your rights are not denied, only regulated.
If the law allows you to carry a slung rifle down the street (while not commonly done, its not legally prohibited), but requires you to get a permit and pay to carry a handgun concealed, they are not (in the eyes of the courts) denying you your rights.
Its a fine line, but it is a line, in law.
As to a loaded gun in a car, check carefully the laws where you are. Some places consider a gun "loaded" even when the chamber is empty, Some places consider a gun loaded if there is a loaded magazine "accessible", and it need not be in the gun to meet their definition of loaded.
44 amp,
Would you agree, though, that states which make the ONLY lawful way to carry a firearm is with a permit that a person must pay for, and pay for training to obtain that permit as infringing upon those rights? Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Texas are all examples. In order for a person to carry ANY firearm capable of self-defense (I am not talking about an unloaded gun in a case locked up - that is not capable for self defense) they must pay for a permit and possibly training. How is that not an unconstitutional infringement upon their rights?
Would you agree, though, that states which make the ONLY lawful way to carry a firearm is with a permit that a person must pay for, and pay for training to obtain that permit as infringing upon those rights? Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Texas are all examples. In order for a person to carry ANY firearm capable of self-defense (I am not talking about an unloaded gun in a case locked up - that is not capable for self defense) they must pay for a permit and possibly training. How is that not an unconstitutional infringement upon their rights?