CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction?

[terryg]

Let me start by requesting reasoned discussion only. I am not proposing that one line of thinking is superior to another. I am, however, interested in teasing out the thoughts on this subject from members of this forum. I appreciate that this topic may be a sensitive issue for some. But unless you are able to contribute a thoughtful response, I respectfully request that you refrain from posting.

-----

I understand that many feel that being required to submit to the CHL process (class time, waiting time, financial investment) in order to be able to legally carry is, in itself, a violation of our second amendment rights. However, despite the recent 2A advancements from the SCOTUS, the concept of allowing ‘reasonable restrictions’ is alive in well in all recent victories including the McDonald decision.

Now many argue that ANY restriction is an assault on our rights. If we take this argument to an extreme, I think it would probably break down. Envision a Star Wars future ‘firearm’ so powerful that a single firing, without even aiming, would destroy all life in an 80 foot radius from the bearer. It would be hard to argue that our society should not attempt to limit the distribution of this type of weapon. There would be no defense from it, effectively neutralizing our ability to defend ourselves from it. Now if you work your way back from the extreme (and the impossible), then you have to decide where do you draw that line. Grenade launchers, surface to air missiles? We may each draw a different line, but surely most of us would draw it somewhere.
What about criminals? Should second amendment rights continue to be limited and denied to those with a criminal record? I think most of us would answer yes. Again, we might differ on what crimes would justify those restrictions or how long it should someone have to prove they are ‘rehabilitated’ before some measure of their 2A rights are restored.

So is the CHL process a reasonable restriction? What is the trade off? Criminals will still keep and bear arms regardless of the law, correct? But the CHL process does provide a mechanism to allow law enforcement to quickly verify that someone in possession of a firearm meets the legal qualifications – correct? Is that a valuable trade off – some restrictions for some measure of security?

What about ensuring that those legally carrying are, at least to a small degree, versed in the applicable laws? Is this a valuable trade off? Do we gain anything as a society from this function?

Some may say that the process is nothing more than a revenue stream for the state. Somehow I doubt that. I don’t know how many additional employees, equipment, and office space is needed to run the CHL process – but I would be surprised if they do much more than break even.

What other ‘benefits’ might we, as a society, garner from this process?

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

(attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson)

But we do, daily, make this trade. Again, it is a case of deciding where that line should be drawn, but we all chose to draw that line. So is the line drawn well with the CHL process?

[suthdj]

I am still chewing on what is a reasonable limit or even if there should be any, with that said I do think to own a weapon you should have some training involved like safe handling, marksmanship, legal implications. Just like a drivers ed class.

[baldeagle]

I've given this some thought, and I don't know what the right answer is. Back in "the good ole days" private citizens used to own cannons. Sometimes those cannons were used to commit crimes. Yet they weren't restricted until much later in our history. I think most people would think that a reasonable restriction is one that allows a citizen to do whatever they want with firearms so long as they don't threaten the peace. In my mind, the 2A referring to militia makes me think that, as well as self defense, citizens were expected to have military grade weapons appropriate for infantry and cavalry that could be carried on the person. That would exclude things like artillery grade weapons, missiles and the like but would allow semi-automatic and automatic weapons as well as grenades and grenade launchers, LAWS rockets, anti-tank weapons, TOW missiles and other weaponry that can be carried and fired by one person.

I think, in general, that citizens should be free to do and own what they want, so long as they don't harm others. Our politicians seem to think that restricting access to "bad" things protects us, but reality proves that is wrong. In my opinion, the correct approach is to pursue those who harm others and put them in jail, not restrict free citizens' rights in a useless attempt to improve peace and security. If someone has proven by their actions that they cannot be trusted with weapons, then I have no problem restricting their right to own them. Perhaps it's reasonable to allow them access after a period of time, but a second, or perhaps third, offense should merit permit revocation of the privilege.

To me the key is that we have to get people to stop thinking that perfectly law-abiding citizens are somehow more dangerous if they own weapons. It isn't the weapon that makes a person dangerous. It's their attitude about proper use, and their moral and ethical values. Those can be addressed with laws. Access for law abiding citizens should not be.

[terryg]

I am still chewing on what is a reasonable limit or even if there should be any, with that said I do think to own a weapon you should have some training involved like safe handling, marksmanship, legal implications. Just like a drivers ed class.

I have had those same thoughts myself - right or wrong. But of course, the CHL class doesn't even touch on proper handling.

[Beiruty]

Tx cc laws are reasonable, I can appreciate mandating more traing and range qualification. Regardless. Most of us spend great time and efforts to be well trained and confident in cc.
If you allow unrestricted cc (except convicted felons) you may run the risk of arming ignorants of the firearms law leading to people resorting to the unjustifiable use of deadly force. Similarly, arming people who never handled a firearm and let them cc. Could be a bad idea. I know that in state of Apaska and Arizona unrestricted carry is allowed and this could be a case study for such issues

[terryg]

To me the key is that we have to get people to stop thinking that perfectly law-abiding citizens are somehow more dangerous if they own weapons. It isn't the weapon that makes a person dangerous. It's their attitude about proper use, and their moral and ethical values. Those can be addressed with laws. Access for law abiding citizens should not be.

I get that - but you specified 'law-abiding'. If the CHL process gives the law a mechanism to help verify that someone carrying is (or at least has been) law abiding, then perhaps the process actually supports that goal? But it does put the burden of proof (by process of application) on the law abiding citizen - so perhaps even though it may support that goal - it is still too restrictive?

