I'm going to divide this into "legal" and "practical"...
LEGAL:
There are several cases where a full-blown right can still be regulated. The first amendment can be curtailed under several circumstances, such as the famous "fire in a theatre" example, or state secrets.
In all such cases where a right is curtailed, the gov't has to come up with a "very VERY good reason to do so". Shall-issue CCW permits could probably meet such a court test fairly easily. Discretionary CCW can't, and also falls massively flat on equal protection challenges, as I'm about to prove .
PRACTICALITIES:
The US has a very high immigrant population. This is NOT a bad thing; we can go into details on that on another thread but in general, fresh immigrant workers are keeping our balance of workers to retirees and other non-workers at a functional level.
The problem as it relates to CCW is that many of these people come from nations with NO "self defense culture" at all. China has had major-grade weapons control for 4,000+ years, as one example. Having these people take a four-hour course in the legalities of deadly force, a four-hour gun safety class and eight hours of "tactical 101, how to survive your first gunfight" isn't a crazy concept. Here in Calif, the "self defense culture" has been so systematically destroyed that most natives need this as much as the immigrants; it's not the same situation as, say, Vermont.
Other positives:
* It's generally a GOOD thing for the gov't to know just how many "hardcore self defense advocates" there are. Especially the Feds: if they know there's 10 million permitholders and that a Fed ban on CCW would leave all those people feeling "seriously screwed", they're less likely to try any such ban. Right now we're at five millionish; we need to boost that as fast as possible.
* CCW permits allow detailed tracking of the results of armed citizenry. See also the Lott/Mustard results. Those studies are the #1 weapon we've got, they're worth the hassle.
Jim
LEGAL:
There are several cases where a full-blown right can still be regulated. The first amendment can be curtailed under several circumstances, such as the famous "fire in a theatre" example, or state secrets.
In all such cases where a right is curtailed, the gov't has to come up with a "very VERY good reason to do so". Shall-issue CCW permits could probably meet such a court test fairly easily. Discretionary CCW can't, and also falls massively flat on equal protection challenges, as I'm about to prove .
PRACTICALITIES:
The US has a very high immigrant population. This is NOT a bad thing; we can go into details on that on another thread but in general, fresh immigrant workers are keeping our balance of workers to retirees and other non-workers at a functional level.
The problem as it relates to CCW is that many of these people come from nations with NO "self defense culture" at all. China has had major-grade weapons control for 4,000+ years, as one example. Having these people take a four-hour course in the legalities of deadly force, a four-hour gun safety class and eight hours of "tactical 101, how to survive your first gunfight" isn't a crazy concept. Here in Calif, the "self defense culture" has been so systematically destroyed that most natives need this as much as the immigrants; it's not the same situation as, say, Vermont.
Other positives:
* It's generally a GOOD thing for the gov't to know just how many "hardcore self defense advocates" there are. Especially the Feds: if they know there's 10 million permitholders and that a Fed ban on CCW would leave all those people feeling "seriously screwed", they're less likely to try any such ban. Right now we're at five millionish; we need to boost that as fast as possible.
* CCW permits allow detailed tracking of the results of armed citizenry. See also the Lott/Mustard results. Those studies are the #1 weapon we've got, they're worth the hassle.
Jim