What is the point of CCW permits?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@pkbites

All you have presented for “logic” is your own opinion.

The OP did not directly have anything to do with training. The training issue is just an extension of the OP’s point about permits/licensing. My point is that permits/licenses are ridiculous, especially in states such as mine where carry is allowed without permits in several scenarios. And “logic” dictates that on that point I have beaten your brains out.

Maybe in your mind. I get the feeling that there are a lot of things that are absolutely certain that are really not.

You keep trying to narrow the inquiry but I still don’t see a mod tag under your name.

Any discussion of CCW permits is going to inevitably lead to discussions about gun safety and licensing. The fact that we don’t close off all avenues for gun accidents doesn’t mean that we might as well just leave the fucking doors open. I agree that public safety would be better served if we required licenses for all forms of carry but even a maginot line serves some purpose when dealing with law abiding citizens.

[pkbites]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I agree that public safety would be better served if we required licenses for all forms of carry

Agree with who? Not me. I oppose mandatory training, I’ve already posted that.

As I have pointed out there is no data showing states that require training are better off than those that don’t. What you’re suggesting is an answer to a problem that simply doesn’t exist.

[UltraVires]

@pkbites

Agree with who? Not me. I oppose mandatory training, I’ve already posted that.

As I have pointed out there is no data showing states that require training are better off than those that don’t. What you’re suggesting is an answer to a problem that simply doesn’t exist.

I agree. West Virginia is about to become the next state to allow “constitutional carry.”* The opposition is up in arms about how untrained people will be carrying guns and children will die, die, die! Oh the horrors!

Our side points out: 1) that you can already openly carry a weapon without training, why does putting a coat over it make the gun more dangerous, and 2) we have reciprocity with states like Pennsylvania which requires no training, and we don’t have unqualified Pennsylvanians coming down here and causing gun accidents.

But your point is well-taken. If there was a public danger to allowing the carry of concealed weapons without mandatory training, then one would expect to see higher rates of death and injuries related to gun accidents in states like Vermont, Pennsylvania, Kansas, etc. which allow people to carry guns without training. Is there any hard data on this?

*Just passed the Legislature and headed to the Governor who has promised a veto. However, in WV a veto can be overridden by a simple majority, and the Legislature has promised an override.

[Bone]

West Virginia just spoke regarding the point of CCW permits. They decided to make them largely unnecessary. West Virginia becomes the 8th state that has constitutional carry(effective May 24, 2016).

The House of Delegates passed a bill Monday that largely does away with the requirements of the state’s conceal carry gun law despite Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s promised veto.

The bill (HB 4145), approved 68-31, eliminates the permitting process currently operated through county sheriff’s departments. The permit process, which includes training and a background check, will still be a requirement for those 18-21, according to the bill.

This becomes law after a legislative override of the Governor’s veto. Yesterday the House voted to override by a 64-33 margin. Today the Senate voted to override 23-11.

[GrumpyBunny]

@Ranger_Jeff

Back when I was living in Ohio, there was no legal concealed carry for civilians. There was open carry and affirmative defense. AD meant a cop and a judge had a legal out for dismissing a case. Case in point: I had a roommate who had a job refilling ATMs. He had to carry large sums of cash. He had to go through the hoops to get bonded and carried a S&W 410 holstered on his belt. He carried it that way when he was driving. And he had a work uniform.

Has that law changed? I’m curious – my intended was not a LEO, but he was a county coroner, and his expert testimony had helped put people in prison for murder. He had received death threats and he carried, legally.

[BigT]

@Scumpup

I expect pkbites has a vastly greater experience with the demographic in question than you. Are you really, really certain that you want to lecture a veteran LEO about the ways of criminals?

That’s appeal to authority. If he can counter her logic, he’s free to do so. I note that he has not.

And, frankly, it’s a dubious one. pkbites often talks about how stupid all criminals are. He doesn’t try to understand why they do what they do. The fact that he thinks something is stupid isn’t all that persuasive since he thinks everything criminals do is stupid. Understanding requires empathy, and he shows none for criminals.

even sven, on the other hand, is pretty well known on this board for hanging out with and defending the way of life of a lot of undesirables. She shows empathy for people who I can’t even show empathy for, and I fucking try. So, yeah, I would guess that she would understand them better.

