Concealed carry licenses- What I think they really are.

[ConditionThree]

Ive run into a lot of people who seem to have a mistaken impression of what a license to carry concealed is and how it works. Invariably, the cocky ones who have obtained a license seem to operate under the misconception that a "CCW" confers upon them special powers, rights, or privileges.

The truth is completely the contrary.

A license, or any piece of paper for that matter, cannot give you anything that you don't already have. In actuality, it is these little bits of paper that rob you of your standing as a free citizen.

How?

1) When you apply for a license to carry concealed, concealed handgun permit, pistol license, et al; you are asking permission from the government to endorse what is already your right to do. This has some interesting side effects...

2) In submitting to an issuing authority you surrender not just your 2A rights, but also 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights.
   a. You are giving permission for the issuing authority to do a background check when most have not even committed a crime. This warrantless search assumes that there is something in your history that would prevent you from lawfully owning or carrying a firearm. In effect, both 4th and 5th amendment rights are sacrificed- first with a warrantless search and then the assumption that there must be something in a persons history that would make the applicant a criminal, and unworthy of self defense with a firearm.
   b. In many states, the issuing authority asks you to make statements or sign statements affirming that you have never been convicted of a crime, never been addicted to drugs or alcohol, never been adjudicated 'mentally incompetent, or other such verbiage. So in order to get the license, you have to declare your innocence under penalty of perjury- effectively compelling you to act as a witness against yourself on the state's behalf even though you have committed no offense.
   c. In most cases, you also have to submit to a search of your person and effects in order to obtain your license. This comes with the confiscation of your fingerprints and other biometric information in order to identify you as the licensee at a future date. this is in my opinion, pre-crime forensics. The data can be held indefinitely and help convict you of a crime in the future- making you again, a witness against yourself. You also must bring in the firearms you intend on carrying with your license- they search the weapon, recording the serial number and probably do a search on that as well to ensure the weapon was not stolen or used in a crime.
   d. By being licensed, you are participating in the issuing authorities defiance of the Constitution's equal protection clause. The issuing authority, creates a separate class of people that are not offered the same protection under law as their counterparts. My interpretation of this issue is that you cannot regulate one group of people, without governing the another by the same standards. Placing more restrictive standards on one group over the other is certainly an equal protection violation.

So what is a license to carry?

Evidence of a person's willingness to be subjugated by government.

[Lonnie Wilson]

I have an interesting counter point to this.

I believe that open carry is constitutionally protected, but concealed carry is not.

[gregma]

I have an interesting counter point to this.

I believe that open carry is constitutionally protected, but concealed carry is not.

A counter to your counter-point 

The 2nd Amendment only states the right to "bear arms".  It in no way limits the method of bearing those arms.  Whether in the open, or hidden.  I'd say that both are equally protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Unless there is another amendment that prohibits hiding the weapon?

[joeroket]

I have an interesting counter point to this.

I believe that open carry is constitutionally protected, but concealed carry is not.

A counter to your counter-point 

The 2nd Amendment only states the right to "bear arms".  It in no way limits the method of bearing those arms.  Whether in the open, or hidden.  I'd say that both are equally protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Unless there is another amendment that prohibits hiding the weapon?

I have to agree with this one.

[just_a_car]

I have an interesting counter point to this.

I believe that open carry is constitutionally protected, but concealed carry is not.

A counter to your counter-point 

The 2nd Amendment only states the right to "bear arms".  It in no way limits the method of bearing those arms.  Whether in the open, or hidden.  I'd say that both are equally protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Unless there is another amendment that prohibits hiding the weapon?

I agree with you gregma, but I can see where someone could use the literal definition of "bear" to mean that it must be visible; as in "to bear your chest by opening your shirt".

[joeroket]

I have an interesting counter point to this.

I believe that open carry is constitutionally protected, but concealed carry is not.

A counter to your counter-point 

The 2nd Amendment only states the right to "bear arms".  It in no way limits the method of bearing those arms.  Whether in the open, or hidden.  I'd say that both are equally protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Unless there is another amendment that prohibits hiding the weapon?

I agree with you gregma, but I can see where someone could use the literal definition of "bear" to mean that it must be visible; as in "to bear your chest by opening your shirt".

Except that it is "to bare your chest". The way it is written "to bear" simply means to carry.

[drewesque]

Shall not be infringed means that there is to be no restriction on one's ability to bear arms of any sort in any manner.
I've heard of Lonnie's counterpoint before, but I must respectfully disagree.

[amlevin]

I guess I take a totally different view on Condition Three's point.

I have had a CPL (or Concealed Carry Permit) in Washington State since I was 21 (44 years ago).  Yes, I did have to surrender my prints.  Just like I did 2 years prior when I applied for and was granted a Security Clearance while working for a Defense Contractor.  Yes, you can say that I gave the State the right to investigate my Criminal Past but I already knew that there was nothing there for them to find or use against me.  I then went in the service a year later and guess what?  They took my prints again.  I also had to sign all sorts of forms allowing them to look into my past again in order to obtain a Security Clearance.  Again they found nothing, as I knew they would.

In the last 44 years I can not think of a single instance where any of this information has been used against me or in any to the benefit of anyone else.  I do know that when I have been in shops buying guns I have seen instances where the intended purchaser has been refused as convicted felons.  I know that there are a lot of people in this "Community" that are far younger than I, who feel that there should be NO regulation whatever on the right to carry a gun.  I support only the most basic regulation, designed solely to prevent Felons and Mentally Incompetent (as diagnosed by qualified individuals), from obtaining guns.  Whether we like it or not, there has to be some regulation.  Can anyone offer a better system of determining who someone is, and if they are not a Felon, than fingerprints?  A background Check? 

