I think this belongs here

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/597227-states-move-to-roll-back-firearm-permits-over-police

Several states are looking at relaxing requirements for carrying firearms ... and the police (or at least, some LEO brass) are against it.

“It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes. I think that it is not very well thought out for very high populated counties such as Hamilton County,” Ohio's Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey said in an interview. “To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes.”
Click to expand...

This sheriff seems to think that law-abiding people are the cause of "gun crimes."

McGuffey, whose county includes the city of Cincinnati, is one of a handful of prominent law enforcement officials to testify or speak out against the proposed legislation. Gary Wolske, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, wrote an op-ed critical of the law in the Columbus Dispatch.

The sheriff of Lincoln, Neb., testified against his state’s proposed version. In Alabama, the state Sheriffs Association held a press conference outside the statehouse to detail their opposition. Mobile, Ala., Sheriff Sam Cochran last year fired one of his deputies, state Rep. Shane Stringer (R), who introduced the bill in the legislature.
Click to expand...

I could add a lot more, but TFL is not the appropriate place to go all conspiracy theorist. Suffice it to say that it may (or may not) be true that many rank-and-file LEOs are on our side, it's evident that a lot of the senior LEOs are not on our side.
 
I'm of two minds about it, I think our laws (especially here in NJ) are overly restrictive. However, having people roaming around without a clear understanding of the laws around the use of deadly force doesn't seem wise. I'm sure that won't make me very popular around here. But I can see issues created out of ignorance of what does or does not fit the legal requirements for using your firearm.

In some state's you're obligated to try and retreat first, other's have stand your ground. Then there can be varying degree's in between.

I think the classes should be offered online, for free, with a test at the end to make sure you understand the laws in your state. I don't think you should have to pay for a class or take a marksmanship test. I think a background check to make sure you aren't a prohibited person is a good thing as well.

I think the police in these quotes are more concerned about stopping someone and finding a firearm. If they're licensed, you can be fairly sure they aren't a criminal or a danger to the officer or others. If they aren't, you have to get other officers to watch the person while they run their information to make sure they aren't a felon, wanted, or other restricted person who might resort to violence. OR you can just let them go and hope they don't go rob a store and kill someone.

So I can see both sides of the argument. It's a PITA for us, but it makes identifying the bad guys harder when they aren't required to have a license that could have been used to quickly identify good actors vs bad. It also should provide some protection against over zealous policing.

I guess I like licensing, I just don't think it should cost a bunch of money and shouldn't be onerous to get.

Now I'm debating on if I should get my flame suit on :)
 
Last edited:
However, having people roaming around without a clear understanding of the laws around the use of deadly force doesn't seem wise.
Click to expand...

I'll offer a counterpoint. Here in Georgia, as in many states, there is no training requirement to get a license to carry. An increasing number of states require no license at all.

If these states were suffering higher rates of unjustified shootings, the gun-control lobby would absolutely be publicizing it. But we're not hearing that.

We live in a society that encourages (easy now...) us to make our own decisions. If we make bad ones, there are consequences.
 
In CO I just had to show proof of military pistol training, nothing about the laws involved. In NC I had to sit through an all day class that was supposed to cover the laws but as far as I could tell the only thing that was taught was to say "I was in fear for my life" and "Do not instigate or you will go to jail if you shoot".

I'm fairly convinced that the mandatory classes are a method of income generation for the state, and if someone has a "vigilante" mindset, an 8 hour class isn't going to change it.
 
Shall not be infringed !!!

I'm fairly convinced that the mandatory classes are a method of income generation for the state, and if someone has a "vigilante" mindset, an 8 hour class isn't going to change it.
Click to expand...
The key word here is "Mandatory". I Teach Hunter ED and attending one of our classes, is mandatory, in order to obtain a hunting license. We take this opportunity to mostly teach young folks and some adults, safe gun handling rules and practices. Many have never held a firearm. Not only do we teach safe gun handling and responsibility but we also include live firing. For 12-hrs. talk and walk the talk. ..... ;)

I feel that every person who handles a firearm, should have "some" training but "not" .......... MANDATORY !!!