As for the topic: the reasoning is the same reason for car licensing, as has been said before. If getting licensed is a problem, then that’s the issue. That’s them doing the same thing Texas and other states are doing with abortion. That would be unconstitutional.

Your constitutional right doesn’t mean you can’t be required to carry a license. It means that they have to make sure you have access to the ability to get one. They likewise must have a state interest for any of the restrictions that might lead to you not being to able to get one. They can’t use overly burdensome restrictions to create a de facto ban or unreasonable limitation.

Or, at least, I hope the Court will find it that way, or else all of Constitutional Law breaks down. We’ll just burden your freedom of speech with nonsense regulations.

And I’m not someone who likes the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. I think, at most, the qualifying law has more to do with being able to own a gun than anything. How does the militia benefit from you being able to actually carry your gun outside of militia activities? Being able to practice and maintain upkeep, sure. Carrying a gun in normal life? Not so much.

That, to me, has more to do with self-defense. And I would support replacing the Second Amendment with one that allows for self defense.

[DrDeth]

@BigT

That’s appeal to authority.

:rolleyes:
Note that a appeal to authority is completely legit if the authority is a expert on the subject at hand. Appealing to Einstein’s authority of Physics is what this board is all about. Appeals to Einstein’s authority on the death penalty or religion is mostly bogus, however.

[Bone]

@BigT

That’s appeal to authority. If he can counter her logic, he’s free to do so. I note that he has not.

Aside from the fact that **pkbites **is an actual authority, what were you expecting? Remember this line of discussion from 2 weeks ago started when even sven said this from post #48:

@even_sven

The point is that CCW rules discourage people without permits from carrying concealed, especially if they are likely to be searched for some reason. If I’m going out to sell drugs or join a riot or otherwise get into mischief, I’m less likely to causally bring a gun with me. That’s a good thing.

To which **pkbites **objected to as not credible.

even sven expanded with the following:

[quote]

@even_sven

Your average low-level street criminal and associates get searched relatively often. Getting arrested periodically and the occasional stint in jail is just a part of life. They expect to be arrested and plan for it.

I’m not talking about drug lords or people planning armed robbery. I’m talking about the kid that delivers small amounts of drugs or the guy managing a couple prostitutes. These guys aren’t idiots. They know what will get them off with a slap on the wrist and what will lead to larger charges, and they don’t want to end up with real charges if they don’t need to.

To rebut this claim, pkbites said:
[qoute]

@pkbites

CCW and felon in possession are extremely common charges. even sven is either kidding or ignorant.

So, pkbites assertion is that felon in possession is common enough to rebut the claim that low level criminals will avoid carrying a firearm because of licensing laws.

Your contribution? A commentary on **pkbites **level of empathy relative to even sven. Brilliant.

Here is some actual information:

How many arrests for weapons offenses are made annually?

The FBI’s Crime in the United States, 1993, estimated that State and local law enforcement agencies made
262,300 arrests in which a weapons offense was the most serious charge.

…

How many felony weapons defendants had a criminal justice status or prior criminal history at the time of the offense?

According to Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992, 42% of the felony weapons defendants had a
criminal justice status at the time of the offense including:
17% on probation
10% on parole
14% on pretrial release.
Of the felony weapons defendants, 34% had at least one prior felony conviction, and 17% had at least one misdemeanor conviction. Of those felony weapons defendants with a history of felony convictions, more than half had two or more such convictions. Convicted felons and, in some States, some misdemeanants are prohibited from possessing guns or other deadly weapons.

Seems that felon in possession is quite common charge during arrest. Though I do note that conviction rate for this is relatively small.

[pkbites]

@Bone

Seems that felon in possession is quite common charge during arrest. Though I do note that conviction rate for this is relatively small.

That’s because they are being arrested for a more serious offense and the weapon is found search incident to arrest. The DA tends to drop the weapons charge on plea bargain of the more serious offense.

[Scumpup]

@BigT

That’s appeal to authority. If he can counter her logic, he’s free to do so. I note that he has not.

And, frankly, it’s a dubious one. pkbites often talks about how stupid all criminals are. He doesn’t try to understand why they do what they do. The fact that he thinks something is stupid isn’t all that persuasive since he thinks everything criminals do is stupid. Understanding requires empathy, and he shows none for criminals.

even sven, on the other hand, is pretty well known on this board for hanging out with and defending the way of life of a lot of undesirables. She shows empathy for people who I can’t even show empathy for, and I fucking try. So, yeah, I would guess that she would understand them better.

