12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws

[terryg]

All of our wonderful statistics showing how 'clean' Texas CHL holders are compared to the general population would not exist if we had permitless carry. That is one of many power arguments in our favor that exist solely because we can be counted as a group and because those who chose to commit crimes, by and large, do not bother with the process and are therefore not in our group.

The nice thing is we can point to the overall crime rate in those states that already have permitless carry. Florida led the way for the CHL laws passed across the nation starting in the 80s.

Now we have examples of states that are, yet again, NOT awash in wild west, blood in the streets that the antis predict EVERY time ANY new pro gun law passes.

Those who look at actual facts can be convinced by other states examples.

Those who look at lies like the brady campaigns stats aren't reachable anyway, and seem to be a rather rabid and tiny minority.

Just to offer a counterpoint.

I think that is a worthhy counterpoint. I think overall crime will consistently fall in most (if not all areas) where more and more people are carrying. But, statisticians thus far have only been able to agree that crime rates are not going up as folks start carrying. So people will still hear both sides for a while.

Vetting this a little further, I think my main concern is the huge emotional value that is attached to these very public shootings. They emotional value of a single incident, even though rare, is 100 times higher than talk about the everyday incidents of crime that are much more common. The sheeple want to assign blame and the media and congresscritters are quick to try to steer those emotions into action.

In states without a CHL requirement, it will be MUCH harder for us to deflect that blame.

[Dragonfighter]

There's a point in time that, if you are lucky enough to live so long, your child will demand that you turn over the keys to your car because you present a danger to yourself and others. In Texas now, you must have a current photo ID to VOTE, and this was recently passed by a Republican legislature. Go figure. If you are too feeble to get to the DPS office, wait in line for a couple hours and get your picture taken, you can't vote. Seems like that is a basic right as you define them. Same goes for our personal protection. If one is not capable of handling a small pistol, perhaps someone needs to take it away, just for the protection of the senior.

Number one, he can "handle" the weapon fine and is a good shot. Number two, all states have alternatives to "waiting in line" to get ID's for those that are otherwise too infirm to do so, so that argument is a "straw man". If you are an actual conscious human being that wants to vote, you can. Number three my example is an exceptional one to demonstrate the fallacy with the "we NEED permits" to exercise our 2A rights mentality. When you require minimum standards for a person to exercise a fundamental right, you infringe that right. Because now you have an "elite", those that meet the standard, setting the minimums for everyone else. Whatever minimum you set or how "reasonable" it is, it's still arbitrary and subject to abuse as a means to control portions of the population and can change at the slightest variance in the political winds..

The drivers license is a non-starter. You have the fundamental right to travel freely. The MODE of travel is not a right nor a freedom enumerated in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is. History demonstrates to me the "felons don't have the right, you don't support violent felons having guns do you?" argument is soon to follow in exchanges like this. Any MORAL standard you use demonstrates that a person who preys on society forfeits many of their rights up to and including the right to life. The constitution enumerates this as well. So as you ponder the idea that the gentleman in my question shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon because he can't pass what ever minimal training the state has deemed merits a permit (permission from the government), think about which shortcoming you may have that some day may make an arbitrary minimum standard insurmountable. It is real easy for us, those that meet the legal requirements, have the physical capacity and financial wherewithal (for me, the budget impact amounts to a few nights out, for the impoverished even the indigent fees and class costs means not eating) to meet the current minimums to condescend to those that don't. I am grateful to live in Texas and have the gun laws we have, but I see a lot of room for improvement and cannot for the life of me see how we would WANT a minimum set of training and requirements be required of everyone.

[philip964]

I haven't weighed in yet.

I wish Texas renewal was easier, or the CHL lasted longer and cost less. More safety should be taught in class there was really none that I remember in mine. That said:

I like CHL being a license. I like qualified law abiding good guys carrying. I'm afraid with more bad guys and idiots carrying, there will be more reasons that carrying would be outlawed again. I don't want to risk that.

I don't like open carry. With CHL everyone is carrying. Bad guys don't know so everyone is protected, even when they are not. Plus, with nothing to see, the anti's have nothing to scare them.

I would like 50 state carry and a standard set of reasonable requirements focusing on gun safety, the law in all states and marksmanship/gun handling. Get rid of the TSA and let everyone licensed carry on planes.

I have learned much more here, on this forum, than I did in my class, so I must thank you all.

[74novaman]

I have learned much more here, on this forum, than I did in my class, so I must thank you all.

This much I think almost everyone can agree on (and I actually had a pretty good instructor/class!)