Be Safe !!!!
 
If there was no 2nd Amendment, and lets face it, America is operating, in principle, as if there is no 2nd Amendment, I would be a strong voice for permitted concealed carry.

I have always been against the .gov "licensing" of firearms, or the ownership. I am REALLY against the Fed .gov being the one handing out, or otherwise licensing concealed carry and think that nationwide CCW is a path to the end of the 2nd Amendment, which we don't follow anyway. Best left to the states.

If I was a state legislator, for every relaxing point of "control" removed from the books, two points of mandatory sentencing for the illegal use of a firearm, possession of a firearm while in the commission of a felony, would be added in harmony.
 
Tom Servo said:
I'll offer a counterpoint. Here in Georgia, as in many states, there is no training requirement to get a license to carry. An increasing number of states require no license at all.

If these states were suffering higher rates of unjustified shootings, the gun-control lobby would absolutely be publicizing it. But we're not hearing that.
Click to expand...
In fact, in the article one of the usual suspects claimed just that: that "gun crimes" increased dramatically when states enacted permitless carry. No hard statistics cited, of course, so no easy way to fact check or rebut the claim.

That's their story, and they're stickin' to it.
 
I’m surprised you are hearing that from a Hamilton County Sherriff. Cincinnati has a long history of being pro-gun and even building pro-gun case law in Ohio.

On the other hand, Dayton is a soft spot for gun control and their mayor shouts it from the roof tops daily….I suspect she or the money behind her was heard in the Cincinnati Sherriff election.

This is a real shame as urban areas can be an easy flip to anti=gun politics.

She should probably speak to an actual officer before mak8ng those statements.
 
As far as "making it harder" to prevent or prosecute gun crimes, I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment. (Seems appropriate, right?) In unlicensed carry states, where there's no licensing requirement, no training requirement, etc., there is a probable cause issue. To demonstrate: Let's suppose that Felony Frankie, who has a long and violent felony history, sticks a gun in his waistband and goes to a convenience store. (Let's assume for purposes of discussion that Felony Frankie does not commit any other violations of law during this trip to the store.) As luck would have it, Peter Police walks in about 2 minutes after Felony Frankie does, and spots the gun. We all know that it's illegal for Frankie to have that gun, but unless Peter knows Frankie from prior contacts, what's his reasonable suspicion (based on articulable facts) to talk to Frankie about the gun? If he doesn't have any, and winds up arresting Frankie for Felon in Possession, defense counsel will argue that any reference to the gun should be excluded as the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."
 
Heck, way down here in Fly Over Rednecks Country, there is a group of Alabama sheriffs opposed to doing away with permitting requirements.
Some of us are cynical enough to think that they are more interested in hanging on to their fee income than keeping an opportunity for criminal prosecution.
 
Spats McGee said:
As far as "making it harder" to prevent or prosecute gun crimes, I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment. (Seems appropriate, right?) In unlicensed carry states, where there's no licensing requirement, no training requirement, etc., there is a probable cause issue. To demonstrate: Let's suppose that Felony Frankie, who has a long and violent felony history, sticks a gun in his waistband and goes to a convenience store. (Let's assume for purposes of discussion that Felony Frankie does not commit any other violations of law during this trip to the store.) As luck would have it, Peter Police walks in about 2 minutes after Felony Frankie does, and spots the gun. We all know that it's illegal for Frankie to have that gun, but unless Peter knows Frankie from prior contacts, what's his reasonable suspicion (based on articulable facts) to talk to Frankie about the gun? If he doesn't have any, and winds up arresting Frankie for Felon in Possession, defense counsel will argue that any reference to the gun should be excluded as the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."
Click to expand...
I don't see this as a problem. The same issue applies in states that require carry permits.

