Picked up a 2nd carry permit

S

spacecoast

New member
Picked up a 2nd carry license

Since I split my time about 85/15 between Florida and Pennsylvania, I decided to pick up a Pennsylvania carry license. It's really easy - a trip to the court house for a picture + $20 and you're done. No instruction or shooting necessary. By contrast, Florida requires minimal course work plus a trip to the range for an instructor to certify you can handle a handgun and hit the broad side of a barn while managing not to shoot yourself or anyone else. Total cost probably over $200 between the course and the license.

Funny thing is - in comparing the maps at handgunlaw.us, I see that Wisconsin honors Pennsylvania, but not Florida. There are several states that understandably honor Florida but not Pennsylvania. Any idea what is going on in the Badger state?

By the way, my county in NW Pa. is lightly populated and the sheriff's office was BUSY taking license applications - 5 other people in the 15 minutes I was there. I bet that is magnified a hundred times or more in the rest of the state. It's good to see people concerned enough to take some action.
 
Last edited:
At least one state I'm aware of doesn't honor Florida's license because Florida has the audacity to allow service members aged 18-20 to get a CWFL. Kind of a ridiculous reason not to honor a state, but I guess they really didn't want 18-20 year old service members carrying in whatever state it is. It might be Washington.
 
Maybe just a tiny thing and admittedly -- personal perception, but it grinds my gears to hear it called a "permit." I much prefer "license."

The term "license" paints mental picture that it's simply beurocratic red-tape and state imposed fees & taxes for them to put me in to their system and hand me a little card for my wallet. Like most other "licenses." Where a "permit" makes it sound like the damn King is allowing me to do something.

It seems many folks don't care to make the distinction, but I think it matters.
 
Some states call it different things. Florida calls it a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License. South Carolina calls it a Concealed Weapon Permit
 
Sevens said:
Maybe just a tiny thing and admittedly -- personal perception, but it grinds my gears to hear it called a "permit." I much prefer "license."

...

It seems many folks don't care to make the distinction, but I think it matters.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what you prefer to call it, IMHO it is most correct to call it what the issuing state calls it. Pennsylvania does call theirs a "license." My home state calls it a "permit."

This isn't a one-size-fits-all designation.
 
We have similar discussions on my grassroots state-based forum. We've taken to refer to it as a CHL, a "concealed handgun license" but the license itself says that it's an "Ohio License to Carry a Concealed Handgun."

I'm not attempting to argue tiny little details and I'm certainly not attempting to badger anyone to go to great lengths to cite state law and find exact terminology, I'm simply expressing the idea that constantly referring to it as a "permit" seems to convey a (general) idea that the powers that be have granted us poor peons the ability to actually do it.

I won't sit here and claim to be surprised that the general population doesn't know or care what they are called -- or what we call them. But I will admit that it annoys me when active, passionate pro-gun people fail to see the idea I'm sharing.

But this isn't "my world" with other people in it, I understand that. This is simply me saying it how I see it... not to badger, condemn, or argue -- simply to see if others agree and possibly pick up on the idea. ;) No ill-will intended.
 
"Permit" or "License," it's still the king granting you permission to do something.

Arizona has become another Constitutional Carry state: No permit or license required. A CCW is optional and definitely useful for reciprocal states that recognize it, as well as not needing to do the NICS check, but it is still up to the individual whether or not to have it, not the "king.":)
 
Sevens said:
The term "license" paints mental picture that it's simply beurocratic red-tape and state imposed fees & taxes for them to put me in to their system and hand me a little card for my wallet. Like most other "licenses." Where a "permit" makes it sound like the damn King is allowing me to do something.

It seems many folks don't care to make the distinction, but I think it matters.

...


I'm not attempting to argue tiny little details and I'm certainly not attempting to badger anyone to go to great lengths to cite state law and find exact terminology, I'm simply expressing the idea that constantly referring to it as a "permit" seems to convey a (general) idea that the powers that be have granted us poor peons the ability to actually do it.
Click to expand...
And what idea does referring to it as a "license" convey?

There is no functional difference between a license and a permit. If even the states don't agree on what to call it, your concerns appear not to be grounded in reality. The reality is that whether you call it a "permit" or a "license," it's still asking the government for permission to exercise a right that is supposed to be guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment.

My guess is the people whose home state call it a permit will tend to call it a permit, and people whose home state call it a license will tend to call it a license.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
There is no functional difference between a license and a permit.
Click to expand...

None whatsoever.

Both act as a means for a governing body to allow you to lawfully do something that would otherwise be unlawful. They are exceptions to a rule.

Aguila Blanca said:
My guess is the people whose home state call it a permit will tend to call it a permit, and people whose home state call it a license will tend to call it a license.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top