CONCEALED CARRY - PROS & CONS

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

There are many issues relating to the American Citizen who owns firearms.

Just a few of those questions might be:

 

(1) Should concealed carry be allowed?

(2) What guidelines should be implemented when moving from state to state? (Reciprocity)

(3) Should non-permitting be considered?

(4) What SHOULD the criteria be for an individual to conceal carry, as opposed to what it currently is?

(5) Should training be mandatory, and if so, what type and how extensive?

(6) What penalties, if any, should be imposed on improper use of a concealed carry firearm?

 

Many of our SASS Members are either current or were former Law Enforcement members of various organizations.

The majority of the rest of us are conscientious firearm owners who respect the use of firearms which is reflected in our participation in CAS.

This may make the discussion somewhat biased; however, IMHO this would make us more responsible in our opinions. 

 

OPEN DISCUSSION - What are your thoughts?

 

 

RECIPROCITY MAP

 

[Alpo]

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says "...right to...bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

Therefore:

(1) Should concealed carry be allowed?

Most certainly

 

(2) What guidelines should be implemented when moving from state to state? (Reciprocity)

None. Anyone can carry anything anywhere.

 

(3) Should non-permitting be considered?

Hell no.

 

(4) What SHOULD the criteria be for an individual to conceal carry, as opposed to what it currently is?

The same criteria as is currently set for for an individual to wear socks --- HE WANTS TO.

 

(5) Should training be mandatory, and if so, what type and how extensive?

Just as soon as they come up with a training requirement to vote and a training requirement to pray we can discuss this again.

 

(6) What penalties, if any, should be imposed on improper use of a concealed carry firearm?

Define "improper use". Flashing? Nothing. Pointing it at someone to make a point? That's called aggravated assault, and is already illegal. Arrest him. Shooting someone? If it was a legal shoot, clap him on the back. If it was an illegal shot, clap him in jail. Your question is too ambivalent to answer.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

Not sure how to answer this question without it turning political. I believe in shall-issue permits, but I also believe in some sort of live-fire qualification and classroom training covering the legal use of force. As much as I hate the idea of any government interference in my right to protect myself, I am also aware that there are quite a few incompetent idiots out there ready to spoil it for the rest of us. Getting a carry permit should be guaranteed to anyone who passes a background check and can demonstrate a basic level of proficiency with a firearm.

 

I absolutely DO NOT believe in "may issue" permits, because it means you're at the mercy of some anti-gun police chief who wants to restrict the number of people who are allowed to carry a gun. Open carry is a thorny issue. There are times when it may be warranted, but it also is a great way to frighten all the snowflakes and make them more inclined to vote anti-gun in the next election. It also tips off the thugs that they can have a free gun if they figure out how to jump you from behind.

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

16 hours ago, Alpo said:

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says "...right to...bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

Therefore:

(1) Should concealed carry be allowed?

Most certainly - I AGREE

 

(2) What guidelines should be implemented when moving from state to state? (Reciprocity)

None. Anyone can carry anything anywhere. - I AGREE with this also.  As long as a citizen has properly applied and received their CCP in one State, it should be valid whenever they are crossing State lines without having to worry about what that State has implemented.

 

(3) Should non-permitting be considered?

Hell no. - I AGREE

 

(4) What SHOULD the criteria be for an individual to conceal carry, as opposed to what it currently is?

The same criteria as is currently set for for an individual to wear socks --- HE WANTS TO.

I guess I needed to clarify this question better.  What I meant to ask was this: Once a citizen wishes to Conceal Carry what steps should be implemented for them to obtain their CCP? Background check? Concealed Carry classes? Age requirements? Mental health issues?

 

 

(5) Should training be mandatory, and if so, what type and how extensive?

Just as soon as they come up with a training requirement to vote and a training requirement to pray we can discuss this again.

Are you insinuating that proper training in the use of a firearm should not be required? Basic knowledge of firearms not an issue? Just trying to understand your position on this.

 

(6) What penalties, if any, should be imposed on improper use of a concealed carry firearm?

Define "improper use". Flashing? Nothing. AGREED  Pointing it at someone to make a point? That's called aggravated assault, and is already illegal. Arrest him. AGREED  Shooting someone? If it was a legal shoot, clap him on the back. If it was an illegal shot, clap him in jail. AGREED  Your question is too ambivalent to answer.

