Now you have me picturing every county having a few doctors who are known to be easy approvers, just $300 for a physical, plus the cost of the lab tests, and anyone can be approved.
Then I think of the concealed carry permit that I found in my mother’s wallet when I was handling her estate. At seventy, she had decided she needed one. She had gone from Idaho to Utah to take the class and get the permit. I assume that she did it with a few friends who were feeling insecure in their golden years, alone in their houses after their husbands had died, in a small town that none of them grew up in. (Idaho casts lures for retirees from other states.) She probably drove. So now I ask myself how doctors would address the potential of a patient being too old to competently carry, concealed or not.
However that would turn out, I don’t think the doctors need the aggravation. They have enough trouble with patients who shouldn’t be driving.
Then you need to not question anything I ever post and accept it as Gospel. In January I’ll have 34 years on the job, including having held a rank. I’ve been on so long I took a full retirement from one agency and started a second career with another.
I think who gives a rip what you think? People who legally carry are statistically not the problem by any means? Why do you want to fuck with them?
It’s not really a widespread problem with the millions of concealed-carry permit holders either. To recap: most of the gun violence in this country is not being perpetrated by the people who get concealed-carry permits. Why hammer them with extra legal hoops to jump through if they’re not the problem?
It’s amazing that someone can post with a straight face that they believe police are perfect judges of character and never have any prejudices when there is a huge body of empirical evidence to the contrary. Somehow I suspect that a lot of sheriffs, especially in the south, would decide that you’re not worthy of a permit based simply on your skin color. OK, not suspect, know for sure that that has always been the case with may-issue permits.
The criminal is not the first owner of the gun. Some of the prior owners owned the gun legally, and some didn’t. But if you could follow back the chain of custody, you would eventually get to someone who owned the gun legally. Not all of them have a concealed carry permit, but I’m thinking that most of them do.
Re illegal guns that don’t come from concealed carry permit holders, I think these are main categories:
Some guns are stolen from the factory. Even if corporations are people, they aren’t issued concealed carry permits.
Then there is long-gun-perpetrated crime. As fans of military-look rifles point out, most gun crime is committed by handguns. Some of the long guns, used in crime, were obtained from people who have handguns, complete with permit, but others were not.
We don’t exactly know where the typical gun criminal gets his weapon. But, especially if we include crooked gun dealers who typically have concealed-carry permits, it is highly likely that the eleven million conceal-carry permit holders are the primary source of guns used in crimes.
There is a lot that concealed-carry holders can do to make sure their guns do not become involved in crimes. They can lock up their guns in first-quality gun safes. They can commit to never selling a gun. They can put a clause in their will making sure their guns are destroyed at their deaths. Because they mostly don’t do all of this, guns move from the concealed-carry holder’s hands to those of the criminal.
Most people don’t have a CCW, where did you get this idea?
This thread is about a permit that allows you to conceal a firearm on a person, either on a holster or in a pocket. It says nothing about your ability to **purchase **or **own **a firearm, except that people who can’t legally do one generally can’t do the either. Some states require you to get a permit to purchase a firearm (or just pistols), but this is not what the thread is about. So your examples are simply irrelevant non sequiturs.
Sometimes having a CCW allows you to avoid paying the fee for a background check, but does not allow you to skip the NICS check itself.
Actually, yes it does, in 22 states. Wyoming , where I live, is one of them. I have a CCW, have bought many firearms through FFLs, and never had a NICS check in Wyoming.
This does not mean I was exempt from a background check at all: I had one done at the time of the CCW issuance. I just don’t need an instant check with every single gun purchase. If that’s what you meant.
Ah sorry, should’ve said that CCW does not mean that you are avoiding the law or anything. The rest of the point still stands: while some people may think that legal ownership facilitates illegal, it is not a result of concealed carry.
Yes, of course. I was just attempting to clarify that particular item. Gun laws are confusing, and I’m still not clear why a CCW exempts your from a NICs check in some states but not in others. But I think the idea is that if you already have a CCW, you’ve already had a background check and passed, and don’t need to do it again and again. A small bit of rationality, perhaps, in the generally nonsensical world of gun control?
I think the original poster is operating under the standard gun controller’s belief that more guns = more crime, regardless of who has them, and that anything that can be done to annoy, prohibit, restrict, or complicate the ownership process and/or the total number of guns sold is helpful.
The legal guns are the pool from which the illegals come. The bigger the first pool, the more that can move into the second.
What percentage of the guns, that went through an ownership chain from legality to illegality, were once owned by one of the eleven million American concealed carry permit owners? I don’t know. You don’t know. All I can say is – a lot.
Regardless of the means? You got that from one of my posts? Really?
Saying this, I’m being a bit of a broken record, but I favor public health measures like incentivizing smart gun R&D, and warning-prominent packaging, not incarceration. But even gun control advocates, who are more focused than I am on the legal side, don’t think ends justify means. One example of this – almost all of us are against capital punishment.
Again, I understand your position. But the legality or ability to purchase a firearm is one thing, and the existence of a concealed carry permit is a completely different and irrelevant thing.
Again: having a concealed carry permit does not create a new gun, nor does it affect the “pool” at all. Your argument might be a good one in a general gun thread, but here it seems to suggest that you think that it is a permit that allows you to buy a gun. Some people even have a CCW and don’t own a firearm, or own many but don’t carry.
We’ll see if Philly Guy answers my question, or continues to dance around it, but regardless, the answer should be pretty clear.
Most gun control leaders believe it is a worthwhile goal to reduce the number of guns owned/sold, by (almost) any means, until near or complete prohibition is reached. “Reasonable, common sense” regulations are just steps along the way, and words to deceive the general public.
The good news, this trick is about played out with the average guy. After the San Bernardino tragedy, it became increasing obvious that the goal wasn’t an “assault weapons” ban, or magazine capacity limits, or no shall issue carry, or universal background checks, which California already had in place. Instead, they pushed for a new restriction (no-fly list prohibition), which also wouldn’t have prevented the massacre.
People can see what they’re up to.
If you approach the OP’s concealed weapons permit proposal from the same light, you may see he’s up to the same thing.
