Concealed carry licenses- What I think they really are.

[Jered]

In Washington, I think it's just an excuse for the government to extort money.

[Wilrobnson]

In Washington, I think it's just an excuse for the government to extort money.

If so, they're doing a lousy job...I can think of quite a few states that charge at least double for the permit, which is usually valid for less time and is more invasive (i.e. a laminated photo-id style card).

[Jered]

In Washington, I think it's just an excuse for the government to extort money.

The government charges 60 bucks for a laminated piece of paper that allows you to carry a concealed pistol out in public.

You don't need one at home or at a fixed place of business, but you if you want to walk along the street between them, you need one.



If so, they're doing a lousy job...I can think of quite a few states that charge at least double for the permit, which is usually valid for less time and is more invasive (i.e. a laminated photo-id style card).

[gregma]

Mine didn't come laminated   And I still paid $60!

[Wilrobnson]

Mine came laminated; I paid an extra two bucks for the privilege...The wife's did not, so she only put out $53- she laminated it herself.

[joeroket]

Mine didn't come laminated   And I still paid $60!

Same here.

[Euromutt]

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.

[...]

So what is a license to carry?

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

I disagree. In my view, acquiring a CCW permit, at least in a "shall-issue" jursidiction, does not constitute seeking permission from the state, but rather seeking verification that one is still in possession of one's full rights as a citizen. I think it helps if you consider this matter not as a two-way interaction between state and citizens, but as a three-way interaction between state, law-abiding citizens, and non-law-abiding citizens. Obviously, neither law-abiding citizens, nor the state that is supposed to serve them, want non-law-abiding citizens to possess and carry guns.

Ideally, we want non-law-abiding citizens to identify themselves as such, so that gun sellers (FFL or private) will know not to sell them guns. We could even pass a law requiring the non-law-abiding citizens to do so. Problem is, of course, that non-law-abiding citizens, by definition, cannot be relied on to obey the law. So the next best thing is to have a system that allows law-abiding citizens to identify themselves as such.

[joeroket]

That is definately one way of looking at it. Not a bad way either. I think the whole point of it is that the Constitution, both state and federal, say that the ability to bear arms shall not be impaired. Not being able to carry unless you submit to the Gov't is an impairment. I think however that because it is a public safety issue, at least that's the way it is argued in court, that it is not viewed as an impairment in the courts eyes. Personally I have no big issues with obtaining a CPL because it, for the most part, put an officer you may be dealing with a little more at ease than if you did not have one, from an open carry stance.

The whole thing about it is that it is a crime for a felon to posess a firearm and therefore if they are found with one they get arrested. If you are not a felon it is not a crime to have a firearm. It can be thought of as having to show your papers, to the effect that you are not a criminal, when the officers can simply get your criminal history from dispatch or in-car. If they can articulate cause for the stop then they have enough to detain and ID you and can find out if you are a criminal. Also what criminal is going to abide by the law and be honets to the fact that they are in possession of a firearm.

[Euromutt]

I see your point, joeroket, and I don't disagree with regard to the principle, at most to the practicalities involved. You're probably very right that no criminal is going to advertise the fact he is in possession of a firearm, and will therefore avoid OCing, opting instead for a concealed handgun. So it makes perfect sense that OC should not require a license from the state, whereas CCW might do.

I don't know to which extent LEOs are able to verify your eligibility (or rather, lack thereof) to carry a firearm. They might be able to check state and even federal records via their in-car stations, but can they verify that you're clean in all 50 states? Can they verify that you're even a US citizen? See, I'm an immigrant (I got naturalized last September), and I know that in the almost five years I spent in the US prior to being naturalized, I didn't commit any crimes, so any check for criminal records during that time based on my WA driver's license wouldn't turn up anything that should have disqualified me from possessing a firearm. But as a non-AFL-holding non-US citizen, it would have been illegal for me to possess (let alone carry) a firearm, and I'm not sure that would have come out from an in-car or dispatch check, since I didn't have a criminal history. I doubt any of the 9/11 hijackers had a criminal history in the US either, to illustrate the point I'm trying to get across here.

The way I see it, if we demand that the government (be it local, state or federal) shoulder the task of distinguishing the bad guys with guns from the good guys with guns, government will demand the tools to do so. That means larger databases, with more information about more people available to more cops (and unauthorized users), and we're going to end up paying for it through increased taxes. I'd rather pay $60 every five years for that little white card that tells a cop "I'm clean" without his having (and being able) to look up  every piece of information every level of government in the United States has on me from his car.