terryg wrote: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?
No, it does not, because the only time a LEO might know that a criminal was not carrying is by frisking the criminal, not by whether they have a CHL or not, and since CHL is not universal among the law abiding, just assuming that only CHL have proved they are LACs, disenfranchises all of those other LACs who do not have CHLs.
Of course the "sharp cop" you exemplify sounds a little like a violation of my rights under a different amendment, that is, innocent until proven guilty. If that cop has caught someone doing a criminal act, then that someone probably should not have a gun, of any kind, whether or not they have a CHL, and enough CHLs have been arrested and disarmed to prove that point, even if they were not convicted. It seems to me that more often the assumption is that anyone carrying a gun is doing so illegally unless and until they prove themselves innocent, and detainment is the rule. But not having a CHL does not automatically grant LAC status, and not having a CHL does not mean a person is a criminal, and assuming that such status exists just amplifies the privilege vs right argument, that is, the state is granting us the privilege of exercising a right, in exchange for a little extra security.
I don't like that one bit. I don't like the state being responsible for my security, and I am not willing to give up my freedoms to allow them to do that. I went through the CHL process, but with misgivings, because I felt it was the only way to get to carry legally, but I wasn't willing to be the test case, so it was the way I went.
Would I like to see VT style carry in TX, you bet, infringement is just that, infringement, even in the supposed name of regulating the illegal carrying of guns.