I have a license to carry. In my state (although for years the state police tried not to admit it) a license does not limit me to "concealed" carry -- it's a license to carry. So now I, Larry Lawabiding, go to the convenience store and, because it's summer and a quick stop, I don't bother to conceal. Peter Police happens to walk in and see me wearing a GUN! Does he have a legal right to detain me and ask about my GUN!?

I say, "No." I am carrying in accordance with the law. There is nothing about my actions as I buy a Slurpee to suggest that I have committed a crime, or that I am committing a crime, or that I am about to commit a crime. So, unless he knows that I am a convicted felon (which I am not, so that's impossible), he has no justifiable basis on which to form a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that I have committed a crime, am committing a crime, or am about to commit a crime.

So Peter Police has no basis on which to accost Larry Lawabiding.

While I'm in the convenience store, Felony Frankie walks in -- with a Glock (because that's what gangstas carry, right?) stuffed in his waistband. Peter Police does not happen to know that Felony Frankie is a convicted felon -- so Peter Police has no more justification to accost the actual felon who is breaking the law than he has to accost me, who is squeaky clean. So how does the permit law in any way help to prevent crime?

The logical extension of this argument is drivers' licenses. EVERY state requires a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on a public street. We know that a large number of illegal aliens routinely drive without a license. So should the police stop EVERY car to inquire whether or not the operator has a license to drive? If not, why not -- and why should carrying a firearm (which is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, UNlike driving a car) be treated differently?
 
In my State, there are a tiny handful of County Sheriff's that are liberal, anti-2nd Amendment creatures. Even though it is legal in my state, they won't issue CC Licenses and open carry sure ain't happening.

Then there are Sheriff's (the vast majority), that issue CC Licenses as fast as they legally can.

If you live in a "Lib-Socialist" County or State... it is time to move if you love your guns and recreational shooting and hunting.

By the way, the CC class that I took was more focused on educating us on the Laws, rather than safety or situational. Which was pretty darn good, as everyone was very clear regarding a trigger being pulled.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I don't see this as a problem. The same issue applies in states that require carry permits.

I have a license to carry. In my state (although for years the state police tried not to admit it) a license does not limit me to "concealed" carry -- it's a license to carry. So now I, Larry Lawabiding, go to the convenience store and, because it's summer and a quick stop, I don't bother to conceal. Peter Police happens to walk in and see me wearing a GUN! Does he have a legal right to detain me and ask about my GUN!?

I say, "No." I am carrying in accordance with the law. There is nothing about my actions as I buy a Slurpee to suggest that I have committed a crime, or that I am committing a crime, or that I am about to commit a crime. So, unless he knows that I am a convicted felon (which I am not, so that's impossible), he has no justifiable basis on which to form a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that I have committed a crime, am committing a crime, or am about to commit a crime.

So Peter Police has no basis on which to accost Larry Lawabiding.....
Click to expand...
Not quite. In a state that requires a permit to carry a gun, carrying a gun without a permit is a crime. An officer seeing the gun would ordinarily be allowed to detain a person long enough to inquire as to whether they have a permit, and have it with them.
 
Is there a general difference between a "permit" and a "license?"

In PA in 1968-69, in my small county seat "city" all one needed to carry a concealed weapon was a "permit" signed by the sheriff that had as a reason to carry, "protection," on the application, which was then transferred to the card you received.

This is an apparent misinterpretation, even by the Sheriff, because eventually, it became clear that a "permit" was issued to people, not to carry concealed, but to simply enable transportation in an open fashion, unloaded weapons to a target range. A "license" was valid throughout the State to carry concealed, and there was no requirement to have the reason listed.
 
Spats McGee said:
Not quite. In a state that requires a permit to carry a gun, carrying a gun without a permit is a crime.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In some states, a permit is only required to carry concealed; open carry is legal. (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and I believe Idaho -- or Utah? -- are examples of such.