 

ALPO:

     Really appreciate you taking the time to respond. See my responses.

     Part of the reason for this post comes from statements such as "Permitting Concealed Handguns Increases Crime", and " a gun is more likely to be used against you than you use a gun in self-defense".

     As to question (5) IMHO just owning a firearm and knowing how to use it properly are two different things. Personally, I would not want someone who qualifies to purchase a firearm, merely applying for a CCP without knowing how to properly use it.

 

   

 

DISCLAIMER: As requested by Sedalia Dave, the GIF's were removed. They were originally inserted to make a point of showing mishaps with firearms. I have replaced them with a still shots which, unfortunately for other readers, doesn't relay the message intended. They can still be seen in the response below by Badger Mountain Charlie, and later by Smuteye John, until that time in which they delete them, at their option.

 

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

3 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

 

 

   

 

Being STUPID has nothing to do with the  SECOND AMENDMENT!

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

15 hours ago, Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 said:

Being STUPID has nothing to do with the  SECOND AMENDMENT!

 

IMHO, I would not want stupid on my Posse!

And anyone I would not want on a Posse I'd be afraid of carrying concealed. 

[Church Key, SASS # 33713]

I live in West Virginia and they have it nailed down pat. A while back I accidently let my carry permit expire and was at the Sheriff's office with the renewal paperwork. The clerk said: "No problem as you can open carry until the paperwork gets processed." The WV citizens later voted for a no permit required concealed carry. The carry permit has advantages as it's recognized in the contiguous states, excluding Maryland, and the NICS check can be done online, not requiring a phone call. 

 

Church Key

[Alpo]

46 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

I guess I needed to clarify this question better.  What I meant to ask was this: Once a citizen wishes to Conceal Carry what steps should be implemented for them to obtain their CCP? Background check? Concealed Carry classes? Age requirements? Mental health issues?

No clarification on your part is needed. You're just not understanding my answer.

>Once a citizen wishes to Conceal Carry what steps should be implemented for them to obtain their CCP? Background check? Concealed Carry classes? Age requirements? Mental health issues?<

No steps should be implemented. They should not have to get a permit to exercise a RIGHT. You don't have to get a permit, or pay a fee, to go to church. You don't have to get training, ir pay a fee, to vote. Poll Taxes were struck down long ago. Voting is a RIGHT. Going to church is a RIGHT. And carrying a gun is a RIGHT.

 

(5) Should training be mandatory, and if so, what type and how extensive? 

Just as soon as they come up with a training requirement to vote and a training requirement to pray we can discuss this again.

Are you insinuating that proper training in the use of a firearm should not be required? Basic knowledge of firearms not an issue? Just trying to understand your position on this.

 

Yes, although I'm not insinuating. I'm flat out stating. There are no restrictions on a RIGHT. So none of that crap should be REQUIRED.

Now, do I think you should get training before strapping on a gun? Absolutely. I also believe you should get training in how to handle an axe before you go chopping wood. I believe you should get training with a lawn mower before you go cut grass. I believe you should get training in basic mechanics and understanding the working of an internal combustion engine before you attempt to rebuild the one in your car.

 

BUT, there is no LEGAL REQUIREMENT to get training in axe swinging, lawn mowing, or engine rebuilding.

 

And that's where me and thee seem to have  gone off the track. You're asking what should be REQUIRED before exercising your right to carry. I say NONE. There are many things you should do before you carry a gun. But that's because it's intelligent to do so. Not because the law requires it. That's just wrong.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

No restrictions on a  Constitutional RIGHT

[Utah Bob #35998]

1 hour ago, Church Key, SASS # 33713 said:

......The carry permit has advantages as it's recognized in the contagious states, .....

 

Church Key

I stay out of contagious states...especially in flu season.

[Utah Bob #35998]

It has always been my opinion that everybody should have education in firearms laws including use of deadly force.

And they should receive it in high school or home school. 

 

[Henry T Harrison]

Sometimes it is best for me to keep my mouth shut and this is one of those times 

[Sedalia Dave]

The most dangerous right is the right to vote. Yet stupid people do it all the time.

 

Hold people accountable for their actions and stupidity will fix its self.

