12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws

[Kythas]

Twelve states are considering changing their concealed carry laws to allow concealed carry with no permit. When can we add Texas to this list?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 53391932/1

[74novaman]

Excellent!

Seems to be working okay for Arizona so far. Why not?

[A-R]

I love the idiotic quote fron the Brady bunch mouthpiece, appalled that someone could carry a gun without "permission"



But on the subject of police needing to know if a person with a gun is a "good guy" or "bad guy", why not a simple CHL system with minimal fees like a DL ($25?) that includes a simple NICS check and perhaps a basic multiple choice "test" and/or range qualification. I agree that true "Constitutional carry" is a viable goal, but feel an interim goal of less time and less expense is more achievable. Remove the three biggest costs of time and money ($140 to state, $??? to instructor, and 10+ hours of your time) and that's a huge improvement from what we have now.

[RoyGBiv]

If a BG wants to carry a gun, is he/she going to get any kind of permit?
So... what exactly is the point of a permit then? Answer: To make it harder for honest citizens to carry.

If a LEO has a suspicion about me, they can run my DL and find out all they need to know in 30 seconds, 99% of the time.

If you want to carry, the only thing you should be compelled to have is "proper ID", however you wish to reasonably define that.

The permit system should be kept and licenses issued for reciprocity reasons. But the cost and requirements should be much, much less... $25 is reasonable.. The idea that the TX CHL class imparts any real "training" is just silly. I can read the CHL-16 in a few hours without a translator. I watched two very nice retired ladies shoot solid proficiency scores. It was their second-time-ever shooting a handgun and they were both shaking like leaves in the wind while we were chatting in the waiting room at the range.

[Scott in Houston]

If a BG wants to carry a gun, is he/she going to get any kind of permit?
So... what exactly is the point of a permit then? Answer: To make it harder for honest citizens to carry.

If a LEO has a suspicion about me, they can run my DL and find out all they need to know in 30 seconds, 99% of the time.

If you want to carry, the only thing you should be compelled to have is "proper ID", however you wish to reasonably define that.

The permit system should be kept and licenses issued for reciprocity reasons. But the cost and requirements should be much, much less... $25 is reasonable.. The idea that the TX CHL class imparts any real "training" is just silly. I can read the CHL-16 in a few hours without a translator. I watched two very nice retired ladies shoot solid proficiency scores. It was their second-time-ever shooting a handgun and they were both shaking like leaves in the wind while we were chatting in the waiting room at the range.

I find myself looking for a "LIKE" button or an "Add to Reputation" button, but we don't have one, so instead, I'll just say... NICE. I agree 100%. You are spot on.

[A-R]

Roy, I agree with you. Was merely brainstorming an intermediate solution.

[A-R]

As for training, I've had many students thank me for giving them more "confidence" so classes are not without merit. I just dont think they should be mandatory if you can prove proficiency without taking one.

And if an intermediate step is to retain some mandatory training, then shorten it significantly. Frankly the non-violent dispute section - while a good idea in theory (and a great way to appease antis) is poorly executed and way too "clinical" - a short and sweet discussion of de-escalation, situational awareness, risk avoidance, and plain old' courtesy and common sense taught in conjunction with use of force statutes makes more sense.

But again if you can study on your own and show proficiency without sitting thru a class, then no need to take class.

[RoyGBiv]

Roy, I agree with you. Was merely brainstorming an intermediate solution.

I was not disagreeing with you at all... Just taking it a bit further...
The more I think about it, the sillier the whole "permit thing" feels to me..

It's a feel-good thing for those that would be opposed, and for that I will support it 100% until we can win the remaining hearts and minds. This is just water-cooler chat among peers..

[A-R]

Roy, I agree with you. Was merely brainstorming an intermediate solution.

I was not disagreeing with you at all... Just taking it a bit further...
The more I think about it, the sillier the whole "permit thing" feels to me..

It's a feel-good thing for those that would be opposed, and for that I will support it 100% until we can win the remaining hearts and minds. This is just water-cooler chat among peers..

[Oldgringo]

It's about the money... You know, kinda' like front licenses plates and inspection fees for your vehicles.

[RoyGBiv]

It's about the money... You know, kinda' like front licenses plates and inspection fees for your vehicles.

Don't get me started on "Title Insurance"...
Texans should be ashamed.

[terryg]

My thoughts on this will probably not be well received, but here they are anyway. (The last point is the most important one.)

First, let me state that from a crime/criminal perspective I think that going permitless will have zero effect on crime. I did ponder for a while (long ago in another thread) the thought that there was some benefit to LE because they could tell who was legally carrying and who was not. TAM and others helped point me out of that box of logical fallacy. (Thank you!) So let me be clear that I do agree that CHL laws do not prevent criminals from doing bad things anymore than "constitutional carry" would.