An officer seeing the gun would ordinarily be allowed to detain a person long enough to inquire as to whether they have a permit, and have it with them.
Click to expand...
I don't accept that. Doesn't the officer need to have some "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that the person with the gun does NOT have a permit? Back to the driver's license analog.
 
Doesn't the officer need to have some "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that the person with the gun does NOT have a permit?
Click to expand...

It depends on state law. In Georgia, it used to be a crime to carry a concealed weapon. Being in possession of a license to carry was an affirmative defense to prosecution.

In that case, someone was assumed to be breaking the law until they could provide proof they were licensed.
 
It depends on state law. In Georgia, it used to be a crime to carry a concealed weapon. Being in possession of a license to carry was an affirmative defense to prosecution.

In that case, someone was assumed to be breaking the law until they could provide proof they were licensed.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that many police officers, especially in anti-gun states (or municipalities) would view it that way. And that brings me back (yet again) to the driver's license analog. If someone carrying a gun is assumed to be breaking the law until he/she produces a license to carry ... shouldn't ALL drivers be assumed to be breaking the law until they produce a license to drive?

If not .. why are people driving deadly weapons like automobiles treated differently from people carrying firearms? Especially when bearing arms is [supposedly] a Constitutionally guaranteed right, while operating a motor vehicle is a state-granted privilege?
 
why are people driving deadly weapons like automobiles treated differently from people carrying firearms?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, well, lets see...
first off, everyone realizes that automobiles are not intended to be deadly weapons as their primary function. ANYTHING, can be a deadly weapon, but automobiles are not generally thought of as such.

Next point, if used as a weapon, automobiles are contact weapons. Firearms have range. And, using a vehicle as a contact weapon poses an element of risk to the driver (which of course varies a lot with the situation, but the driver is in the vehicle when it hits something or has to bail out while moving, which is also not without risk of physical harm)

Next point, in today's society, automobiles are everywhere. Literally. This was once true about people bearing arms, and certainly WAS true when our founders wrote our Constitution. Today, firearms are not everywhere, not expected to be even where legal, and so arouse suspicion where their presence is uncommon or unusual.

Anywhere there are roads, the presence of automobiles is considered normal and usual.

So those are a few quick reasons why they get treated differently in the eyes of most LEOs, because when something isn't the usual, it MIGHT mean criminal activity or intent, and that can lead to danger to the public they are sworn to protect and to the officer themselves as individuals.

In hunting country, (and in season) few get bothered by a guy wearing or carrying a gun. Downtown big city at the 7-11 at 10pm? whole 'nother matter, POSSIBLY...

You know you're a good guy....I may know you're a good guy, all the cop knows is you're a guy with a gun where its not usual to see a guy with a gun...

And I really can't blame them a whole lot for being a bit ...concerned about that

Which does not mean I approve of them being aggressive or worse without demonstrable cause.
 
I am using the driver's license analog as a basis for discussing the legality of stops without reasonable suspicion "based on clearly articulable facts" (which is the legal standard for a Terry stop) -- not for perceptions. Spats McGee introduced the hypothetical situation of Felony Frankie in the convenience store. Whether Frankie looks like a gang banger or is clean-shaven, dressed in khakis and a polo shirt and looks like a wealthy dude on his way home from a round of golf, the legal aspects controlling whether or not Peter Police can detain him to ask if he has a permit remain the same.

Not only that ... assuming Peter Police does NOT know Felony Frankie, so he does not know that Frankie is a felon. Peter Police can still ask if Frankie has a permit, but he can't [legally] detain Frankie if Frankie declines to play. In fact, in some states there is case law precedent that felons can't be required to answer a question about carrying a gun, because they have a 5th Amendment right to not have to make self-incriminating statements.

So, back to my question: perceptions aside, LEGALLY how and why should the police be allowed to stop a person they see carrying a gun when they don't stop every driver to ask if the driver has a drver's license?
 
Once we start changing the facts in the hypothetical (such as whether the state in question is unlicensed carry, licensed carry, or some hybrid), we start getting different results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top