 

[Sedalia Dave]

FKCGG 

 

PLEASE STOP USING ANIMATED GIFS. They are exceptionally annoying and detract greatly from what you are trying to say.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I'm a huge proponent of concealed carry for the law abiding. With all the crazies out there how the heck will you defend yourself without a firearm? We have the right to BEAR arms not just own them!

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Even though Arizona doesn't require a CCW it will issue one.  I have one beciause I can buy a gun withOUT a background check if I have one but have to get checked out by some jackass in an office far, far away if I don't.

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

7 hours ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

 

ALPO:

     Really appreciate you taking the time to respond. See my responses.

     Part of the reason for this post comes from statements such as "Permitting Concealed Handguns Increases Crime", and " a gun is more likely to be used against you than you use a gun in self-defense".

     As to question (5) IMHO just owning a firearm and knowing how to use it properly are two different things. Personally, I would not want someone who qualifies to purchase a firearm, merely applying for a CCP without knowing how to properly use it.

 

   

 

Not knowing the law?  Doing dumb things with a gun?  That's where something called 'personal responsibility' comes into play.  Break the law, go to jail.

 

Testing, certifications, .... for a Constitutional Right isn't something that needs to be done.  It's a slippery slope.  What would be next? Mandatory insurance for illegal search and seizures?  Annual licenses for clergymen?  Government inspections of places of worship?  How about a Free Speech Certification test?

 

The first statement you mention isn't supported by the evidence.  You live in FL, pull up the FDLE reports since the modern concealed carry system was started there and take a look for yourself. Dr John Lott's done several reports on how the exact opposite is true.

 

I would be curious as to the basis of the second statement.

 

Odd that you chose two supposed Youtube "experts" having negligent discharges as gifs to reinforce your point.  Personally, I figure both had a lot more to do with the "experts" being too wrapped up in showing their expertness for the camera to pay attention to what they were doing.  Either way, both should have known better if for no other reason than their supposed experience with firearms.

 

For the record, the two most dangerous people I have ever encountered at the range both claimed to be retired law enforcement officers from major cities.  One even claimed he had been a firearms instructor with the Boston PD.

 

You'd think that after 20 plus years (20 years is the minimum to qualify for retirement, right?) of law enforcement firearms training, one would know to not shoot on a declared cold range with someone down range hanging up a target or to avoid shooting holes in floors because you want to show off your fast draw because you "forgot" you loaded your match guns in the parking lot after the match.

 

Academy and in department training is a whole lot more lengthy, detailed and in depth than any concealed carry permit seminar mandated by any of the states that require them.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I personally think ALL States should be Un-Restricted Carry  for any Law-abiding  ( No Warrants or Felonies )   American over the age of 21 .

The Criminals dont care about Gun  Laws and Carry guns every day . 

Our second amendment rights should already guaranty this   !

Rooster 

[Rye Miles #13621]

8 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Even though Arizona doesn't require a CCW it will issue one.  I have one beciause I can buy a gun withOUT a background check if I have one but have to get checked out by some jackass in an office far, far away if I don't.

Same thing here in Ohio! The last two guns I bought needed no background check! Love it! We still have to fill out the paperwork and the dealers here have the option to call it in. 99% don't call it in!

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

16 hours ago, Alpo said:

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says "...right to...bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

Therefore:

(1) Should concealed carry be allowed?

Most certainly

 

(2) What guidelines should be implemented when moving from state to state? (Reciprocity)

None. Anyone can carry anything anywhere.

 

(3) Should non-permitting be considered?

Hell no.

 

(4) What SHOULD the criteria be for an individual to conceal carry, as opposed to what it currently is?

The same criteria as is currently set for for an individual to wear socks --- HE WANTS TO.

 

(5) Should training be mandatory, and if so, what type and how extensive?

Just as soon as they come up with a training requirement to vote and a training requirement to pray we can discuss this again.

 

(6) What penalties, if any, should be imposed on improper use of a concealed carry firearm?

Define "improper use". Flashing? Nothing. Pointing it at someone to make a point? That's called aggravated assault, and is already illegal. Arrest him. Shooting someone? If it was a legal shoot, clap him on the back. If it was an illegal shot, clap him in jail. Your question is too ambivalent to answer.

 

15 hours ago, Alpo said:

Now, do I think you should get training before strapping on a gun? Absolutely. I also believe you should get training in how to handle an axe before you go chopping wood. I believe you should get training with a lawn mower before you go cut grass. I believe you should get training in basic mechanics and understanding the working of an internal combustion engine before you attempt to rebuild the one in your car.

