CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction?

[E.Marquez]

Oh can of worms, how do I open thee..

IF the CHL process was used to simply identify trained, legal, citizens who may then go about daily life uncontested carrying their chosen self defense weapon, having proven there legality and training… The CHL process would be welcome and productive.

BUT, added into the CHL process and associated laws (which restrict 2A) we have a host of rules and laws about where that licensed person cannot carry, things we cannot do, punishment to them if they violate these restrictions, things they can be charged with, but they will have a legal point of defense to argue later in court..

Then we have the whole 30-06…
I whole heartedly disagree with the way it is implemented.
I do agree that a person who owns privet property should be able to restrict another from coming on their property armed… UNLESS that person opens that property up to the public. I think they should LOOSE that entitlement the second they open the property to the public. Yes I know, my beliefs and opinions are not supported by current law, and many folks way of thinking.. I’m ok with that… it does not change my mind.
You want to restrict who comes on your privet property? Keep it privet.

[jimlongley]

This thread has been asked and answered, ad nauseum, before.

OK, just for arguement's sake, let's approach from another angle.

If there is no line, if, in that mythical future where politicians have come to their senses and realized that "limits" on possessing items never really limit their possession, but merely make it a criminal act to possess one, and that criminals will not obey the law, and let that mythical future contain that magical weapon that destroys all life in an 80 foot radius (and assuming it doesn't, somehow, also kill the wielder) there are practical considerations.

First, such a weapon would hardly have much practical use except maybe as a last ditch defensive weapon, maybe Custer could have used one, so possession other than by a criminal bent on that sort of destruction or a collector would be pretty much self-limiting. After all, nukes can be assembled with less than scientific knowledge these days, and yet we don't see them being used, even by the jihadist types.

So placing the line just south of that super weapon would have as little effect as the current lines have, criminals who wanted them would get them, and law abiding citizens would pretty much ignore them in favor of more practical weapons.

I had a second, but it turned out to be a subset of the first.

My personal feeling is that CHL laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional, but that we, as law abiding citizens, put up with them, partly because they actually help prove how law abiding we are, and some because it's te only way to legally carry short of a test case, which has been somewhat lacking and would have to be as narrowly crafted as Heller and McDonald were.

I feel that Vermont style carry is the ideal, nothing less. There are no studies that show that licensed carry prevents more crime than VT style carry, if there were, you can bet the politicians and Bradys would be trotting them out in defense of "reasonable" restrictions. There are studies that show that CHL cuts crime as opposed to no carry, and that's what the Bradys tend to quote, except their purpose is to twist and spin the numbers to show that the studies are wrong, guess why.

The only way that CHL laws can be viewed as reasonable is from the point of view of having no carry, and that view is colored by the inability of LACs to carry legally.

Try this on for size. Not too long ago a bill was introduced in VT to require guns to be locked up, and Green Mountain Staters have been waging a successful war to see that it goes nowhere, yet some of us in other states might see that as a "reasonable" restriction, a good place to draw the line. The bleeding heart liberals of VT don't seem to be inclined to put up with that reasonable restriction though.

My vote is for no line, if you can afford it, you can own it, and criminalize misuse as well as crime, not possession.

Back when all drugs were legal, only in the last century, there was no "drug crime" per se, although there were crimes related to drugs, and addicts were recognized to be those with a lack of will power or moral guidance and they were treated as such.

And the driver's license issue had been beaten into the ground and paved over by a highway department paid for with the fees. Sure, I'm all for doing away with DLs, and while we are at it, lets go back to the same public and private highway systems that existed then. A DL is nothing more than a permit to use the publicly owned highways, there is no law that says you have to have a DL, just that you have to have one to use the public highways. If you can find private highways that will get you where you are going, and if you can use them without some sort of permit, then you do not need a state issued DL.

No line, none at all.

Once you start drawing lines, there will always be someone who wants to increment it just a little more to the left, because, after all, that would be reasonable.

No line.

And the Brady types of the world want to be the only ones who say where the lines go.

NO LINE!

[terryg]

This thread has been asked and answered, ad nauseum, before.

Hi Jim. I am sorry if this angle has been pursued before. I have seen hints of this topic and rabbit trails in other threads which is, in part, why I posted this. But I couldn't find a thread discussion where this was the intended focus.

I appreciate your response.

[denwego]

Requiring a license, permit, or any other sort of permission slip in order to just carry a handgun around is unquestionably a violation of rights, because it's no longer a right, but a privilege. The way Texas handles rifles and shotguns is the closest thing we have to "reasonable restrictions": no permit required to purchase, possess, or carry; no requirement to conceal or to keep in the open; a short and specific list of locations where carry isn't allowed; general prohibition on non-safe or non-necessary discharge in public.

It's magic that those very limited regulations prevent the "blood in the street" scenario as far as longarms are concerned, but doing the same with handguns is inconceivable. It's moronic.

[jimlongley]

Requiring a license, permit, or any other sort of permission slip in order to just carry a handgun around is unquestionably a violation of rights, because it's no longer a right, but a privilege. The way Texas handles rifles and shotguns is the closest thing we have to "reasonable restrictions": no permit required to purchase, possess, or carry; no requirement to conceal or to keep in the open; a short and specific list of locations where carry isn't allowed; general prohibition on non-safe or non-necessary discharge in public.

It's magic that those very limited regulations prevent the "blood in the street" scenario as far as longarms are concerned, but doing the same with handguns is inconceivable. It's moronic.

Exactly.

[Heritage1]

Wow! Very thought provoking thread. I started reading with my own opinion firmly formed but was enlightened by a few other points of view from other members that gave me pause to reflect their views. Some of those opinions delved into what one could and could not own which are another topic all together.