I totally agree that we have a "hodgepodge" of laws that were enacted to make one special interest group or another feel good at the time.  What we need is a simplified system that allows those who do not make crime their business to carry to protect those themselves from those that do, and a simple method of determining the "membership" of either group.

My opinion may not be popular but I am certainly open to any discussion on the topic.

In closing, I notice that Condition Three lives in California.  Here in Washington State the gun laws pertaining to carry are a lot more "user friendly".  It is a right that is guaranteed in our State Constitution with courts regularly finding that as long as Law Abiding Citizens are not denied the right to bear arms, laws regulating the possession are not unreasonable.

[gregma]

I do know that when I have been in shops buying guns I have seen instances where the intended purchaser has been refused as convicted felons.

You know, I really used to agree with this as well.  But I no longer do, for a variety of reasons.

#1 - A felon who wants a gun is going to get one.  No matter what.  I seriously doubt if you could find a single felon who can say "I didn't commit that armed robbery because I couldn't legally obtain a gun."

#2 - You are forcing EVERYONE to prove they aren't felons, just to get another charge, or another 15 years tacked onto a felon who commits another crime with a gun.  Maybe we just need tougher punishments?

#3 - If you can not trust a person with a gun, they why the heck are they on the streets to begin with?

#4 - Another to point 1.  Since a felon doesn't care about rules or laws, then by having these restrictions, who actually is getting hurt?  The felon?  No.

I think I'd rather have no rules, regulations, laws concerning firearms (as the 2nd amendment guarantees), and have more people carrying.  The more people carry, the less effect felons with guns will have.

[ConditionThree]

My main point about 'ccw' or licensing in general is that it is about gun control...

Let's leave the gun issue aside for a moment though, and focus on the Constitution. Forgive me if I sound like I'm repeating myself.

The forth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I contend that a background check violates my 4A rights because it is unreasonable to search an innocent persons background and sieze their fingerprints or other identifiers. I'm innocent unless proven guilty- yet there is a search for wrongdoing without probable cause and without a warrant. The only way the issuing authorities slide by the Constitution is that licensing is a voluntary act- in order to get your license, leave your rights at the door.

The fifth amendement reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

In most applications you are required to make statements or answer questions "under penalty of perjury" attesting to your innocence, sobriety and sanity. Two 5A clauses are violated in the application process. Youre required to answer for any crimes you may have commited without indictment and are being compelled to act as a witness against yourself 'under penalty of pejury'. Sign on the dotted line, if they think you lied to them, you get to go to jail by your own hand... That sounds fair, doesnt it?

I have to go get breakfast. I might be back to finish up my thoughts later.

[gregma]

The forth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I contend that a background check violates my 4A rights because it is unreasonable to search an innocent persons background

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this single point.  The 4th clearly states a search of your person, papers, residence.  I don't believe it covers searching records using a computer.  It covers someone laying hands on your person, or something you own.  I'm sorry to say, but you do NOT own your criminal record.  Nor do you own the database that is checked during an NCIS search.
They are not searching your property, they are searching a database.

[amlevin]

Two 5A clauses are violated in the application process. Youre required to answer for any crimes you may have commited without indictment and are being compelled to act as a witness against yourself 'under penalty of pejury'.

How is this so?  If you are not charged with a crime you may have comitted where are you required to "give wittness against yourself".  The questions on CCW applications ask only of convictions.  If you just answer the questions you are not comitting perjury. 

Of course, if you have comitted crimes that would make you inelligible and not caught, that's another story.  A person in that circumstance probably WOULD have something to worry about, or maybe not.

[ConditionThree]

Admittedly I may have an imperfect understanding of the limitations on government... but Im certain on one point.

Fingerprints? Mine. If I dont submit to this search- no license. Likewise, if I signed the "under penalty of perjury' statement with "All Rights Reserved" or "Decline to State", I'm certain my application would be roundfiled.

[gregma]

Admittedly I may have an imperfect understanding of the limitations on government... but Im certain on one point.

Fingerprints? Mine. If I dont submit to this search- no license.

That point about fingerprints is indeed true.  That I believe would fall under the unreasonable search as they are a part of your person.

You know, Vermont doesn't even have a CCW permit.  Anyone who can carry, can carry in any manner they choose.  A TRUE believer of the 2nd Amendment.  Interesting thing is I don't recall hearing about mass shootings every week there.  Considering there is no restrictions on firearms there, shouldn't that be the case??

[amlevin]

 

You know, Vermont doesn't even have a CCW permit.  Anyone who can carry, can carry in any manner they choose.  A TRUE believer of the 2nd Amendment.  Interesting thing is I don't recall hearing about mass shootings every week there.  Considering there is no restrictions on firearms there, shouldn't that be the case??

Some Vermont Facts:

Total Population (2006 Census)   625,000.  This is just slightly more than the population of Seattle.

The population of Vermont is 97% White.  Hispanic population is 1.6% with the remainder of the ethnic groups occupying the remaining 1.4%.

There are 65.9 Persons per square mile with the US Average 79.6.

This popupation density may seem close to the US Average but among High Crime Areas like LA, consider that there are 44,000 people per square mile.

Vermont is rather wide open when compared to areas where gun crime is a problem.  Let's face it, when people have room to move about without being in a crowd, that alone has a calming effect.  
The fact they don't have mass shootings in Vermont is more a function of the population density and lack of large disadvantaged ethnic groups rather than a lack of gun regulation.