 

BUT, there is no LEGAL REQUIREMENT to get training in axe swinging, lawn mowing, or engine rebuilding.

 

And that's where me and thee seem to have  gone off the track. You're asking what should be REQUIRED before exercising your right to carry. I say NONE. There are many things you should do before you carry a gun. But that's because it's intelligent to do so. Not because the law requires it. That's just wrong.

 

ALPO:

      Trying to wrap my head around the perceived contradictory responses you originally, and then later reiterated.

      If carrying a firearm is a right provided by the 2nd Amendment, and there should be NO REQUIREMENTS or CRITERIA to carry concealed, then how can non-permitting NOT be considered? If carrying a firearm is a right, then permitting is a non-issue.

 

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

Fellow Pards:

      This thread was started to have an open discussion on the right to carry a firearm and it's related Concealed Carry process.

      I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here to discuss the issues that are playing out in reality and reveal the PRO's and CON's that relate to that discussion.

      Everyone has an opinion, and I respect that. We all may not agree on the various aspects of the issue, but a healthy debate (so to speak) can not only be educational, but informative as well.

      

[Alpo]

I apparently misunderstood your term NON-PERMITTING.

 

I took it to mean NOT PERMITTING SOMEONE TO CARRY - taking away of their right. Thus my "Hell no". We should NOT consider not permitting someone to carry.

 

By your question of my answer, I assume you mean CARRYING WITHOUT A PERMIT? In that case, certainly. There should be no permits. You should not have to get permission from the state (permit) and pay a tax (license fee) to exercise a right.

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

5 minutes ago, Alpo said:

I apparently misunderstood your term NON-PERMITTING.

 

I took it to mean NOT PERMITTING SOMEONE TO CARRY - taking away of their right. Thus my "Hell no". We should NOT consider not permitting someone to carry.

 

By your question of my answer, I assume you mean CARRYING WITHOUT A PERMIT? In that case, certainly. There should be no permits. You should not have to get permission from the state (permit) and pay a tax (license fee) to exercise a right.

 

ALPO:

     Thank you for the response.

     In summation then, if I understand correctly, in a perfect world, there would be no licensing to carry a firearm, thus no permits would be required, and thus anyone who has legally acquired a firearm has the right to carry said weapon on their person, either by concealed or open carry methods.

     Please correct any part of that statement that is not true.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

The requirements for concealed carry should be the same as they are to exercise any of our constitutional rights. That's it. People should get training to handle fireams safely just as they should educate themselves to be an informed voter. But if we're not going to require it for one then it shouldn't be mandatory for the other.

[Hashknife Cowboy]

I believe that every law abiding citizen in the US has the right to protect themselves, their family and property.  Predatory behavior is rampant in our country, it is out of control in some places.  With that, the person who chooses to carry assumes the criminal and civil liability associated with their actions.  A responsible permit system and education of the law is just common sense.  It needs to be up to the citizens to obtain the skill set needed to be comfortable and proficient with their weapon.  I also feel that once you have a permit it should be allowed across state lines.  Always know that the police protect no one, they always arrive after the fact.  

[Alpo]

2 hours ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

and thus anyone who has legally acquired a firearm has the right to carry said weapon on their person, either by concealed or open carry methods.

Again you have misunderstood, because again you are limiting a right. There are no limits to a right. I know the Supreme Court talks about "reasonable limits", but they are wrong.

 

The Second says "shall not be infringed".

 

Requiring that I came by the gun I'm carrying legally is an infringement. If it is determined that I stole the gun I'm carrying, by all means arrest me for stealing the gun and for being in possession of stolen property.

 

But don't arrest me for WEARING the stolen gun. Because it is my right to wear it. Whether I bought it, stole it, found it, or it was give to me, it is my right to carry it

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

26 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Again you have misunderstood, because again you are limiting a right. There are no limits to a right. I know the Supreme Court talks about "reasonable limits", but they are wrong.

The Second says "shall not be infringed".

Requiring that I came by the gun I'm carrying legally is an infringement. If it is determined that I stole the gun I'm carrying, by all means arrest me for stealing the gun and for being in possession of stolen property.