You don’t understand "appeal to authority."

[even_sven]

@pkbites

That’s because they are being arrested for a more serious offense and the weapon is found search incident to arrest. The DA tends to drop the weapons charge on plea bargain of the more serious offense.

So CCW laws give prosecutors leverage over criminals arrested for other crimes. And you believe this has no deterrence value at all?

Are gun laws the only thing that have no deterrence value? I’m pretty sure that people regularly choose not to violate certain laws out of fear of legal reprecussions. Even among criminals, there is at least a moment of hesitation before switching from minor crimes to major ones. People who are fine with the risk of shoplifting probably aren’t willing to risk the legal consequences of armed robbery.

What is it about concealed weapons that make people not susceptible to deterrence?

[DrCube]

@even_sven

What is it about concealed weapons that make people not susceptible to deterrence?

Firearms are pretty useful tools in the field of crime. It’s like you’re asking why a law against carpenters carrying hammers won’t work.

[drewder]

I don’t believe that we should sacrifice our rights simply so that prosecutors have a greater number of crimes to prosecute. Again if you really wish to have a wide variety of crimes to prosecute someone for just make it a crime to commit a crime while armed.

[drewder]

I wonder if you can name a single victim of the act of carrying a concealed weapon.

[DrDeth]

@drewder

I wonder if you can name a single victim of the act of carrying a concealed weapon.

I assume you mean by the legal carrying of a concealed weapon.

There’s been about 100 murders by CCW holders in the past 10 years, a rate lower than the general population, sure, but by no means zero.

[even_sven]

@DrCube

Firearms are pretty useful tools in the field of crime. It’s like you’re asking why a law against carpenters carrying hammers won’t work.

Not universally. If you are a rapist or a bugler, guns help. But a street dealer or shoplifter? There’s usually isn’t any need to be carrying a gun.

People love to steal iPhones around here. Most get away with it. I’m a lot happier if those guys decide not to go out stealing armed.

[Bone]

@even_sven

Not universally. If you are a rapist or a bugler, guns help. But a street dealer or shoplifter? There’s usually isn’t any need to be carrying a gun.

But this isn’t the point of this line of discussion. Is the lack of need the motivator for not carrying, or are these people motivated by the licensing scheme and associated deterrent that the penalty for not having a license entails, or some combination? If there was a need, do you think a significant amount of criminals would be deterred by not having a license? Because that’s how I’m interpreting your statements thus far - that even if low level criminals felt a need to carry, they are somehow deterred because of the penalty for carrying without a permit.

[even_sven]

@Bone

But this isn’t the point of this line of discussion. Is the lack of need the motivator for not carrying, or are these people motivated by the licensing scheme and associated deterrent that the penalty for not having a license entails, or some combination? If there was a need, do you think a significant amount of criminals would be deterred by not having a license? Because that’s how I’m interpreting your statements thus far - that even if low level criminals felt a need to carry, they are somehow deterred because of the penalty for carrying without a permit.

If your job was to drive around in your car to delivery stolen goods (or some other low-level crime) would you routinely carry weed in your car?

You don’t need weed to deliver stolen goods. But if you might have it around because you like it, or you just usually have a joint on you, or whatever. If there is no reason not to, lots of people would keep a stash on the glove box.

But it’s not legal, so some people think a bit before driving around with a stash on a situation where they are at an increased risk of being searched.

[Bone]

That’s interesting - but I can’t see how that addresses the question. Do you think it’s the lack of need, or the deterrent factor that more influences the decision not to carry?

This of course assumes there is a decision not to carry since from above we see that plenty of low level criminals do decide to carry.

[even_sven]

@Bone

That’s interesting - but I can’t see how that addresses the question. Do you think it’s the lack of need, or the deterrent factor that more influences the decision not to carry?

This of course assumes there is a decision not to carry since from above we see that plenty of low level criminals do decide to carry.

It’s a two step decision tree.

1. Do I need a gun? If yes, then take gun. If no, go to step two.

2. Is there any reason not to bring a gun ? If no, then bring gun. If yes, then leave gun at home.