Value of required CCW permits?

Should a permit be required to concealed carry in high gang/illegal states?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • No

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • Total voters
    41
C

c4v3man

New member
Here's a question I wanted to ask, and I didn't find anything in a brief search of the forums, so here it is. I'll try to limit it to keep the discussion focused, because I know there could be a variety of reasons to vote either way.

In a state with either a high gang and/or illegal alien population, do you feel that a permit should be required to CCW?


On one hand, I would prefer to know who is carrying a concealed weapon, as criminals would be unlikely to get the required permit. This would give police one more thing to hold against gang members, if they choose to enforce the law (which doesn't seem to happen as much as it should).

On the other hand, the lack of a requirement for a permit would encourage more law abiding, but otherwise unmotivated citizens to carry legally. This would likely aid in reducing gang violence by removing more people from the victim pool. Another reason to not want permits would be the view that 2nd amendment rights should allow us to carry under all circumstances without government intervention.

Please vote and share your reasoning.

EDIT: Just to clarify where I am coming from, I have a NV CCW permit, and I read that the fees may go up when they change what's required for a permit (apparently our permits will no longer exempt us from background checks as of July 1st). One person suggested that we not offer/require permits similar to Alaska or Vermont. That is what spurred this question.


EDIT2: For further clarification, I am not asking if you supported some sort of federal law that required each state to require CCW's. I'm asking something more along the lines of "does requiring a CCW bother you if you live in a state with a large gang/illegal alien population?"
 
Last edited:
VT requires no permit to carry

I like the idea of a permit because it can tag along with training. TX cuts the fee in half for indigent applicants, they may get a discount on training, also.

Priced properly, I think most anyone who is motivated to carry can get a permit.

No permit required, as in VT, raises the possibility of untrained people carrying an using, but the experience does not seem to show this resuilts in a lot of crazy stuff...

Either way seems like it would work.

"May issue" as in NYC or Los Angeles does not work except for the wealthy and politically connected. Beverly Hills has a number of carry permits, Compton and South LA not a one between them. The race and class discrimination which motivated gun control laws here in the early 1920's is still active.
 
I'll admit that I have not fully thought all of the many intricate details, possibilities, and consequences of not offering or requiring a CHL. My initial thoughts are that I like the idea of a permit. It proves that the person carrying has a decent (if not perfect) criminal history and has been through SOME training. As we all know, a firearm without training is not the best thing.

Furthermore, if I get pulled over and I present my CHL, the officer knows that, at a minimum, I am not a convicted murderer, etc.

As already stated, the CHL needs to be reasonably-priced, attainable in a short time frame, available to everyone legally permitted, not just the rich or connected.

To be perfectly frank, I would like the required CHL class to be about TWICE as long/informative as it actually is. I am motivated enough to go through additional training. Many/most people aren't. (Begin flaming me here....:D )
 
A permit at least assures that a basic course had been taken. IN SC, the course consisted of a berif basic firearm safety section, lessons on the laws of "where and when" to carry, and a practical 50-shot qualification range exam.
 
I do not like have to ask the state for permission to exercise my God given right to self-defense, and then having to pay off the state on top of it. Did I, Yes. The only thing that is good about it is elected officals see the numbers of people who paid off the state and know that for every preson who did there is 10 more gun owners out there so they are less likely to try to pass more anti- gun laws.
 
criminals would be unlikely to get the required permit.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they have rap sheets. If they are felons they are prohibited possessors anyway, so the cops could use that to lock em up.

I voted no

I think a course to cover safety and legal concerns would be a good idea, but should not be required. Vermont and Alaska seem to be doing fine without requiring permits.
 
Quote:
criminals would be unlikely to get the required permit.
Why? Because they have rap sheets. If they are felons they are prohibited possessors anyway, so the cops could use that to lock em up.
Click to expand...

Yes, that statement make sense, I sounded like an idiot when I said that. I mean to say that law abiding citizens who intend to commit a crime for the first time, or those who have committed a crime, yet were not caught/convicted, would be disinclined to acquire a permit.
 
I live in Nevada, which MUST issue the permit, unless you're a felon, a certified looney, addicted to illegal drugs or a convicted domestic abuser.

These are the only folks who can be denied a permit, and they should be denied.

When a cop encounters a gang banger with a gun, he (or she) can be arrested, and that's a good thing.
 
I mean to say that law abiding citizens who intend to commit a crime for the first time, or those who have committed a crime, yet were not caught/convicted, would be disinclined to acquire a permit.
Click to expand...

I'm going to venture a wild guess that most gang-bangers who have weapons have them illegally. DUH! Crimes are not comitted with registered (to that carrier) guns.

If you take away guns, only criminals will have guns.
 
I like the language in the proposed Texas Open Carry petition, any individual who can legally purchase a firearm should be able to carry with no license. I'd like that language to apply to CCW and OC.

The background check of the individual is done at the time of purchase, a felon or wife beater would or let me say SHOULD be culled out at this time. The licensing idea is just a way to extract a little extra cash flow from us, another "sin tax" like on alcohol and cigarettes. If an individual is caught illegally carrying a weapon that should bring the crime up to felony status, period.
 
The only thing that is good about it is elected officals see the numbers of people who paid off the state and know that for every preson who did there is 10 more gun owners out there so they are less likely to try to pass more anti- gun laws.
Click to expand...

That might backfire. The elected officials may see it as 10 more people wanting LEGAL guns. They may also see it as 10 more ILLEGAL guns being out there, and react accordingly with tougher gun laws.
 
I guess this really goes back to nefarious people will carry permit or it. The permit process only hampers the law abiding proportion of the area. While I have my CCW, I don't agree with the permit process however, it's the law.
 
I went from Alabama to California, and seeing the change in what happens when you have restrictive issue instead of shall issue (Alabama is virtually shall issue...no difference at all except in name) is just enough to make you want to vomit up your lunch. Permit requirement is ONLY good if it's accessible and well known to the common person.
 
I like the idea of a permit because it can tag along with training.
Click to expand...

My training in Ohio consisted of hitting a silhouette at ten feet while side stepping. Multiple times mind you, but still nothing. I doubt any state requires a level of training which is actually useful.
 
Something that is also useful in the permits is that getting one is effectively a vote for CCW, letting the state know that there are that many lawful carriers who support the policy and will be p***ed off if it gets changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top