[Frost]

The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things.

[Beiruty]

Restricting full auto is puzzling when us forces allowed iraqis to have full auto AK in their houses. Are Iraqis more secure with full auto then US citizens ?

[karl]

To me the key is that we have to get people to stop thinking that perfectly law-abiding citizens are somehow more dangerous if they own weapons. It isn't the weapon that makes a person dangerous. It's their attitude about proper use, and their moral and ethical values. Those can be addressed with laws. Access for law abiding citizens should not be.

I get that - but you specified 'law-abiding'. If the CHL process gives the law a mechanism to help verify that someone carrying is (or at least has been) law abiding, then perhaps the process actually supports that goal? But it does put the burden of proof (by process of application) on the law abiding citizen - so perhaps even though it may support that goal - it is still too restrictive?

I was about to say that. I'm not very well versed in the politics of the 2nd Amendment at my young age, but I would be willing to bet that, unless carefully executed, every well-meaning piece of legislation would bind law abiding citizens even more. Several of things the Brady Campaign suggests are reasonable provisions that should be exercised by all responsible firearm owners: no accessible guns to children or felons, reporting lost and stolen guns, etc. But should these provisions be executed by the State? I believe the answer is no. Anyway we look at it criminals will find a way to acquire weapons, there are lots of case studies.

Mandating more range time and testing would be a burden, in my opinion. Cars are much more dangerous than firearms (statistically speaking) but I haven't been tested for driving proficiency since I was 16.

[Beiruty]

The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things.

As long as we mere humans are not Angels, law and order and justice system as well as national defense are all needed. So is a well functioning public sector

As for the car analogy, most car owners drive their cars at least 1-2hr each day. They drove their cars so often that most drivers drive intuitively and effortlessly with no critical failure in their driving act. I wished that most gun owners shoot their guns as much ad they do drive their cas. Maybe they will shoot intuitively with no misses :)

[baldeagle]

Mandating more range time and testing would be a burden, in my opinion. Cars are much more dangerous than firearms (statistically speaking) but I haven't been tested for driving proficiency since I was 16.

My father-in-law, who will be 92 next month, drove a car when he was twelve. Back then there were no drivers licenses. He still complains about the fact that he has to pay the state a fee to legally drive when he was driving long before licenses existed. Makes you think, doesn't it? Why do we have drivers licenses? People can list all sorts of valid reasons; we want people to be responsible drivers, we want people to understand how to properly operate a motor vehicle and understand the traffic laws, etc., etc., but is that really the purview of the state? Or did we give up some rights for supposed safety? It seems that when any new technology arrives on the scene access is unlimited at first. (Think cell phones.) Then some citizens do stupid or dangerous things with them, and politicians react by passing a law to restrict the rights of everyone because a few were irresponsible. I think the right approach is to punish the irresponsible, not the vast majority who are responsible.

For example, why not pass a cell phone law that says if you are involved in an accident or moving violation while using a cell phone you pay a fine or are held civilly or criminally liable? Wouldn't that be better than passing a law that says no one can use a cell phone at all?

Having said that, are drivers licenses reasonable? I think they are, simply because the risk of injury or death to innocent citizens is great, and we already know that some will be irresponsible. If we can weed them out from the beginning, perhaps we improve safety for everyone. Given that logic, maybe CHL makes sense in the context of not allowing the irresponsible ones to carry a weapon in the first place. And if a license is reasonable, I certainly think a fee for the license is also reasonable so long as the fee covers the cost of licensing without unduly burdening the citizen or making a profit for the state.

[karl]

I hope that video was a joke. I stopped before the end.

baldeagle,
There's got to be a line drawn somewhere, like terryg said. Any attempts to regulate firearms in some safe way seem logical, which is what a lot of politics is in the first place, feelings. Just like regulating the driving of cars it is possible to regulate them in an unrestrictive and fair way. Why do we pay the state to drive our own cars? To fund the DOT for road repairs, maintenance, upkeep etc. With guns though there are no repairs, maintenance, upkeep, etc. so that does make the two very different at the same time. To be clear I'm not picking on anyone, it's just what I'm thinking at the moment. Feel free to comment.

[TxKimberMan]

terryg,

My compliments on your thought provoking post.

Personally, I did not consider the CHL process unreasonable, however I can understand the viewpoint of those that may. Society is constantly evolving, and I think everyone would agree that our world has changed significantly between the era of Benjamin Franklin and 9/11.

If one considers the purpose of a government issuing a license for ___________ (fill in the blank - doctor, lawyer, engineer, LEO, driver, CHL, etc.) it is an attempt by the government to protect society from incompetent or unscrupulous individuals. By no means is this process fool proof, but some would argue that no attempt by the government to vet individuals would lead to anarchy.

On the other side of the fence, would anyone tolerate a requirement for a license to procreate? With the tragedy of child abuse that is all too common, anyone has the right to bear offspring. What about a marriage license?

The evolution (or de-evolution) of society is constantly in flux. Only history will tell.

[suthdj]

I only watched about 3/4 of the video and all I got from it was to keep things simple and logical, example gun laws many many laws that do little or immigration again many many laws that do nothing but hinder the honest and law abiding. We create laws to fit a preconceived ideas instead of solving the problems.

[sjfcontrol]

That video could be boiled down to 6 words: "Can't we all just get along?" The answer to that question, proved by a few million years of experience, is "NO!"