I dont believe that the CHL is a 2A infringement. The 2A reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does not stop someone from owning any sort of firearm. Those restrictions are imposed by other laws and regulations.

[Frost]

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

The fact that we are not angles is an excellent reason why we shouldn't give anyone a moral sanction to initiate the use of violence. I would like to discuss this further, but it would probably be better to take it to PMs to avoid taking the thread off topic.

[terryg]

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

The fact that we are not angles is an excellent reason why we shouldn't give anyone a moral sanction to initiate the use of violence. I would like to discuss this further, but it would probably be better to take it to PMs to avoid taking the thread off topic.

Perhaps you would consider starting another thread. I don't give much credence to what I will call 'extreme libertarianism' because I can't picture any outcome other than anarchy. I appreciate your desire to avoid rabbit trailing this thread. If you are willing to discuss/debate it further in a new thread, I would love to follow it.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

So is the CHL process a reasonable restriction?

IMO, no.

Criminals do NOT obey laws, and it is completely unreasonable to assume that firearm laws will prevent crimes committed with firearms.

Citizens must be afforded the right to obtain and use tools needed to defend themselves and their families, and it is not reasonable to deny them this right, nor is it reasonable to CHARGE them for this right. Imagine the outcry if governments mandated "free speech" licenses and charged citizens to carry out this right. How about "freedom of worship" licenses? That wouldn't go over well at all...

The most firearm restrictive areas in our country have the highest violent crime rates with firearms, and it is completely unreasonable to assume that adopting like laws will lower violent crime in other areas.

[terryg]

So is the CHL process a reasonable restriction?

IMO, no.

Criminals do NOT obey laws, and it is completely unreasonable to assume that firearm laws will prevent crimes committed with firearms.

Citizens must be afforded the right to obtain and use tools needed to defend themselves and their families, and it is not reasonable to deny them this right, nor is it reasonable to CHARGE them for this right. Imagine the outcry if governments mandated "free speech" licenses and charged citizens to carry out this right. How about "freedom of worship" licenses? That wouldn't go over well at all...

The most firearm restrictive areas in our country have the highest violent crime rates with firearms, and it is completely unreasonable to assume that adopting like laws will lower violent crime in other areas.

TDM. I appreciate your response. However, your not really addressing the primary issue presented. I understand that criminals will continue to break laws and I agree with the lower crime statistics in CHL areas. But the primary question was: Does the CHL process, while inconvenient to the Law Abiding Citizen, provide a mechanism that helps LEO verify that criminals are not carrying? And if it does, is that trade off (some freedom for some security) meet the mark of 'reasonable restrictions'. I also left the topic open enough for others to add a potential trade-off that I haven't considered, but that was the primary question.

Without a CHL process, a sharp cop who suspects that someone who is carrying may be a criminal has no real way short of detainment to confirm his suspicions. But because we (as LAC's) were all required to essentially prove our status as a non-criminal before hand, the officer is able to quickly verify, by checking for 'plastic' whether the suspected person is indeed carrying illegally. Is that trade off worth it?

[terryg]

Requiring a license, permit, or any other sort of permission slip in order to just carry a handgun around is unquestionably a violation of rights, because it's no longer a right, but a privilege. The way Texas handles rifles and shotguns is the closest thing we have to "reasonable restrictions": no permit required to purchase, possess, or carry; no requirement to conceal or to keep in the open; a short and specific list of locations where carry isn't allowed; general prohibition on non-safe or non-necessary discharge in public.

It's magic that those very limited regulations prevent the "blood in the street" scenario as far as longarms are concerned, but doing the same with handguns is inconceivable. It's moronic.

I don't know that such is a fair comparison. The fact that long guns, by their physical size, are not easily concealable, makes them much less attractive for use by potential criminals as they would quickly lose the element of surprise.

t

[Oldgringo]

CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction?

Yes, and as the late great Walter Cronkite concluded his nightly news program, "...and that's the way it is".

[denwego]

Requiring a license, permit, or any other sort of permission slip in order to just carry a handgun around is unquestionably a violation of rights, because it's no longer a right, but a privilege. The way Texas handles rifles and shotguns is the closest thing we have to "reasonable restrictions": no permit required to purchase, possess, or carry; no requirement to conceal or to keep in the open; a short and specific list of locations where carry isn't allowed; general prohibition on non-safe or non-necessary discharge in public.

It's magic that those very limited regulations prevent the "blood in the street" scenario as far as longarms are concerned, but doing the same with handguns is inconceivable. It's moronic.

I don't know that such is a fair comparison. The fact that long guns, by their physical size, are not easily concealable, makes them much less attractive for use by potential criminals as they would quickly lose the element of surprise.

t

I can put my Winchester or Mini 14 in a lacrosse bag and walk around all day; underfolder AK's fit in tennis bags. A Kel-Tec SUB 2000 with a 33-round 9mm mag fits in a small laptop case or a largish purse. And if surprise is a factor, I bet someone with an AR-15 can run into a bank pretty quick and catch everyone off guard and probably get away... the North Hollywood bandits robbed three banks before they were caught, and they were caught by poor money delivery timing and not the cops.

Criminalize criminal behavior, not innocent carrying.

[Tamie]

The plain English meaning of "shall not be infringed" should be clear to anyone who deserved to graduate high school, much less graduate college, and follow that up with a 3 year JD.

[baldeagle]

The plain English meaning of "shall not be infringed" should be clear to anyone who deserved to graduate high school, much less graduate college, and follow that up with a 3 year JD.

So it's OK to have a cruise missile in your back yard?