But don't arrest me for WEARING the stolen gun. Because it is my right to wear it. Whether I bought it, stole it, found it, or it was give to me, it is my right to carry it

 

ALPO:

       Again, thank you for continuing this conversation.

       Before I bury myself any further on this, does AGE enter into your equation?

      

       To clarify, I'm assuming that a 15 year old boy that finds a loaded revolver that was tossed into a trash can from say a previous crime, stuffs it in the front of his pants with the trigger and grip exposed, and walks down his neighborhood street, is within his 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States?

       Is he legally allowed to have the firearm? I think not.

       Will he be arrested for having the firearm? Depends on the circumstances.

       Is he within his 2nd Amendment rights? Yes.

 

[J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE]

How is this thread permissible?  There is a forum for things of this nature and this is not it.

 

[Sixgun Sheridan]

1 hour ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said:

The requirements for concealed carry should be the same as they are to exercise any of our constitutional rights. That's it. People should get training to handle fireams safely just as they should educate themselves to be an informed voter. But if we're not going to require it for one then it shouldn't be mandatory for the other.

 

C'mon now, somebody sitting next to me while voting stupid isn't likely to end with me going to the hospital.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

5 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

C'mon now, somebody sitting next to me while voting stupid isn't likely to end with me going to the hospital.

Not immediately. But enough people voting for some politicians or issues could down the road end up endangering far more people and their freedoms in the long run.  With enough votes you could eventually throw out the entire bill of rights. How about in addition to a driving test all drivers must have a backround check to be on the road hurtling down the road in a couple of yons of steel? Backround check for voting too.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

The concept of giving every citizen having the right to vote seemed secure because it has always been assumed that the vast majority of the population was sensible enough to vote for the most qualified candidate. Unfortunately these days we're seeing more and more evidence that the ability of most people to even breed responsibly is suspect. And yet sex ed is mandatory in most schools, right? A lot of good that does!

[Charlie T Waite]

As this thread was regarding concealed carry it was moved here.  But if it continues in the political direction it is going base on the last few post, it will be locked and hidden.

 

Charlie 

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

 

ALPO:

       Again, thank you for continuing this conversation.

       Before I bury myself any further on this, does AGE enter into your equation?

      

       To clarify, I'm assuming that a 15 year old boy that finds a loaded revolver that was tossed into a trash can from say a previous crime, stuffs it in the front of his pants with the trigger and grip exposed, and walks down his neighborhood street, is within his 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States?

       Is he legally allowed to have the firearm? I think not.

       Will he be arrested for having the firearm? Depends on the circumstances.

       Is he within his 2nd Amendment rights? Yes.

 

Is he legally allowed to have it? No. Is the law that forbids his having it a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Yes

 

Will he be arrested? Quite probably. Will the arrest violate the 2nd Amendment? Yes.

 

You're still trying to put a limit on it.

 

HE'S TOO YOUNG. Show me where age is mentioned in the 2nd. HE'S A CONVICTED FELON. Show me where it talks about criminal history in the 2nd.

 

If he's too young, his daddy oughta stop him. None of the law's business. If he's a criminal, put his butt in jail. In jail he has no rights. But when he's served his sentence - when he's PAID HIS DEBT TO SOCIETY - and has been released to the outside world, he should get his rights back. ALL his rights.

[Alpo]

More thoughts. When the kid goes home with his "found" gun, unless he does like a normal kid (sneak it in the house and hide it under his mattress) Daddy's gonna see it and say, "Hey boy - where'd you get that?"

 

I found it in the trash.

 

"Well, let's take it down to the PO-lice and have 'em check it. Run the number to see if it's stolen, and do ballistics to see if it's wanted for a crime."

 

If the gun comes back hot, the cops keep it along with a statement from the boy. If it's clean, they hold it for two weeks, or 90 days, or whatever the period they hold lost items for there, snd then give it to him.

 

It is then up to Daddy to decide if the boy can tote it around, or if he can only carry it in the woods, or whether to lock it up until the boy is older. Up to Daddy. Not the law.

[Subdeacon Joe]

The problem with requirements to own and carry is who gets to set the requirements?   How do we make sure we don't see more and more "reasonable" requirements?  

 

I agree that people should get training and practice regularly.   But I can't agree with any State imposed requirements for the exercise of an enumerated and specifically and strongly protected civil right.