The case *for* CCW...

J

Jim March

New member
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
 
"the famous "fire in a theatre" example, or state secrets."

Mere possession of the means (or tool) is not reason to curtail any right, whether speech or CCW. It is when you use that freedom to curtail the rights of others. I don't buy your arguement here. That I have a shovel & might dig up somebody's garden is no reason to restrict (or license) my shovel.

A person should be held accountable when an action results in harm to another. Anything else is prior restraint - a restriction on my rights because I might do something.

As far as the gov't knowing how many of us are excercising our right. F 'em & let 'em guess.
 
"The first amendment can be curtailed under several circumstances, such as the famous 'fire in a theatre' example, or state secrets."

I can yell fire in a theater, if there is a fire. Your's refers to falsely yelling fire with the express purpose of causing a panic. The correct corollary to RKBA would be if I drew my pistol and began to threaten people. It no more allows a prior restraint upon owning guns via registration and licensing schemes than it allows government to pass out muzzles at the theater entrance.

Tell me, does this allow government to register newspapers or license journalists or tax ink, or employ a five-day waiting period for government accuracy checking?

"Shall-issue CCW permits could probably meet such a court test fairly easily."

So did "separate but equal" as well as warrantless searches and roadblock checkpoints all because of the War on Drugs. It doesn't make it right.

Here is something the Supreme Court said on the issue, pre Drug War, I guess...

"The fact that a given law or procedures is effecient, convenient and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution." INS v Chadha (1983).

"The problem as it relates to CCW is that many of these people come from nations with NO "self defense culture" at all."

Japanese who immigrate to America are 1/3 as likely to committ crimes as those they left behind in Japan despite that fact that they are not surrounded by 250,000,000 guns.

"it's not the same situation as, say, Vermont."

Despite the pro-gun laws in Vermont, very few people take advantage of the law. It is a very liberal state with avowed socialist congresscritters and people moving in from New York and Massachussetts.

"It's generally a GOOD thing for the gov't to know just how many 'hardcore self defense advocates' there are."

As long as government does not know WHO they are.

"CCW permits allow detailed tracking of the results of armed citizenry. See also the Lott/Mustard results."

Lott used CCW data because it was out there. One need not be in a permit-style state to measure drops in crime. Lott used FBI data for that. Now, how does Lott measure Arizona which at the time had open carry without a permit and no CCW permit system?

You may have a point that CCW data supports us, but we have already proven our point. We don't need any further data and further registering of gun owners.

You may hail the educations benefits of CCW but we do not need permits to do this. We could have widespread gun training in schools (NRA instructors would do it for free). Everyone who made it to, say, ninth grade, would have gun training...if it saves just one life...

No permit required.

It is time to think outside the box created by those who would disarm you.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Hi Jim;
Thanx for yer post. Couple of things, the so-called "Fire-in-a-theatre" example is a myth, a myth perpetuated by Janet Reno and her ilk. Its odd that Janet Reno doesn't even know this.

I can yell "Fire" in a theatre. If it can be shown that my yelling fire was for the purpose of creating a disturbance or panic or whatever, I can also be charged for my crimes and punished accordingly.

I can under law bear arms. If I use my right to bear arms for mayhem and murder I can be charged for my crimes and punished accordingly.

PERIOD.
----------------------------

Now, I concurr that some form of registration may be lawful. But I have yet to see one, or hear one suggested. Seems all forms of registration are aimed at infringment. I welcome someone to point out one that isn't.

As far as the concept that permit holders=headcount=political clout. There may be something to it. However, since the government, any government, has no legal authority under the Constitution to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms, I see it as a non-issue.

Gun control laws as they stand, and as they have always stood are hostile to the word and spirit of the Constitution and must be repealed, all.
 
Decent points here, mostly.

My final argument however will be rather tough to beat: in the seriously gun-unfriendly armpits like California, New Jersey and the other "people's republics", shall-issue-with-training is, politically, the best we can possibly hope for.

I'm about to go to trial on the issue. Sitting right behind me is a one-inch stack of mainstream newspaper clippings from Florida, Texas, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia and others. They're downright monotonous. EVERY SINGLE ONE takes the same tone:

"Gee wiz, we issued umpteen-thousand permits over the last few years since that new law went into effect and WOW, people aren't slaughtering each other en mass!".

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. EACH STATE seems to have to learn all over again that CCW doesn't equal "chaos in the streets". Take Texas: I've got an article dated January of '96 that quotes some idiot DA with an IQ smaller than his...his...NOSE length (hey, why not - edited from something else) talking about how they'll have to hire extra staff just to deal with the fallout. Six months later, the same paper quotes the same moron DA as being "pleasantly surprised that there's been no problems whatsoever".

Well damn, dude, why didn'ja just pay attention to what had happened in Florida, WashState, AD NAUSEUM?

The kicker is, once a state goes shall-issue the truth about the sanity of widespread self defense becomes almost rock-solid self-evident, unless you're too dumb to add such as the VPC demonstrated in Texas a while back.

I believe shall-issue is of such value in proving the general worth of self defense that it can and should have "trickle-down" effects into the "sport utility rifle" debate and other areas not directly related to CCW.

In any case, I can truthfully say that no matter how bad FL/TX/OK style shall-issue is, complaints are just petty details compared to the utter disaster that is California "discretionary" CCW.

Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited December 21, 1999).]
 
Out of curiosity, I was reading the consitution, as posted on the Thomas Jefferson web-server. Article 4 of the constitution looks at the relations among the states and the right of the citizens.

Article 4, section 2 states that "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privleges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Can this mean that since most states are "shall issue" and MI is "may issue", that my rights (?) are being infringed by MI?
 
It's my understanding that the relevance of Article 4 to carry laws is more along the lines of if your state has issued *YOU* a carry permit than any other state that you visit must under Article 4 respect that permit. As a fer instance, If I were the resident of the Free State of Vermont, I should be able to carry everywhere. But then again, I should be able to anyway, so it is a moot point.

I short, this is why the states don't have to have to issue passports, visas, or tourist drivers licenses. If you have a DL in your home state, you may use it to operate a motor vehicle on the roads of any state.

Again, the manner in which those in office who belive they have the right to issue permits to exercise a natural right also belive they are granting some great favor when they offer limited reciprocity.

This is just another Constitution hostile bit of hogwash.
 
"this is why the states don't have to have to issue passports, visas, or tourist drivers licenses. If you have a DL in your home state, you may use it to operate a motor vehicle on the roads of any state."

I got news for ya. Your drivers license is your defacto passport. Your "traveling papers." Try taking a plane trip from LA to NY. "May I see your photo ID, please? But this is not your drivers license. I'll have to call over my supervisor."

I didn't know I was going to be driving the plane.

And why do we need to have a drivers license and register our cars? If I get a drivers license in Kentucky and I move to Colorado why do I need a new drivers license? My Kentucky HighSchool diploma is still good, right?

Driving is just about the easiest thing in the world to do. Driving a team of mules is harder and you don't need a license for that. In fact, I don't need a license to drive my car on my 1,000 acre ranch. I don't need to register it to keep it in my garage. Cops recover very few stolen cars, so why all the officialdom?

To keep bad drivers off the road? California estimates that one-third of its drivers is unlicensed. Ever know a person to drive on a supspended license? I know 'em. People do not stop driving because they lose a laminated card. They stop driving, or stealing, because of the judge's order from the bench. We don't need a drivers license any more than we need a shopping license or a walking license.

When people tell me that we should register guns like we register cars I give them the above answer. I challenge everything. I haven't seen a statist argument I haven't been able to smash.

Rick

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, 1783.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top