I do, however, think that the CHL process forces a bit of intentionality that I personally like. Jim Bob can't (legally) just decide to try carrying today because he heard about it from a friend and decide to just stuff a 1911 in the back of his pants. By making it process, most people get introduced into safe methods of carry and the legal nuisances. I think this probably reduces ND's and borderline SD situations by some amount. I don't know that the net effect is enough to warrant the limitation of a right. But I do think it has an effect that is worth considering.

BUT:
The biggest reason I think that widespread permitless carry will end up being a mistake for all of us is because of numbers and is entirely pragmatic. Anytime there is a BG shooting incident in a permitless state, it will be a larger black mark against us. I know the anti's will use ANY and EVERY reason to implement stricter gun laws. But we have a much easier time countering it when we can show, in numbers, how well behaved the CHL community is.

Like it or not, the war will never end. We will never completely win and, hopefully, neither will they. When Jared Loughner walked into the crowd, he was completely legal up until the moment he pulled out his gun and started firing. Now you and I know that even if Arizona still had a CHL requirement, it would have had zero impact on the outcome of that shooting. But if CHL was still in place in AZ (or if the shooting would have occurred in Texas), it would be much easier to make the argument that he was NOT a law abiding gun-owner like the rest of us.

I know it's semantics, but when it comes to convicing John Q. Public, semantics count! In fact, semantics often win the game! Just think of how successful the "assault rifle" moniker has been for the other side.

So in the end, while the expansion of "constitutional carry" seems attractive and while we celebrate the victories, I really fear that it may cause a backlash that will hurt our efforts in the long haul.

[gdanaher]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

[Heartland Patriot]

My thoughts on this will probably not be well received, but here they are anyway. (The last point is the most important one.)

First, let me state that from a crime/criminal perspective I think that going permitless will have zero effect on crime. I did ponder for a while (long ago in another thread) the thought that there was some benefit to LE because they could tell who was legally carrying and who was not. TAM and others helped point me out of that box of logical fallacy. (Thank you!) So let me be clear that I do agree that CHL laws do not prevent criminals from doing bad things anymore than "constitutional carry" would.

I do, however, think that the CHL process forces a bit of intentionality that I personally like. Jim Bob can't (legally) just decide to try carrying today because he heard about it from a friend and decide to just stuff a 1911 in the back of his pants. By making it process, most people get introduced into safe methods of carry and the legal nuisances. I think this probably reduces ND's and borderline SD situations by some amount. I don't know that the net effect is enough to warrant the limitation of a right. But I do think it has an effect that is worth considering.

BUT:
The biggest reason I think that widespread permitless carry will end up being a mistake for all of us is because of numbers and is entirely pragmatic. Anytime there is a BG shooting incident in a permitless state, it will be a larger black mark against us. I know the anti's will use ANY and EVERY reason to implement stricter gun laws. But we have a much easier time countering it when we can show, in numbers, how well behaved the CHL community is.

Like it or not, the war will never end. We will never completely win and, hopefully, neither will they. When Jared Loughner walked into the crowd, he was completely legal up until the moment he pulled out his gun and started firing. Now you and I know that even if Arizona still had a CHL requirement, it would have had zero impact on the outcome of that shooting. But if CHL was still in place in AZ (or if the shooting would have occurred in Texas), it would be much easier to make the argument that he was NOT a law abiding gun-owner like the rest of us.

I know it's semantics, but when it comes to convicing John Q. Public, semantics count! In fact, semantics often win the game! Just think of how successful the "assault rifle" moniker has been for the other side.

So in the end, while the expansion of "constitutional carry" seems attractive and while we celebrate the victories, I really fear that it may cause a backlash that will hurt our efforts in the long haul.

Small sidetrack: I use "assault rifle" as a real term to be applied to an actual class of select-fire weapons such as the M-16/M-4 and AK families of rifles. The word assault in that context is to "storm an enemy position". The term the Brady's and others use is "assault weapon" which is silly on the face of it because they mean assault as a legal term of the crime of attacking a person...not only is it wrong in that regard because ANY weapon can be used to assault someone, but is also wrong because almost none of the rifles they apply the term to have select fire, which is the defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Sorry, but a pet peeve of mine.

[Wes]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

absolutely agree! i can see the argument for shorter class times, and lower fees, but something should still be done. no, the BG's dont, but if i have to fire on someone who has a weapon i would hate for it to be someone trying to do the right thing and just messed up because they did not know better. a little schooling not only helps them, but us.